>> president obama today announced his no , nominee for commerce secretary, ceo, john bryson, if confirmed, he replaces gary locke, nominated to serve as u.s. ambassador to

china. he sits on the boards of boeing and walt disney. he is also the co-founder of the natural resources defense counsel. from the white house state dining room, this is five minutes. >> today, house democratic web touted the democrats make it in america initiative aimed at increasing u.s. manufacturing and expressed hope that republicans would support parts of their plan. his remarking camming during a discussion of u.s. manufacturing hosted by the center of american action progress fund. this is about an hour. >> let me start by staying i flew back from cairo, egypt yesterday which is relevant for a couple reasons. first of all, i'm jet lagged and i planned on taking today off, but this event was too exciting to miss. as long as i stay awake for the

whole thing, it will be great. i'm excited about the event. the second reason i bring it up is the -- i was in cairo for a conference on youth unemployment, and it was argued by something we have organized out of here called the just jobs network, which is a network of think tanks from both developing world countries and the developed world, and it works on lie bar market -- labor market issues of mutual interest. at the conference, there was a comment by one of the egyptian economists that made me they about our program today. he urged egypt to move away from industrial zags and focus on agriculture, put back land to cultivation taken out of use by the government there. i asked him during the barak about this -- break about this because when

you face large problems of unemployment and want to advance your economy, you don't think about going back to agriculture, and what he said to me was sort of interesting. his answer was more or less he didn't think egyptians could build thing. ironic given i visited the pyramids the next day, but that's what he said. you know, his example was that he said the only reason there were final assembly of automobiles in egypt is because there were tariffs and that the egyptian factories produced shotly made vehicles, and, you know, egyptian factories would never compete. before i go on, i talked to other egyptians and they did not necessarily share this view, but that was his perspective, and what struck me was that to some extent, that the some of the kind of things we've heard about u.s. manufacturing, and, it's especially in the elite

political and some cases economic circles, and i mean, it's of course absurd for people that talk in egypt about given the different histories of our countries in terms of manufacturing and in very different situations presently. i think that attitude in the united states has been quite harmful, and it's caused the country to some extent to not pay the attention it should to what is still very much an important sector, and that attitude in what i saw as the dangers of it was large part motivating me to write a paper. we released it a couple months ago that focused on how not with standing the challenges we face in manufacturing and, you know, the headline grabs attention to losses in employment in manufacturing, u.s. manufacturing is still competitive in the world producing enormous value and really hits above its weight in

our economic world being. that, we have copies of the report back there called the important and promise of american manufacturing co-wrote it with category don. -- kate gordon. it says the u.s. is still outproducing almost every other manufacturing country in the world, and we're a major exporter of manufactured goods, and it's not because consumers and purchasers around the world are buying american made products out of an act of charity. they are doing it because the united states is producing competitive goods in large quantities. that paper had a pretty modest goal just to get people who didn't realize it to understand that the u.s. is manufacturing is far from a lost cause and not just a historic relic, but a great strength of the country. it didn't outline policies to

address the challenges that u.s. manufacturing face which are nontrivial. you certainly face greater competition than at any time since world war ii and it's worth mentions that is because of very aggressive pro-manufacturing policies of other countries. there's another paper being released today called low carbon innovation focusing on policies, particularly about the relationship of manufacturing and moving to a low carbon economy, but some of those policies actually have broader applications within manufacturing. we also have a great panel today to talk about, you know, policies and where manufacturing is going in this country, and let me introduce that panel. congressman steny hoyer from maryland to my right is a great friend and needs little

introduction, but nevertheless i will say he's been a member of the house since 1981, currently the house democratic whip in the second ranking member of the house democratic leadership. he previously served as the majority leader from 2007-2011 and prior to that, he was also the democratic whip. he's been a very strong advocate, and i know in meetings with him, i've seen this up close and certainly publicly. he's been a very strong advocate of strengthening the american middle class and the national economy and national social security. it's been a huge focus. you know, i think very relevant today, he's spearheading the make it in america agenda, a coordinated strategy to support job creation by creating an environment for businesses to innovate and make products in

the u.s. and sell them to the rest of the world, some of which he's worked with. next is ron bloom. he's been the administration's senior counselor for manufacturing policies since september 2009 and has been senior adviser to the secretary of the treasury on the president's task force on the automotive industry. you know, i think it's worth remembers that just two years ago, the american auto industry was on the brink of collapse. the president made a very difficult decision to provide support to chrysler and general motors with some, you know, pretty serious strings attached, and ron was a key player in the administration team that engineered successful efforts to save the industry and many, many u.s. jobs. he's been having a few good weeks recently. last week, the treasury announced that chrysler had

repaid $5.9 billion in u.s. government loans which i think brings the total to over $10 billion. earlier in the month, gm announced they were hiring 4200 more workers in the u.s.. you know, i think, you know, reflecting back on that experience, i think, you know, is useful as we think about, you know, the public role in the relationship to manufacturing. prior to joining the treasury department, ron served as the special assistant to the president of the united steel workers union. he has an mba with distinctions from the harvard graduate school of administration. she is the vice president of oregon iron works and president of the subsidiary united streetcar. united streetcar was founded in five, and is the only

manufacturer of modern streetcars in the united states. oregon iron works was founded in 1944, a world class complex metal fab fabricator and service industry. she worked there starting as an administrative temp for over 15 years. as oiw's vice president, she is responsible for overall business development and marketing activities. thanks in large part to her efforts,oiw is one the most admire companies in oregon according to the portland business journal. in august 2010, she was appointed to serve on the u.s. manufacturing counsel by secretary of commerce locke, and in february 2010, she was appointed to the oregon business development commission. now, let's tern to the conversation. let me actually start with you, ron.

i just -- i wanted to ask you, you know, obviously the administration came in with a real low in the economy and i wondered if you could frame things up around where you were, where we've come, what kind of progress we've made, you know, specifically in manufacturing. >> thank you, and it's great to be here, and the comment about the low i think is a good place to start unfortunately. you know, we had a good week last week with chrysler paying back the balance of the money that they borrowed, but it is really remarkable to think 28 months ago what our economy was doing. we lost 800,000 jobs the month the president took office. the automobile industry was literally teetering on the edge

of collapse, and it's easy sitting here particularly in washington, but almost anywhere to forget that we were really in a free fall, and that you know, whenever you are in a place, you always imagine that the future, that the present you had had to be. this present didn't have to be. we could have gone a lot of different ways and many, many of them far worse than what in fact happened. i want to talk specifically about manufacturing though because that's kind of my responsibility. there's the recovery act, and other things that stabilized the economy working closely with the democratic majorities in the house and the senate at the time, and those overall things are the reason we are not in a worldwide depression today, and i think again we need to just stop and kind of remember that, but let me talk about manufacturing because during the

recession, manufacturing lost 2 million jobs, 25% of all job loss was in manufacturing, and this exacerbated the trend that had been happening through the period beginning at the beginning of the decade where manufacturing lost 4 million jobs between 2000 and 2007, and i think what we had going on there in america was the con fliewns of two very, very dangerous beliefs that people like representative hoyer never bought it, but a lot of people in the town believed two things about manufacturing. first, they believed the decline was inevitable. that that was, # in fact, what had to be. second, they thought it was a good thing and this inevidentability was convenient because, in fact, there was no way to stop it, but, in fact, it was good, that we would move on

to this idea of a post-manufacturing society where we would make things -- we would invent things here and other people would make things there, and that would, in fact, be a good thing. i think what the recession has taught us and what i think the president firmly, firmly believes is contrary to both those beliefs, and i think whether it's in forums like this or elsewhere, we are seeing, i think an important awakening that neither of those things are true, that while we obviously do face a very different environment competitively in the global economy, and that the kind of dominance the united states had in manufacturing in the 50s and 60s is not available to us anymore, there is no reason why manufacturing needs to be in perpetual decline and that there's many, many things we can do in america, and do them well, and be a leader in global economy and

manufacturing. number two, while that decline is not inevitable, it's quite dangerous if we allow it to occur. let me focus on one particular point that i think represents a bit of a change in the way policy folks have thought about this problem, and, again, there's people like representative hoyer who have been trying to sound the alarm bell for a long time, but i think they are getting heard now a lot more, and the president is obviously trying to amplify those efforts, but that belief that we could invent stuff here and make stuff there is now, i think, under serious reconsideration, and what people are now beginning to understand, and this i think is a critical piece of business, that if we left manufacturing go, the innovation will follow it, and if you look at how both other companies are behaving, how cooperations are behaving, if they relocate their manufacturing operations slowly over time, there are --

their r and d and innovation goes with it. if we let the manufacturing go, our ability to be a global leader in innovation, which i think everybody would agree is central to our future is at risk as well. i think that reframing of the discussion is critical. let me just say one more thing, and i could do this whole thing, but i'll try to be brief. i do want to make one other point, and that is the role of government in this process. i think, again, what the president has stood for and what representative hoyer's efforts make clear is that government has a critical role to play in this enterprise, and while i think we are all deeply aware that it's companies like johnson who creates jobs, that the private sector will be the employer of manufacturing workers almost exclusively, the government has a critical role

to play in setting the table whether it's on the demand side, in infrastructure and other areas, whether it's funding research and development, whether it's funding stem education, whether it's making sure we have a good patent system -- all these things whether it's making sure we have the right tax policies, government has an absolutely critical role to play. people who believe the market will solve all these problems have not participated in the real economy. i think the administration is -- we are appropriately humble about the critical role of the private sector, and we don't want government to overreach. we don't want to do things that the prief sector -- private sector can do and will do better, but we are not humble for the necessity of the vital role for the government. our job is to set the table to make sure people like this company here, but thousands and thousands across the nation who want to make stuff here find this a friendly and a warm place

to do it. i think that's really what the administration's policies are about. obviously we have a huge distance to go. no one is in any respects suggesting that this problem has been solved, but i will say that in the last year, we've created 250,000 manufacturing jobs in america. manufacturing is leading the recovery today, and i think it tells you a lot about what we can do if we have the right role of government. >> thank you. representative hoyer, so, you know i mean, you made this a real focus, and, you know, i think we'd like to hear why you think manufacturing is important and also specifically with respect to make it in america, it would be interesting, you know, to hear your articulation of why you think that's important, but i'd also specifically like to understand that agenda has many pieces of legislation under it and many aspects to it. what do you see as the key economic levers you're trying to pull the help the manufacturing

sector? >> well, first of all, thank you very much, michael, for having us here. i want to thank cap for having us here. jowrn, thank you for joining us. somebody who does real things every day opposed to us in washington that do real thingings that times people don't understand, but clearly in these conversations you understand. first of all, let me give you the background why we think this is so important. first of all, the american people think it's important. . transaction there's a lot of discussion with the american people. when they are polled and asked the question what do you think is important for america to continue to be great and even greater in the decades ahead, they will say that we need to make things in america. we need to be a center for making things, not just a service sector, financial sector, economy because they are absolutely convinced that that's

who we are as a nation. we will deteriorate in terms of our quality of life. they see manufacturing having eroded, and manufacturing jobs, of course, pay more, but not only that, they have a real impact on the creation of other jobs in the economy. we had a pollster come in and stay that one of the most positive responses the american people gave in a pole was -- poll was the phrase made in america. they thought that if we continue to have things that are stamped and are, in fact, made in america, we'll continue to be a successful economy and society, and as we discuss that, i thought to myself, michael, you know, made in america is what we did yesterday, and as we discussed that, i said we ought to name our agenda to make it in america agenda. today and perspectively, make it in america. focus on policies that will

encourage and create an environment in which manufacturers, creators of goods, the makers of goods can do so profitably here in america, and make it, of course, had it two meanings. make it, you're going to succeed, you're going to win. you're going to get the objective, and then make it in america. you're actually going to make a good. for those of us who do shopping and particularly it's so clear to me at christmas time when you buy toys for your grandchildren or chirp, and now my great grandchildren, and you see made in china, made there, made someplace else, and you say to yourself, where are the jobs that are creating these goods, and you say to yourself, overseas. we focused on a make it in america agenda, and everybody in our caucus is enthusiastic about

it, and the reason they are entuesday yays tick about it because it can be a unifying agenda, not a devicive agenda. we have too much division in america, too much disagreement on the direction we ought to go, but when you have 85% of the american public saying we need a mic it in -- make it in america agenda, and frankly, it outpolls almost all the other issues by a substantial amount, and if you use made in america and make it in america together, they outpoll almost all the other issues combined as a focus. people obviously concerned about jobs. adeny grove -- andy groves spoke about making it in america, and he said what we do in america, as ron pointed to, is we are inventing things in america, applying innovation to things in america. we are developing products in america, but then we are taking

them to scale overseas. i use as an example a kindle that i bought for my grandson two christmases ago. that kindle, of course, was invented in the united states of america. now, however, when you spend $185-$200 on a kindle, less than 25% of that is american in terms of the value that is added to that product, so we have discussed in our caucus a make it in america agenda, and it focuses on a number of things that will assist in making sure that people can do so and do so profitably. they owe it to their stockholders to do so profitably. we looked at what other countries were doing. andrew with dow chemical wrote a book, by the way, after we came up with make it in america, no

copyright infringement. we want everybody to use this phrase, in which he says, make it in america. there's eight chapters focused on exactly a, why that's important, and b, how we can do it. first of all, clearly, the president of the united states in his state of the union talked about tax policy. the differential tax policy between ourselves and the rest of the world. if we're going to be able to encourage and provide the ability to make it in america, it will have to be because we are competitive from a tax stand point. secondly, he pointed out that the president, in his speech, that regulation was critically important, that we may need to make sure that we regulate it in a way that provided safety and oversight and the following statutes and laws, but that did not impede the manufacturing

process, the growth of businesses that were manufacturing things. he points out in the book a number of examples where overseas you can do something in a matter of months where it takes a matter of years to do things here in america. i was so excited when the president appointed ron bloom who's been in the manufacturing practice, knows the jobs that can be created, and knows the impact it can have. we make the best steel in the world. there was a time when we didn't. why? because we didn't upgrade our steel-making capability, and we lost our edge. well, we are now back. we make the best steel and we can sell is competitively around the world. what we are focused on is tax policy, regulatory policy, infrastructure. we must invest in infrastructure in this country. that's going to mean a highway bill, roads, and bridges, but

investment in schools also because education almost everybody agrees the government whether it's federal, state, or local, needs to invest in making sure chandra has the people to do the jobs that need done if we're going to compete effectively. i point out that we can do it. we can make it in america, but mobile works came to this country making suv's in south carolina and selling them in europe. now, they are selling them here too, but they are selling them in europe. germany, when we talk about sell rays -- salaries has substantially higher salaries for manufacturing jobs than we do here, and they're one of the leading exporters in the world. a high percentage of their gross national product comes from exports. we can do it if we set our mind

to it and make it priority. one of the bills of our make it in america agenda is to make sure we have a manufacturing strategy in america, a plan to win. the president talking about winning the future. we want to to do that. if you're going to win almost anything, you need a plan to do so, so one of our first bills is a plan to ask the administration to come up with an update on a regular basis no less than every four years, a strategy for encouraging and growing the manufacturing sector of our economy. if we do so, americans believe and i believe we're going to be the kind of economy that creates jobs and is competitive worldwide. >> thank you. chandra, maybe you can talk a little bit about how you see from your perspective from where you sit the, you know, the relationship between the private

sector and the public sector and moving to where we are making it in america. >> well, i'm here to say we are making it in america. good morning, everyone. that's a pleasure to be here. i wanted to thank caps. i'm on a distinguished panel here with gentlemen who know millions of statistics and information. i encourage you to ask them everything because they are the brilliant ones. i'll talk about a story about how everything they just talked about and does impact my company and the workers that we have both at oregon iron works and united streetcar. we would not be where we with are at today without these government programs and this partnership. i mean, it's as simple as that, and we are making it in the united states. we have factories in oregon and in washington. all of our product is made in the united states, and that's whether it's bridges, boats,

infrastructure, and our newest venture, which is streetcars, and i'm very proud to say we built the first modern streetcar in almost 60 years in the united states. what did we do? we bought manufacturing from eastern europe back to the united states, and we've done it competitively and cost effectively, and why is that? as ron said and congressman hoyer put, we are still thee most productive and thee most innovative work force in the world. that's why my company is located here in the united states with no plans of ever going anywhere else because as long as we can have the policies that these gentlemen are working on, we can continue to be competitive and successful in the global marketplace. we do export some of our products overseas as well. what our primary focus is on is

building and creating manufacturing industries in the united states that are going to have unlomented -- unlimited growth, and, again, just some very specific practice call examples. united streetcar was formed basically in december of 2005, so really 2006. since then, as i said, with the help of the federal government, we built this prototype modern streetcar. where we are at today, we have over 50 million in orders. discoer row to 50 million. we took 100% foreign designed vehicle, converted it to 70% because we want to meet the high america which is an absolutely critical law that must be here and strengthened in my opinion, 60%, and then again with the help of the federal government and the federal transit administration, we received some innovation dollars to help look for a u.s. propulsion system

because one didn't exist. now, if we have a u.s. propulsion system, the car will be 90%, so that's in the course of just several years, and we're on target with several other cities in the united states that i believe we should double and be over 100 million within a certain time frame, within the next year or two. it's to say that it absolutely can be done, but we wouldn't have existed without this partnership that's bringing together the private sector, the local sector, and the federal which is obviously the most important because it trickles down. at my company, again, even though we build streetcars, the reality is as representsive hoyer said the manufacturing has a huge amount of trickle down if you will. for one prototype streetcar, there's 200 venders across 20 states. you know what the folks told us? the other smaller manufacturers? they had never built a product from the transit industry

before, but you give them the opportunities that they can tool up, innovate, design, and they are now eager and producing stuff probably not only for streetcars but light rail vehicles and commuter rail. it's not just about our one company, but the reality for the people who build seats and glass and windows, all of those -- it's a new industry and new product that used to be done overseas and now done competitively here in the united states, so it doesn't come without investment. i do want to say from the private sector. you know, we have to do our part. we have invested well over $10 million, for example. we built a streetcar test track, you know, with our own funds. the only one in the united states because we want the highest quality and continue to innovate. it's the partnership. we have to have the support from the federal government, and i guess one other very specific

example i would give to tell you how the market can move is related to demand. when the federal government did a very small program, i call it very small, on a federal scale it's huged, but an urban circumstancelator program where cities could get $25 million, a small amount of money; right? guys on the federal side, and basically, there was a huge overwhelming interest that that small amount of money could help them build infrastructure in their cities that would create economic development, decrease emissions, as well as transport people, so it's amazing what a small amount of help can do to really revitalize industry and i think our nation and our manufacturing policy. thank you. >> let me, chandra, something ron raised thes relationship

between innovation and having manufacturing and the -- if manufacturing goes elsewhere, the innovation goes with it. i'm wondering if you can say a few words about kind of the relationship between what happens with your engineers, the designers, the people on that side of the operation with what's happening on the manufacturing floor? >> absolutely. this is absolutely critical, and that's actually a huge passion for us. our engineering teams are located right next to the shop floor, sometimes in trailers where innovation bubbles up is the interaction of cross disciplines of people coming together to solve a problem. our problem is how do we build is high quality? how do we build it faster? how do we build is better and competitively? we do that through innovation. how we get innovation is that interaction every day, the project manager teams working with welders, fitters, these guys who build things are

brilliant. i call them artists the work they do in our shop, but they all have to be coming together. we take lessoned learned from the boat industry or hydraulics and aerospace and apply it to streetcars. does that make sense? you take suggestions from other industries and apply it and for that, you need communication. we would never separate out. we would not separate design team from the manufacturing team. we need that innovation coming from the shop floor to our engineering team, how do we do this better? >> can i follow-up on that, please? >> sure. >> chandra is right. in the public sector, naval air systems command has been co-located at pax river where the navy brought enterprises on research, test, and evaluation

from sites essentially all over the country and brought them to pax, and the reason they brought them there and centralized them is what chandra said. the synergy created, the cross forgetlyization, if you will, that is created, and people understand that if you have the opportunity to be in the lunchroom and say, you know, i did something here, and somebody says, you know, maybe you can do it this way has a tremendous impact on product and quality. chandra's seeing that every day. we see it at pax river. the inevidentability to andy grove of us following where things are taken to scale, i think is absolutely correct. now, it may take a decade or two decades, but inevitably, if we are the inventing, innovating, and developing capitol of the

world, but we are taking products to scale someplace else, the inventers, innovators, and developers will follow the product of. we have to make sure that doesn't happen p >> i wanted to -- one thing i wanted to make sure we touched on was sort of the comex to moving to a clean energy economy with renewables and energy efficiency, the relationship between that and manufacturing, and i know, i'd like to hear from all three of you on, starting with you, representative hoyer, because i know there's elements of make it in america agenda that address that. >> well, first of all, as you know, in the american recovery and reinvestment act, a substantial amount of investment was in clean energy. clearly, the germans, the chinese, and others are pursuing very vigorously clean energy technology. they see that as the future in terms of exports, and we are at

risk of not being that center, but the investment we made in the recovery act is starting to have a real impact on industries incoming solar panels which are at risk of having made exclusively in china. germany now, most of its energy not only has solar as its basis, but they have a program where you're selling solar back too, selling the energy created back to the government at a profit so that gives encouragement to create that kind of energy so all of the people that i've read and talked to believe that a focus on clean energy and the manufacturing of products to effect clean energy is going to be a major source of growth in our economy and job creation obviously. >> apparently germany is doubling down on that now that

they've decided to phase out nuclear. >> again, let me go back to the plan. you know, we're not talking about a five-year plan or a mandatory plan. what we're talking about is a strategy which ron bloom really is -- we talked to ron because ron is the commander in comeef of the strategy as by the president to put together a strategy so that america, like its competitors has a game plan. you wouldn't think of going on the football field and just sort of making it up on the fly. you know, that's why you practice. that's why you drill. you go out, you cut, you get the pass. people know what they are doing. we need to do that if we're going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, but ron is the leader here. >> let me say a word or two -- two different points about the clean future, and i think they are distinct, but both very important. one is obviously as representative hoyer says with the support of his leadership

and others in the congress, we were able to make substantial investments in the recovery act, but as he points out, other nations are not standing still, and so in our new budget, there is a request for continued investment, and if we don't make them, we're not going to win this element. clearly, if you look at what our future holds, whether it's dependence on foreign oil or whether it's global climate change, if we don't get about the business of being the center of the new green economy, we are going to both hurt ourselves from a national security perspective, we're going to hurt ourselves from an economic perspective so clearly this has to be a central focus of our manufacturing strategy, but the other point want to make, and this is a point that doesn't always get talked about enough, but it's really very important. i'm as passionate environmentalist as i think anybody. if you believe in the dangers of

global climate change, if you believe that we have a speedometer to our -- responsibility to our grandchildren on this issue, then we ought to make steel in america. we make steel cleaner and with less emission of carbon than anyone else in the world. that's true of many, many things we make here. we have tough environmental rules, and that's a good thing, but when we make steel in america, we put less carbon in the air more than anybody else. the global demand for steel will be the demand for steel. the question is, where do you want it made? if you are passionate about the environment, the answer is we need to make more things here in america because that is the cleanest way we can make the goods and services that people need. most of the world does not have the fine things that we enjoy. most people don't live in a nice house or a decent car. they want those things, and that is a good thing.

we should be hugely in favor of that, but if the world is supplied with those thing, and we're not going to create an economic catastrophe, we have to make them clean so it's really two different things. one, it's learning to generate electricity and power through wind and solar and other things like that, but second, it's looking at the basic manufacturing process whether you're making steel or tires or alum numb or paper or cars or anything else, and recognizing that the ability to make that, that by using innovation and make it and put less carbon in the air and less pollution in the air is something we are very, very good at. we know how to do that, and therefore we ought to be the leader not just in the green part of what you think of making a windmill ect. which is a good thing, but the basic process generally has to get green and has to get clean, and we're good at that, and this ought to be a place we should lead. >> you know, i just want to add what ron said that an energy

policy is critical if we're going to be the manufacturing center that we want to be, and i want to add to the renewables that ron mentioned. i'm a proponent of nuclear power because it is clean energy. it is power that we can rely on, and we now, of course, rely on it for 20% of our energy, but france relies on it for more than 80% of its energy, and it's efficient, effective, and we have to rely on all energy sources and develop them in a way that's environmental acceptable and green, if you will, but also make sure that we have the energy that we need because our competitors around the world are using a lot of energy that they didn't use before, and the competition for energy is becoming keener. we see it in the gas prices americans are paying today to the extent that we are not

energy independent which doesn't mean we won't use energy from other sources overseas, but we can rely on our own sources of energy. we will not be as competitive as we need to be, so energy policy is a critical component of this make it in america agenda. >> healthcare? >> well, again, i have the perfect practical example to put the icing on the cake. we are billing the first commercial wave energy device, and it will be going off of the southern coast of oregon, a brand new emerging industry. these are huge devices, and one of the great things about why they built in the united states and not exporting them because they need to be built fairly close to the site. they are very large, very intensive complicated structures, but this is the perfect example of, again, where the federal government and the importance of having a clean energy and a national energy

policy. right now, in the last month, we've had scottland and new zealand coming out because we have a great wave resource in the united states, and they want to tap into that and bring their technology here because they are getting better supported right now from their own countries, so, as an example, one of the things i've often thought about is department of defense and department of transportation, they do things like buy america incredibly well. dot has a fantastic website where any small business, large business can go there, see everyone who has gotten a waiver. if you go there, you know needily supposedly, i say that, this product is not built in the united states, and if your company wants to build it, you have to build in demand for it. energy in my opinion has been behind the curve. it's not that buy american great policies that we talked about apply to energy. there's much fewer coming in. you could have thousands of jobs

on these renewables if we get a clean energy strategy in place, you know, and supported, and that really does need to come from a federal government level, so all of these foreign companies looking to bring their capital here and then we get to build it here, which in my mind is a win-win, they are witting on -- waiting on policy issues and risks to be taken out they know will be used that this is a viable long-term industry. it's a point on why it is critical for this to happen so we can continue growing these renewables and creating more jobs in a clean efficient way. >> one of the things chandra said was reliability. one of the things we need to do is have a permanent, not annually renewed, research and development tax credit. you know, that drives preach cry -- preach crazy when it lapses and when they up vest, they don't know if it's there for them in the future. bottom line is we need certainty

in policy so those plans to expand, like chandra pointed out, or to establish manufacturing facilities, know what the rules are going to be for a significant period of time so their investors can rely on that. >> i think, let me pick up on that. i think that's why conversations like this are so important. we need to stop debating whether or not manufacturing matters. we need to just all decide it does because if we keep flip-flopping every time there's a change in any kind of aspect of our politics, then business really do you want know what to do -- doesn't know what to do. we have an aggressive push, feel like we're in the right direction, but then are up ended. part of what we have to do here is really establish as something to stop debating, that we just agree that manufacturing has to be central to our future, and that way we can start developing long-term policies. look, it's tough from a budget

perspective to make research endevelopment work. the president said i have to do that, and i'm willing to take the political leadership to do that, and i understand what that means in budget scoreland, but if you ask a business to come here and do things, you can't say to them every year i'll tell you every year whether this happens. that's not business plan. every time corporate leaders are short sided and say you need to look long term, yet in washington, we're doing exactly the same thing, blowing with the political wind and not offering them the environment we criticize them for. if we want a business, you have to be long term, and guys like andy who talks about wanting to play long and termmenting to make a long term commitment here, we have to be their partner with that point of approach. >> if you don't have a plan, you're undecided. in washington, we operate in the

house of representatives on a 24-month cycle. if you're a president, it's a 48 month sickle. you can't operate a long term business with the kind of investment and innovation and inventiveness and development you need in a 24-month cycle. you have to have a much longer cycle. that's why we believe focusing on an agenda long term that ron is doing now with the president and we want legislation passed to require it, but, again, i think we have a consensus in this country. we don't have a consensus on a lot of things in this country. there's a lot of division in this country on almost every issue you can name, but on this, there is a unity of thought by the american public that an agenda which is focused on enabling america to make things in america is a agreed to, and it's not ideological. it's not conservative or

liberal. you can go to any district in america saying we want to pursue a make it in america agenda. these are the things we want to do, and people say, yes, that's a smart thing for us to be doing as a nation and as a people. >> a perfect segue to the last question i wanted to ask you, representative hoyer, and i do want to get to the audience. so, what's the problem? i mean, you look at the make it in america agenda, and i think, you know, i don't know some very large percentage of that is not ide ideologically troublesome and seems like something republicans could support and embrace if they were in charge, and if it was they who put it forward. you know, how do we get past the fact that, you know, on the other hand, what they introduce as their jobs agenda last week is very, very different. it's very rem necessary sent under president bush and it did

do too good at creating many jobs, and this is very different. are there areas within the make it in america agenda that you think are particularly likely to get bipartisan support? how do you see us moving ahead given the realities now in washington? >> well, we had bipartisan support on legislation we passed dealing with encouraging the importation of parts more simply, things of that nature. i believe that -- and i have sent a copy of our make it agenda to every republican chair. i've talked to the republican leadership about it. i'm hoping that we can forge bipartisan support, and frankly, if one of our bills or one of our ideas is sponsored by a republican whose chair of the committee, god bless him. we'll sign on. we want to support that. the objective is the critical thing, and we'll all benefit as a nation, so i think that, you know, for instance, we're

working on pat tent reform. clearly, we need certainty in the area of patents. there's differences in the senate and house, but not a difference of opinion that we need to get patent reform done so that the united states pa tents will be protected and there's certainty in the patent integrity so that there can be investment based upon that patent, so i think the answer to that question is, well, i'm working very hard with republican leadership to further a make it in america agenda. >> that's good to hear. i know -- let me open it up for questions. i know we have members of the press here. i want to give them first try if there's any questions, and if people could identify themselves and their affiliation before they ask their questions. over here. >> good morning, chad from fox. mr. hoyer, you talked about having certainty from the policies here. we're going to have a vote on the debt ceiling later tonight and people view this as a mute vote.

what about the uncertainty in the next couple mornts as the negotiations continue guard and no one knows quite what the real outcome will be approaching august 2? what kind of uncertainty in your mind contributes towards the economy? >> well, we'll discuss that with you in a bit, but i'll discuss is here first. i think this volt today is an unfortunate vote because it's offered for the purposes of failing. the majority has made it very clear they expect it to fail, and my view is they're largely going to vote against it. to e knock late the market consequences on this action, they have told the markets essentially, the financial committee, look, we expect this to fail, and in fact, we're offering so it will fail. that's unfortunate. we need to come together, both sides of the aisle to work in a bipartisan fashion to say what every leader in the republican

party has observed, that not passing the debt limit would have dissac trass consequences. do we need to bring down the debt? absolutely. do we need deficit reduction? absolutely. there's legislation pass the in the 1990s creating surpluses. we dispated that under the last administration so we had over $10 trillion deficit confronting us, and now it's at $14 trillion. we must adopt policies that will reduce spending, reduce the deficit, and consider everything that government spends except for interest, which is not negotiateble, that has to be paid. we owe it. we borrowed it; we owe it, but everything else needs to be only table to get spending down, but not allowing us to pay down on debts we already incurred is not

a viable policy. every republican leader and almost every democratic leader has made that very clearment i think every democratic leader made that clear as well. this vote today which is on suspension, very limited debate, 20 minutes each side, in my opinion is not as the speaker said this would be an adult moment. this is not going to be an adult moment on the floor of the house this day, but i'm hopeful that in the near term, within the next 30 days, that we can come to an agreement on doing something that everybody understands is essential nowithstanding the fact that the overwhelming majority of the american people are opposed to raising the debt limit because i think they have a misunderstanding that that means we will incur more debt. we're probably going to incur more debt, but it means we can pay the debts we have already

incurred. this is allowing us the head room to make the payments that we owe people for past borrowing. >> any questions from the press about manufacturing? [laughter] to some degree, that does relate to manufacturing. the fiscal responsibility of the united states of america absolutely relates to manufacturing, and the sense of confidence that the business community and investing community has, so michael, with certain respect, i think we need to act responsibly. a responsible action in this regard, everybody agrees. i haven't heard any leader on either side of the aisle say it's not -- that not allowing the debt to be increased so we can pay our bills is a

responsible agent. as a matter of fact, george will and charles have both said this is a simply posturing vote. not on this particular vote, but the debt limit in general. excuse me, sir. >> no problem. peter from cq researcher. there's reference here to other country's policies for encouraging manufacturing. some of those i believe include measures that have been derided here for a long time as protectionist including currency adjustments, protection of domestic industries to limit imports of competing product. to what extent do you think this country needs to move in that direction where there's perhaps not so much agreement between parties? for whoever. >> i don't want -- i don't want to monopolize the time here, but you mentioned currency. we passed a bill, overwhelmingly

bipartisan support that said we need to look at -- china needs to stop manipulating its value of its currency so that its exports were cheap and exports were expensive. i am one who believes that any act that we do needs to be wto compliant. this is not -- make it in america is not a protectionist policy or agenda. it is, however, a competitive agenda. my belief is that chandra's workers can compete with any workers in the world given a dpair playing field -- fair playing field, and that is when our agenda seeks to create. now, in the book and others pointed out as well -- well, i'll bring it back. my state, maryland, competes with other states for industries. how do we do it?

we give them insent is, tax incentives, maybe land, public land at a discount price or we do all sorts of things to make it more attractive for them to move to maryland. what we want to do is the same kinds of policy, making sure people stay here or come here. bmw came here. the auto manufacturers from all over the world are coming here and producing a product selling it here, and in fact, exporting it back to europe or other places in the world so that we need to compete effectively without, however, violating our wto obligations. i think we can do so. >> and i would add to that given the perspective. i think it's very clear exactly as the congressman said, it's about competition, and i'll be

crystal clear on my perspective and most businesses, it is not a level playing field. i get tired how they couch it in terms of it's domestic protectionism. that's ridiculous. it's not a level playing field. we are not competing fairly when it comes to health regulations, anything related to the environment. all those things, if we compete with china, it's not a fair basis, so you must have measures to help us at least compete. that's what we want. we just want to compete fairly. that's not existing currently, and i think measures were incredibly supportive of measures like buy america and some of those. there's ways of doing it too where it's enhanced incentives. for example, there's a new piece of legislation on the senate side talking about giving you extra credit for procurement. if your federal government is procuring things and you go over 60% u.s. content, maybe you should get extra credit in a procurementment i think that is absolutely appropriate, necessary, and important, and i think if we're not going to take care of ourselves and our

country first, what are we doing? that's my stance on that .. .. has been forceful on enforcing the rules and has not been afraid to use the trade bloc and has been supportive of efforts to use to treat what when we believe other countries are not playing by rules what has to be both.

clearly we have to vigorously enforce the right in on the other hand there is a lot more we can do that we are not doing and that's got to be an important focus. >> - ken enforcement and prosecuting the law, when i say prosecuting pursuing redress on the wto violation we had a huge victory just a few weeks ago on boeing where the airbus and europe were who received two very heavily subsidize airbus and therefore boeing was not competing in a level playing field. so i think that's the kind of vigorous oversight in pursuing our rights and creating that level playing field that is absolutely essentials. again, if business is going to deal feel comfortable in a environment can compete with the rest of the world. >> i regret to say that we are out of time.

one thing i would like to say is thank you very much to the guests for being here. i found interesting and i hope everyone else did as well and i'd like to thank the audience for coming. i'd like to add one quick thing which is we have the two papers in the back that you are welcome to pick up, and the author, the lead author of the low carvin innovation paper is sitting up front if anybody has any questions for him about that paper. so thank you very much for coming. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] president obama announced his nominee for commerce secretary former it is an international ceo john bryson. this is confirmed by the senate he would replace secretary barry locke who has been nominated to serve as u.s. ambassador to china. he sits on the board of boeing and walt disney. he is also the co-founder of the natural resources defense council. from the white house state dining room, this is five minutes. >> good afternoon everybody. today i am pleased to announce i will nominate john bryson to be

our nation's next commerce secretary. john is somebody who would bring to this job a wealth of experience in the public and in the private sectors. but in my mind, nothing has prepared him more for this demanding role that requires diplomacy, complex since negotiations and careful management of folks with strong views than being the father of four daughters. they are all here today, as is john's wife, louise and i am sure he gets the credit for how wonderfully they have turnout. as the commerce secretary john is going to be an important part of my economic team promoting american business and american products across the globe by working with companies here at home and representing america's interests abroad i'm confident he's going to help us meet the goal i set of doubling the nation's exports. in the new world john will be able to draw on the business

experience across a range of industries from his role on the board of major companies like disney and bowing to his leadership in the clean energy industry. that's the expertise that will help us create more jobs and make america more competitive in the global economy. of course, john will be building on the success of the outgoing commerce secretary garrey locke who tirelessly at the answer to america's leadership abroad, securing export deals that will help meet jobs here in america and including an agreement with china where gary will be serving as the next ambassador and we couldn't be more proud of him and we are confident he's going to be doing an outstanding job there. of course in the years ahead the key to achieving our export goal will be promoting clean energy in america. it's how well will reduce dependence on foreign oil and encourage new businesses and jobs to take roots on the shores. john understands this better than virtually anybody.

throughout the distinguished career in which he's led nonprofits, government agencies and large companies. he has been a fierce proponent of alternative energy. as a young man from the prestigious law school, john didn't follow his friends to a blue-chip law firm. john took a chance on an idea he cared about and co-founded the natural resources defense council which grew into a powerful and important voice in protecting the safety of the air and water. it was then john caught the eye of a young california governor named jerry brown. i not sure what happened to that guy, but -- [laughter] fer jon lead to leadership positions in government where he got a look at the impact of energy and environmental policies from water conservation to electricity production. leader in the private-sector he rose to become the chairman and ceo of edison international, one of the nation's largest utility companies. john headed the company for

almost 20 years during which time he helped become a leader in solar and wind power and innovative approaches to proving the profitability of clean energy. just before he retired from the company, he launched a plan to turn a 65 million square feet of unused commercial rooftops into solar power stations, the largest ra in the country with enough electricity for 160,000 homes. today he advises companies around the world as a business leader who understands what it takes to innovate, create jobs and preserve your through tough times and he continues to carry himself with the integrity and the sense of responsibility that guided him his entire life. his experience and these qualities will serve the nation well as he takes on yet another tough assignment in his career so i want to thank gary for his service. he has done an outstanding job while at commerce, and john, i am grateful to you for your

willingness to serve. i look forward to working with you, and i know that you will help us deliver the kind of growth, prosperity and job creation in america that we all want. so thank you very much both of you. >> thank you, everybody.

at the heritage foundation to become a congressman allen west, a member of the armed services committee, talked about u.s. national security at the role of the u.s. military. he talked about the conflict in iraq and afghanistan and evens and egypt and the rest of the middle east. following his remarks, the congressman takes questions from the audience. congressman west is a retired army lieutenant colonel and iraq war veteran. this is about an hour. [inaudible] to address us during protect america month. the first was congressman buck mckeon the chairman of the committee, tremendous advocate

for strong america the defense that it acted to protect american security and we have other such advocate today. a member of congress who is assured, officials senior e but long on experience and influence in defense matters. it's not too much to say that our guest today has spent a lifetime of service and sacrifice for the united states of america, which he continues in the congress of the united states today. congressman allen west received his bachelor's degree while on a scholarship at the university of tennessee he went on to become a master's degree to kansas state university but in political science perhaps foreshadowing what was to come. he also holds a military from the army command and general staff and political theory and military operations. i'm going to embarrass the congressman a little bit by talking about his army record he's been honored many times and served in the united states army

including a bronze star, three service levels, three army commendation medals, one with valor. he received his valor award as a captain in desert shield and desert storm, u.s. army rotc in 1993 and the distinguished honor graduate from third quarter. he wears the parachute badge from the air assault badge, the navy and marine corps parachute insignia. he represents the 26 district and i'm told that the only issue where he may not reflect the views of his constituents is that congressman west is an enthusiastic of the volunteers, so i know enough about florida to know that probably gets him in a little bit of trouble but nevertheless he was elected to his first term in congress. we hope for the nation's sake and believe he's going to have many more. ladies and gentlemen hour honored guest today, colonel allen west congressman from florida. [applause]

>> thanks so much for that introduction and yes, being a volunteer i've got to kind of be concerned about from the decisions the athletic director made recently and also with bruce pearl of the basketball team but not as bad ideas as the ohio state fans who woke up with pretty bad news. [laughter] but it's an honor to be here. and reflecting with danny about the fact that when the heritage foundation the facility was being built in of the opportunity beckoned 2008 to come and meet with him and that was my first run for congress and of course we sell about five percentage points short. but to now be standing here on the stage is absolutely phenomenal. i want to thank you for all you've done of the past three years and i will support and courage and wisdom that you provide me to help me become an

even better conservative leader for the country so thank you very much for that. [applause] protect america month and the whole purpose is for me to kind of bring my experiences from the battlefield here to washington dc. i served operation desert shield desert storm iraqi freedom and i spent two and a half years in afghanistan and adding that up in november of 2007 working with the afghan military down in kandahar, and i titled what i wanted to present you today is the 21st century battlefield, because i think as you look at the paradigm of the battle and combat operations today it's totally different from what i experienced in 1982 when i was commissioned as a lieutenant in its simple you have the servant on one side and us on the other side. we knew their tactics and equipment, the new hour uniforms, every now and then we would play games on board the

patrol missions but that has totally left. so how does the united states of america if we are going to be successful protecting this country how we quickly about and understand this battlefield and be prepared to go out there and have success and victory? because this is a very complex battlefield. i can tell you in desert shield desert storm in 1991 was different 12 years later when i went back in 2003. how do we understand the complexities and make the change? how we understand this global in which we are engaged? i have to tell you i think the future is going to be more of them on state done uniform that we find, and unless we can get a strategic level perspective, we never lose at the tactical level on the ground. we have the best soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen the world has

ever known. but the thing is if they don't have the right strategic goals and objectives of they don't have the right type of operational goals and objectives that filter down at the tactical level there is very much like a hamster no matter how much exertion you're putting on the wheel you're going to get tired of not going anywhere. and that's not what i want to see happen. i don't want to see a repeat of what happened did vietnam where we won on the battlefield constantly but at the strategic level that's where we didn't have the soldiers and not where we had a great objective. i want to start off with this. when i hear people talk about the war on terror i think it is and incredible misnomer because the nation cannot go and fight a tactic. it would be just the same as if we sell abroad were to the united states went to war against the creek or the pacific theater they went to war against the kamikaze tactics.

what has to be presented for us to be successful on the 21st century battlefield is an understanding of who we are fighting against. because when i hear people talk about well, we are at war met with al qaeda or just taliban, the narrowly defined this to the point where did we go to the war to fight against the 12th german division? did we go to war to fight the 55th japanese infantry regiment? but if you narrowly define yourself and you create gaps by which you can be exploited because we must remember before al qaeda of the terrorist group that inflicted the most damage upon the united states of america was hezbollah. if you go and do your research and look what hezbollah has become, it's become one of those on state non-uniform dillinger and army is very capable military. such a capable military right now they have missiles in the arsenal that can strike every city in israel.

yet, we don't see them as being part of an enemy. some time ago in the early 1800's we had little incident with folks recalled the barbary pirates and we sent the marines along with the navy. and here we are to be in the 21st century battlefield the exact same things the individuals, the somali pirates but yet we don't know how to continue with them and that is one of the questions that i asked the department of defense legal team when they can to testify. how do you classify the somali pirates? are they just criminals that when they kill americans as we know they did with those four individuals who were on a u.s. commercial vessel, their own private vessel we give them constitutional rights and bring back to the country or do we see them as part of the 21st century battlefield? do we see them as part of an islamic terrorist enemy? that is what we must come to understand and come to continue with because if we don't have

strategical of objectives to fight this enemy, if we don't identify who he is, then you are going to cause so much confusion for the men and the women on the ground who are trying to go to the operation fight to be successful. i will ask you a question. when is the last time you heard the past ten or so years that these are the strategic objectives as we prosecute this current war? that's what is missing. these are the strategic objectives we should have. first of all deny the enemy sanctuaries. the number one asset that our military has its strategic mobility. when you take it away by sending a military down be in iraq or afghanistan and get focused on the nation-building and occupation warfare, then you take away your number one of advantage, that mobility. major military target and i can

tell you there aren't that many that come out of these forward operating base is so you make it easy for our men and women to be attacked. so when you come back and think about the number one goal to be denied the enemy sanctuaries that means that we're in for this enemy you must clearly define who he is tries to present himself you have to be willing to go and strike his capability because you're continuing with an enemy that has no regard for borders and boundaries and things of that nature. so therefore you have to step outside of your comfort zone and take the fight to this enemy, take the initiative away from him. instead of playing this little game like i saw us playing in iraq for a local black and -- whackamol and then we go out and fight there. if you go back and study with alexander the great did in afghanistan when he took the

macedonian feelings and started up in the smaller detachments and they got out and took the sanctuary away from the enemy, the exact same thing we did in vietnam with a strategic program where we got added to the countryside and denied the vietcong the resources they needed but when we pulled back it's not the strategic and let program and got wired down on these large bases they went into the countryside. and if you want to talk about the success we had in iraq with of the surge, it was that when we took the ground, we held ground and stayed out there and denied the sanctuary. we joined up the whole. that is the type of mentality that we have to have from the strategic perspective. the second thing is clear for the strategic objective is that we must cut off the flow of the material and resources right

now. because as you know when you put the pressure on the day transit over to yemen or afghanistan, and we must be able to follow them and cut that off. we have to interdict his flow of resources. because that is hard you try at his ability to find himself to resupply himself and his ranks. and we haven't been able to connect the dots and understand that. then you see the relationship is building between the somali pirates and operations that is happening in yemen. not too far across to have to transnet. second most important thing. the third most important thing from the strategic perspective we must lead the information operation war. we never do a good job with that. they are killing us on these terms websites getting the message out. we aren't getting our message out. when i remember what happened with israel with the flotilla i

was sitting their watching that tape and i told my wife those guys got paint guns on their back. she said how can you tell? i can tell tuscany silhouette of a paint gun. what happened is the other side to it and turned israel into the aggressor. we've got to do a better job of feeding them as far as the message. a better job of getting the word out. we've got to do a better job of the operations units. when i was in afghanistan one of the things i asked down in kandahar why aren't we establishing more radio stations on some of the larger bases that can broadcast locally? get some of these young afghan soldiers on and talk about what they are doing and the problem in the country and of the things the taliban is doing so you can turn people. if we don't understand that the strategic level and part of that is our own media.

you know, i see most stories about us doing things like abu ghraib. how many pitchers did we see about the abu ghraib? about the bad things the enemy is doing? and just last week we lost soldiers in afghanistan. i don't hear anyone talking about that anymore. our media sees themselves as an ideological political wing. i have serious concerns about that because part of the nation's power, the diplomatic informational military and economic, and if we can't take our own information on the power and use it as an asset force, then we lose our country. the last important strategic objective we have to have is we have to court optus enemy and reduce his year of influence.

we have to shrink down where he is and we are not doing that. we are allowing him to come to the united states of america. what happened with the major isn't happening in the united states of america. anyone that wants to deny that the was a part of the 21st century battlefield you got your head in the sand and unfortunately when you put your head in the sand you expose a certain part of your anatomy. [laughter] that is what we are doing a lot in this country. we are turning a blind to a very bold enemy that is telling us exactly what he wants us to do but it is up to us and it is up to our elective leaders and to our strategic level and military officials to come up with the right type of strategic perspectives to come down against them. it's not a war in afghanistan. it's not a war nye in iraq.

those are combat sere, that's the second tier, the operational fuehrer's warfare. up here it's not the strategic sphere where we have missed out on those objectives. the next thing i'd want to talk about is very simple. we have to understand the economic impact on the 21st century battlefield. if you go back and look what happened in the collapse of the soviet union, soviet union did not collapse militarily. the soviet union collapsed economically but there's one country that played close attention to what happened and that country was china. now we find ourselves august 21st century field connecticut battles we fight and there are truly not kinetic battles we fight and that is an economic battle we are fighting and we are providing an advantage to china in the trade surplus they are able to build up and the fact leone almost 39%

of our debt is realized china is not taking that to improve the standard of living of the chinese citizen. china is taking this economic and sandage the, 21st century battlefield and about eight to ten years the largest blue water navy is going to fly ander a chinese flag. why is that important on the 21st century belfield? i have to tell you 70% of the mass of the earth is wet. its water. you can go back to the great civilizations, the romans, the athenians, at the turn of the century was portuguese, the spanish, dutch, english, the japanese everyone knew that the means by which you extend the power and the reach of the nation it's going to hurt my heart saying this -- laughter to it's not through a great army it's through a powerful navy.

in 1990 we have 546 aníbal war vessels. today we have 283 to read if you cannot protect the commerce, if you have for americans to get murdered right under the shadow of a naval vessel that bodes future problems for the country as far as the and to the economic impact everglades the busiest terminal, and it's very important that in 2014 the panama canal will expand to bring the larger cargo shipping but it's the panama canal to the united states will build and is now controlled by the chinese contractors. that's how if you don't have a strategic perspective of the 21st century battlefield the next thing you know you wake up and find yourself militarily

defeated but also economically defeated. another part that is so important in the 21st century battlefield is energy independence. i remember being back in georgia in the late 1970's when we had this little saudi oil embargo crisis remember you have the even days and the odd days my dad wasn't going to sit in the lincoln continental on those hot georgia days he told his son out there to pump the gas. [laughter] so i have a distinct understanding what energy independence should mean. we created a government agency called the department of energy that had one mission to make the united states of america energy independent. but yet where are we? if we don't recognize the fact that there are certain countries using energy resources as a weapon on the 21st century battlefield once again, we lose. when russia went down and the

fate of the former soviet state georgia there was not a lot of contention coming out of europe because the natural gas pipeline. we don't understand the saudis and what they are able to hold over us because venezuela, hugo chavez and you heard what he said last week's. if there's a time we should look at the united states of america and say we are going to commit ourselves to being energy independent the time is now and i get tired of hearing people say it's going to take ten years, too long. read the story of the uss yorktown after the battle of the coral sea when it so severely damaged to pearl harbor the battle damage assessment was that it's going to take six to seven months for the uss yorktown, the air carrier to be prepared to go back out to sea. and then it's a challenge and the contractors. the yorktown is steamed out in about three weeks in the mirror

and the rest of the pacific fleet at a place called mid way, and the rest is history the american people respond to a challenge and the american people respond if they have a strategic vision. that is what we are lacking in the country right now. and i don't want to see us suffer because we don't understand the current battlefield in the direction we should take. we have to get ourselves off of the dependence of the foreign nations such as saudi arabia, venezuela and others. we have the legal, the natural gas, the capability we should be developing, the coal energy power, the biofuel, the wind and the solar. it's a complete developing of the full spectrum of these energy resources which will enable us to be successful on the 21st century battlefield. if we don't do that, if we keep kicking the can down the road we're going to put our country in a very bad situation. so, what are the solutions?

we have to deliver a national security roadmap. we have to seriously stop sitting down and looking and thinking about what is the world going to look like? we did not do that after the collapse of the soviet union. we basically said after the collapse of the soviet union the major contention and ideological fight in the world is over. we failed to reach the book in the class of civilization and the remaking of the world order. and who became the bill payer? united states military. and i can tell you that because i was serving at that time when my friends were in tank units and had to use golf carts to practice the tactics. i can tell you as an executive officer when we didn't have enough money to buy tools to repair or enough money to get toilet paper for some four soldiers we didn't have enough money to buy ammunition so that the guys could stay out on the

rifle range, and we find ourselves going down the exact same path. when you study the history of the military in the the 20th century to today, you see this. ready for world war i, and we go all the way down to a bottomless pit maybe try to wrap it up for world war ii and go back to the bottomless pit. if we don't have a steady state, we will lose an opportunity to ensure that we protect america for the future for our children and grand children. we need to look at this road map by saying what are their respective areas of operation, what are the combatant commander responsibilities and look at the threats that are there and that is a capability to the threat. and that is not what we have done. we always look at the military to be built here. we always say okay this war is

ended so we can then go down to the bottomless pit. if we miss the opportunity of recognizing the 21st century battlefield truly is and have that strategic vision that lays down this in tighter world that we can see then by the door as they say down south. we may not be able to recover. that's what we must do. and that's why i have to tell you standing here in a great think tank like heritage foundation and the work they've been able to do is absolutely phenomenal. we've got to roll of our sleeves and come up with a road map for the national security that looks at the threat, look set their goals and objectives because as it is said in the art of the to know your enemy and to know

yourself and the environment in the countless number of battles you will always be victorious. if we don't understand that simple maxim then there could be some dark days not just for the united states of america, but for the entire world. because no matter what anyone says, we are that begin, that white house, as ronald reagan said the shining city that sits upon a hill. if the flight were to go out, it would take us into a new dark age. thank you all for having me today and god bless you all. [applause] >> thank you, congressman west i just have to say before i begin throwing these questions to focus on the need for strategic

clarity is welcome in this town and we just heard a person with real vision. we have i think a pretty hard deadline about 11:15. there is some mild interest in your appearance because i have all these questions. so let me jump in to them. beyond to order the some what do you think is the greatest challenge facing the united states? >> as i said i think we have to be concerned about what china is doing. as a matter of fact the week before china is already going into some security agreements and arrangements with pakistan to talk about selling them bjs 17 fighter aircraft as well as building them a naval base and facility. if you look across the world you will see the chinese flag flying in different places going after energy resources and materials, so i think that is if you want to talk about a conventional format we have to admit it is a conventional threat for the united states.

>> thank you. what impact do you think the death of bin laden is going to have on the war on terror? >> one of the things are kind of got upset with people in washington, d.c. said you cut the head off a snake. once again that is a lack of strategic clarity. all you really did is cut the head off the multi headed hydra but a lot of the times it can regenerate its own head so after that you saw that they named a new success to osama bin laden. this is the thing you have to realize that al qaeda and the islamic terrorist networks must now show that they are still relevant, they are still viable, and they must do something that continues to inspire them into one to join their ranks and show they can bring a defeat to the great state. so once again, it is not about dancing in the air and having euphoria. i'm absolutely happy we got him that we have to see what happens

next? what happens in the next phase of the operations of that's what we have to be prepared for. >> i have several questions about pakistan and should the united states give to aid to pakistan. it's one of the difficult issues if you want to comment on pakistan and your views. >> i was one of the first guys that came out and said we do need to cut off the funding to pakistan. i spent two and a half years in kandahar and any time we put pressure on the taliban they went to pakistan. now there's a reason all of a sudden their groups are finding sanctuary there. they feel that they are not going to be, you know, bothered too much. either they are well, or i don't know. the fact that the week before osama bin laden was killed the president of pakistan made a call over to hamid karzai and asked him to go to a long-term security arrangement with pakistan and that's not an ally,

folks. they're looking to get the craft from china. that's not an ally. china's went to building a naval base. when i look at this incident with osama bin laden that comes down to three things. it's either ignorance and competence or its complicity to read any of those three is bad but said the sum of all of those three is really bad. in the net part of the world it's really simple. people understand one thing. strength. they don't have decent compromise or negotiations. they don't respect the peace, and if we continue to have a policy of appeasement and putting pressure on them not showing them we are cutting you off, and i'm going to say something very simple and i know it will get paid over in the media we don't need pakistan to be successful but as long as you continue to let them believe that you need them, they will play you like a bad fiddle and that is what is happening.

some of our military is in the midst of social experimentation. what efforts should congress and the sick to give leadership to ensure the effectiveness is sustained at a superior level? >> let me put it very simply. the united states military exists to win the nation's war. when you joined the military, it takes individual behavior and conforms it to the military. if we start to have a perspective and a belief in this nation that the military conforms to individual behavior, then we have lost the understanding what it means to be in the united states military. it's clear you don't want to abide by rules and joined the military then don't join. the military isn't a social experiment. and for those that will set up there and as a congressman west you should understand because after all you are black, unless i am michael jackson, i can't

change my color. [laughter] but people can change behavior. and you do not base being a part of the military on individual behavior. that's my concern. when you look at what our young men and women have to continue we talk about men and women 50 and six tour in combat zones. now was not the time to try to of he's a jury small interest group and i will leave it at that. [applause] >> you make a great point that in the military if there is something in individual to to your interest and false works against cohesion or go to a whole the typical culture is at the individual gets away. when you're in the service if you want to write a letter to the newspaper attacking the commander in chief politics you couldn't do it but of course you could do that in civilian life.

okay. a couple of questions about funding. why should we increase funding or sustain funding in these difficult budgetary times and also a question relating to potential pay cuts for compensation or maybe address the whole thing and where you find additional balance. >> i have to tell you when i was up here doing orientation and back in november of last year i had an interview on meet the press and i guess david gregory thought he could catch me he said would you support cutting i said absolutely because i know where the bodies are buried and where there's some fat, so i stand here today i have three wasteful government programs that will add up to $800 million of savings for the american taxpayer so it's there. so, you know, that should be the focus. cutting the benefits we give to our airmen, coast guard, that's

not the way to go. we should be looking at every single way that we can increase the benefits we give them. you can cut mauney pay but do not cut the pay of the men and women we've asked to protect us and when we talk about protecting the country that's the number one responsibility of the federal government. the federal government can create the conditions to make as prosperous as they want but if we cannot keep you safe, if we do not have a military that is ready to go out on this new 21st century battlefield and they show that americans can go anywhere in the world and not feel threatened or insecure that we've lost our mission. there shouldn't be any possibility of america going out on their own private yacht having to worry about being kidnapped, hijacked and executed. that's reprehensible to be. and the message we need to send is that we will not tolerate that. so we need to develop a military

that has that type of a focus and reach to make sure that wherever our citizens go, where our interest may apply that you are safe and protected. >> you have any ideas where you might redirect it? you're talking about naval power. i have to emphasize for an army guy i get e-mails from -- >> i'm not because i would say right now there's more insidious landing than anyone else so we have done very well. >> it is a joint service. >> and we must understand how to complement each other. this is the fifth thing we have to look at. we can take those savings and reinvest into procurement and research and development. have a great discussion with a friend of mine i've known for 13 years and he is the head of the rapid equaling force for the pete mo

about the question and we are grateful for your time and [applause]

>> you ask one question and they take the whole 20 minutes answering that one. [laughter] >> okay. would you care to offer your opinion on what the events in egypt might mean for the united states? >> shorty did i hear a lot of people talk about the arab spurring. i do like irish spring soap so. but i am very concerned once again in that someone has wanted a propaganda war mcginn has gotten us down a different type of fact half. you don't know who's calling to fill the back of the leadership such as a country like egypt. you think what happened back in the late 70's when the shawl of iran who did you get? you got the ayatollah. in the aftermath of the septet been down because this is with the military teaches you i look at the things that have happened. i look at the fact that the warships in trouble for the first time in 40 years and the fact that all of a sudden the

border is open up for your look of the fact there's been an increased amount of rockets and missile attacks in southern israel coming out. i look at the fact that you have a senior egyptian military official traveling and have discussions with syria. i looked at the fact that you have the egyptian foreign minister have a meeting with the iranian foreign minister and the fact that they are now fighting to save their churches and egypt, and the fact that the camp david peace accord is null and void. that comes back to like i said the strategic vision. for every decision there are consequences, but we have to sometimes analyze what can be the consequences. the same operations in libya. i can't understand and i don't know the objectives are. no one can tell me who the rebels are and where they come from and what do they seek to have or what are they going to bring it to the table that's

different from the market off the? there's no doubt about it but there's means by which you can contain him. instead of committing their force and the navy to be kind of light a force to them. so i'm very concerned about what is happening in egypt because the story has not been told yet, and never forget the most organized political organization and you're not is muslim brotherhood. you just go back to the 1920's up to today and you can see their history. we have to have people that don't get caught up in the sound bite to sit back and look at the second, third and fourth order effects with a strategic clarity talked about and that's what is lacking coming out of washington, d.c.. it's such a desire to say this is a great space uprising. i don't see george washington over there. i don't see thomas jefferson or

madison. i don't see women getting any type of freedom in egypt. so that is my concern. so the story has not been written when it talks about egypt. >> so we experienced the irony of trying to remove i guess that is the mission in libya the dictator who cooperated on the war and tear her and ended the weapon of mass destruction while we have been appeasing the dictatorship in iran this sponsoring the war of terror to get nuclear weapons my editorial comment. two more questions and then we will the congressman go. would you care to comment if it is a companion piece to the last comment on the state of the relationships with israel and the obama netanyahu exchange or wherever you want to take it? >> talk about the pre-1967 border that was a horrible thing to say. it was a horrible thing to say when you kind of surprised the prime minister most staunchest ally in the middle east you

cannot have peace in the middle east unless you have a peace partner. to this day we haven't seen the peace partner in the middle east. as a golden year simply said of the palestinians would have laid down their weapons to read the piece but if the lead on their weapons to read the massive. if we continued on a foreign policy that is rewarding bad behavior you're just going to get more bad behavior. once again this thing today to understand is that you would stand up for something. but if you are coming to the table saying we want peace so bad, you've just given them the initiative. and think about it. you've given gaza you get rockets and mortars, give southern lebanon you get rockets and mortars and increased participation from hezbollah. in 1967, israel responded to being attacked and now we are going to tell them to go back to a situation that puts them in a

position they can once again be attacked my concern is this. if we don't recognize the fact that israel could potentially fight a three's rot war within the egyptian support of hamas, syria and iran supported hezbollah and iran develop a nuclear capability and iran with a leader who's faced israel and said the elimination of the zionist state how much more do we need to be convinced? my fear is it takes a cataclysmic event for that to occur. how many people understand the matt ury, mutually assured destruction? grumet ury we have in the soviet union does not exist with iran, because they need to have a cataclysmic event to bring back the mahdi, and it is the whole reason about having a nuclear

device is that it will turn against israel. i don't care how much land you give up. it's about the elimination from the jewish people and the fact that the palestinian authority went into the reconciliation with hamas that clearly states in the chart the elimination of the jewish people that's not how you start talking about peace until you eradicate or eliminate hamas and that's my story and i am sticking to it. [applause] >> final question. i don't know if you want to share a display of too many questions to ignore. there are people interested in prospects for the future so i will just put it that way. [applause] do you care to comment? >> i heard potentially there's a position open for the national dogcatcher. [laughter]

the most important thing is that the founding fathers were brilliant in how the established the federalist government, and we have to understand being a congressional representative is a very important role to play. the house of representatives when you look at the constitution understand the power they have. it's important you have strong voices. the most important thing for me is to prove myself as a great americans baseman, capable legislature, learn all these little rules they have over there you know, unanimous consent of this, that whatever because when you're from georgia, sometimes it's kind of crazy. [laughter] but that is what my focus is, running for the reelection in the united states congress, but i will always tell folks from the bottom of my heart that, you know, i submit myself to the word of god and as i was saying in 2007i was sitting in kandahar, afghanistan four years later longstanding here.

this is a great country. this is incredible country. that anyone has an opportunity to go as far as they want in this nation. i am happy where i am as a congressional representative, and if god has something for me in the future that is the decision between me and my wife and my family. but for right now, let me be that which the people in the 27th congressional district work hard to get me to and that's to be there u.s. congressman. so thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you, allen. [applause] >> we've had a number of >> we've had a number of speakers that protect america the last several years in the america's interests and on

behalf of strategic clarity than the war fighter. thank you. we are glad you are running for reelection. we are dismissed. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> if you have a question [inaudible] if you have a question just raise your hand. >> nicholas with cns news. you talked about the danger of occupational warfare and nation-building. what do you think should be the united states position with respect of the war in afghanistan? should we pull out our ground troops in the war in afghanistan? >> i.t. what you have to do is look at how you take the bases you just published and they can become a rotational type of

base, but the most important thing is when we start to get into a broad scheme of nation building in the schools and infrastructure and things of that nature that takes the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines away from their number one focus should be. i think that we have to look at -- there's a certain point we said we have done the best we can do in afghanistan. we must be able to accept that 70-75% solution. it comes back to mcginn what are the conditions we want to try to achieve in some of the theaters of operation, and then once you reach a certain percentage of those conditions, then you have to look at what the next phase is and move on. i don't like time phrase operations where you tell someone on the state i'm going to do such and such action that is telegraphic to an enemy. ..

>> we looked at the work force and rewards frame, and we targeted those three, and they passed through the national defense authorization agent, and over the course of 10 years, they saved the american taxpayer $800 million. >> rather than hit you with revealing news, but can you elaborate on the situation particularly since there's been talks of -- there's been talks of talks with the taliban

reconciliation, reintegration. what do you make of the process of trying to get the taliban to become part of the broader afghanistan future? >> you know, we tried that with the clinton administration and realize the taliban is a legitimate government, and look how far that got us. the most dangerous thing out there is our own political correctness and our own ability to understand what they are and what they believe in. a great example is kicking around the term of radical islam, and then the president and prime minister of turkey said there's no such thing, so if you don't start listening and taking the enemy for who he is, such as the taliban, then you can't have a reconciliation with an individual whose vision is totally different and not in concert with # 1st century, i

think morals and values, so, no, you can't sit and negotiate with a group with the taliban, and i can tell you, that's the number one thing that causes people not to believe in the yeast of america when we say we're going to have talks with the taliban. if i'm a tribal leader in afghanistan, who will i throw my hat in with? if i know you're about a leave, don't see change in the individuals, and know what they did while in power, and we must not forget it was the taliban who brought al-qaeda into afghanistan. it wasn't the opposite. >> hi, are there any other programs that you're eyeing in the future in terms of being able to find -- >> o', yeah, -- oh, yeah, this is a revolving process. i want to like at inefficiencies in the department of defense to

get it streamlining and know what its core missions are. >> hi, there. heritage foundation put several of the roars watching us online have sent me this question and want to know your thoughts on president obama's nomination of general martin dempsey and what do you think of the nomination? >> sure. i've met him before and i've had discussions with people over the weekend who know him. he's a soldier's soldier. we have to understand we are taking away someone from training, taking him away of being and operational combat and commander and talking about him being a force provider and the number one adviser to the president. i would hope that he will understand this battlefield situation and help the president to make the right type of decisions based on the counsel he receives from the respective

service chiefs. i look forward to general dempsey continuing on his service, and i'm glad the army has a chairman joint chiefs. [laughter] >> this will be the final question. >> you talked about beating the enemy in the information war -- >> yeah. >> can you give some examples of the messaging that the united states should put out with respect to the wars in afghanistan and ike? >> again, combat fears of operation in iraq and afghanistan, we don't talk about the successes or the fact there's a thriving economy in the kurdish area with international flights and things of that nature coming in. we have to discuss that. we don't talk enough about the vicious attacks that the taliban does. when i was over in afghanistan, you know, countless times, these guys gunning down little girls

going to school, throwing acid on them. we have to show them for who they are and not allow them to dominate the dialogue and have the initiative across the websites and information arena. those are the things we need to do a better job of doing is telling the stories and telling the good news stories happening over there in those theaters of operation. >> thank you so much for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> if there's follow-up questions, feel free to contact him. >> thanks to the cameraman.

>> yesterday, president obama named his pick to be the next joint of chief staff chairman. we talked about the other news affecting the u.s. security with

the national security editor of the "washington times". this is 40 minutes. >> >> host: let's begin with the change in leadership for national security at the obama administration yesterday. president announced that general martin dempsey taking over of the joint chairman chiefs of staff. let's listen to what he had to say. >> he's one of the most respect the combat tested generals. in iraq, he led the soldiers against the brutal insurgency. having trained iraqi forces, he knows the nations have to take responsibility for their own security. having served as acting commander of central command, he understands that in iraq and in afghanistan, security gains and political progress go hand in hand.

i expect him to push all our forces to continue adopting and innovating to be ready for the missions of today and tomorrow. >> host: the washington times said after less than two months elevating him to the top post, the president made him head of the joint chiefs. who is martin dempsey and what do we know about him? >> guest: it's a pick to give the army prominence within the top circle of military advisers, but l real story here is who didn't get the job, and that's general cartwright who was considered obama's favorite general, and he lost out in a big political battle with the current chairman, admiral mike mullen as well as the current outgoing defense secretary, bob gates. >> host: what's the story there? >> guest: it's interesting. a lot of people felt cart you know wright was a brilliant

general, but not considered a team player. he clashed with mullen and gates on strategy for afghanistan. that said, he was still, you know, well connected to the president, was in on the bin laden secret operation. also had personal issues related to his family life, some questions there, and it was a classic washington political battle. >> host: and what is it about cart you know wright's d cartwright's strategy? >> guest: well, the whole question is getting into the real inner workings. should we have a counterterrorism strait -- strategy? afghanistan? the issue is al-qaeda or rebuild afghanistan? that's a debate taking place right now in the forefront of all of the issues related to troop levels and defense

spending. >> host: what does this mean, then that general dempsey is now the joint chiefs? what does that mean for afghan's strategy? >> guest: it's not clear. we don't know his views on this internal battle. again, i think kind of the larger issues here is what do we do with resetting the force? that's going to be his big challenge. president obama in april said he was going to cut defense spending by $400 billion in 12 years and the defense secretary, bob gates, has given three different comments recently warning that the military could be hallowed out by unwise defense spending cutses, and he's urging caution. tames, he was -- at the same time he was taking credit himself for 30 defense programs. >> host: that's theheadline gates warns of hallowing effect

and reaching back to the 1970s. what was he saying here? >> guest: wellñ in the 70s and the 90s, under the carter administration and then the clinton administration, steep cuts were made in defense spending, and the military began to what they call hallow out. in other words, it was moving in the direction of being a hallow force, something that obviously is a stark and alarming comment that your military is not ready for war. that's always been the high point of our militaries that we are ready for any battle, and this was -- so again, he's warning we could face a hallowed out military if we don't hand m this cut in defense spending properly. >> host: yet at the same time, he and others and mr. mullen said our debt is our biggest national security threat. how do you square those two things? >> guest: well, yeah. the issue is that gets into the

bigger issue of how we fix the economy. the economy is a problem, and the argument is being made that, okay, defense can be put of the solution to that problem, but it should not be the only solution. there are real fears within the obama administration that h's basically being to the left of center going after the military with ajen janes in terms of cuts defense spending and programs, and i think that's really the fear, and we're going to be hearing a lot of debate in the coming weeks from capitol hill and the house. >> host: that's the issue with the "washington post". afghan war costs to be big factor in troop draw down, obama's civilian adviser says price of conflict is too high. >> guest: yeah, this is again getting back to the argument of what should be the strategy in afghanistan. i mean, basically the strategy has been nation building. we're basically building a country from scratch.

>> host: that's called counterinsurgency? >> guest: well, it's designed to counter the insurgency by rebuilding the nation. the counterterrorism strategy has a much lower footprint using special operation forces to go after terrorists on a much smaller scale than rebuilding the entire country. >> host: and who in the obama administration is in which camp? >> guest: well, it's been reported vice president joe biden has been leading the charge for the smaller foot print counter terrorism strategy and others like general petraeus and i think gates and mullen have been arguing let's do the nation building oriented strategy. >> host: for those calling for spending cuts for reducing the nation's debt and deficit, it's said militaries on the table it would seem that a draw down from afghanistan would fit the bill,

that that would be the recipe for getting the debt and deficit under control. >> guest: i think that's the thrust of the people speaking to the newspaper story today, that you're hearing voices from the white house who are saying it's not going to be just simply a battle over counterterrorism versus counter insurgency, but the fact we're running out of money. that's always been my view of these -- excuse me -- of these conflicts is that basically, they are very, very expensive. we're talking billions of dollars, the figure in the article that said it was like a million dollars per soldier deployed in afghanistan. it's very expensive to do these operations, and now the argument is being made we can't afford it anymore. >> host: well, this is what the "washington post" says. concerns about war costs puts political pressure on obama, much from fellow democrats. on thursday, the house gnarl reloy defeated a call for a

withdrawal in afghanistan and military operations to the afghan government. the vote, 204-1015 was -- 215 was greater than last year. >> guest: the reflection of the debate in congress again over fiscal conservativism versus defending our values and our objectives overseas, especially in the battle against al-qaeda and terrorists like the taliban. >> host: what about the flip side of that, those concerned as being viewed as not supporting the troops if you want to draw down because of costs? >> guest: right. the arguments are made on both sides that, again, if you don't somehow want to continue funding the operation that you're somehow working against the military. again, it's all part of the political debate. very typical in washington. >> host: what about capitol hill legislatively? >> guest: well, it's going to be interesting. you have a republican controlled

house originating a lot of the defense bills. there's a democratic controlled senate, which for me, is a formula you won't see a lot of big changes taking place. the way these things usually works the house bill gets worked over in the senate, and then the real work gets down, and when they get to conference and hash out the differences and it's just going to be hard to predict how these issues will fair when the defense bill finally reaches the conference. >> host: we'll talk more about that. bill gertz referred to this, but these the "washington post" numbers. the cost of afghan mission is staggering and the amount per deployed soldier is $1 million a year is higher than it was in iraq because fuel and other supplies have to be shipped into the landlocked nation through other routes and bases have to be built from scratch. the u.s.-led effort to create a

new national army that afghanistan never had consumed more than $28 billion. the pentagon was $12.8 billion for fiscal 012 srb the largest single line item in next year's defense department budget request to continue training and equipping afghan solders. >> guest: the real issue is do you want to cut and run, give up and say we can't do this? it's too hard. that's really going to be at the core of it. right now, we're still working on the surge, the idea was that was we could do a troop surge of 30,000, and this was supposed to be able to make real gains. it worked in iraq. it's not clear whether it's working in afghanistan. that's going to be a big challenge, and it will be definitely part of the debate. >> host: independent from dollars, texas, you're on the air. >> caller: good morning. i want to ask a question, and

you can find this on the c-span video library, but on sent 10th 2001, donald rumsfeld announced $2.3 billion lost by the pentagon, and it's never discussed since what happened the day after. why is it not discussed, and how did they lose roughly one tenth of the national debt at the time? just lose it. >> guest: i'm not familiar with they statement even covering the rumsfeld back then, but i think what he was referring to was a lot of the waste, fraud, and abuse in the pentagon. defense secretaries have been battling that for decades. the late education effort is ab attempt to act efficiencies under the current administration trying to save money by becoming more efficient in the pentagon. i have to say i'm a bit skeptical that it will be successful.

the bureaucracy at the pentagon is so strong. the way that they do business is the way they do business, and people have tried to change it and have not succeeded. >> host: why have it not succeeded to have an auditing of the books? >> guest: well, it's just that this is an enormous institution. it's a very difficult challenge to try and get this thing under control. my own view is that government bureaucracy is definitely out of control, and it -- i think that's why we see the tea party movement developing. >> host: cuts in defense spending is the topic. bill gertz is the guest. if you're a democrat call and republicans call. michael joining us from hawaii on the independent line, you're next. >> caller: good morning, greta. >> host: good morning. >> caller: good morning,

bill. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: my question is for you, bill. i believe general cartwright should have been appointed. i wanted to ask you about that and the astronomical 100-plus billion money towards this war and i'd like to get your input on that please. >> guest: okay. well, i think we have been addressing that somewhat. you know, general cartwright, a marine general. he is not a combat veteran which is unusual at a time of wariments i think that's one factor. he, you know, certainly he's had a remarkable career. nobody questions his amazing service, but people had differences with his outlook. for example, right now, there's a debate in the pentagon on how to deal with the emergence of

china. it doesn't get a lot of attention with the other issues going on, but right now the pentagon is fighting over whether the forces should be structured to deal with both what they call high-end conventional conflict possibly with china or to refocus as gates has done, the defense secretary, on the counterinsurgency type of conflicts or what critics call the general custer indian wars. general cartwright was of the latter view, and he was opposing some of the military's efforts to build up conventional forces for dealing with the growing military problem of china. >> host: what's the role of the joint chiefs? >> guest: well, it's the principle military adviser to the president. the chiefs, themselves, have a role of also being parts of this -- being part of heading their

services as the top general in charge of their services, and they are the ones that confer on all of the issues, the big -- the money issues and the force issues. that's really what it's all about. >> host: big picture philosophy. >> guest: yes. >> host: what do you make of the "wall street journal" story. the pentagon concluded computer sabotage from another country constitutes an act of war, a finding for the first time opened the door for the u.s. to respond. if you shut down our power grid, maybe we'll put a missile down one of your smokestacks. >> guest: yeah, this is a new area that the military has recently entered with the standing up of the u.s. cyber command, up the parkway here at fort meade. basically, the military's looking for how to deal with these issues. they are very complex, and very

much shrouded in legal issues. how do you define these issues? are they conflicts that would relate to military? are they intelligence that would relate to intelligence gathering? there's still legal issues that have not been sorted out. it's one of the big problems. on the other hand, you have the problem of most of the civilian infrastructure that's in civilian hands, and the military doesn't have the authority to counter attack someone who attacks the civilian infrastructure. they are starting to deal with this and there's a number of strategy papers, but it's a growing area of concern. the big problem is being able to identify or attribute the source of an attack. they are getting better at it, but they are still not there yet. in order to counterattack something, you have to find out who is attacking you, and the attackers know how to mask their attacks. they take over a computer system in finland and use that to

conduct the attack. does that mean finland is the source of the attack? a lot of the attacks come from china and russia, and, of course, that's where they are beginning to look at some of the big strategic cyberthreats that come from those two places. >> host: "wall street journal" says one idea is the notion of a qif lens. if produces death, damage, or high level destruction that a traditional military attack causes it's a candidate for a use of force consideration which could merit retaliation. >> guest: yeah, i think that the story is probably overstating it a little bit. i mean, stating that you are going to take military action in response to a cyberattack is one of the many options on the scale. you would have to consider what kind of an attack would warrant a military strike on another country, but clearly, they are looking across the spectrum of different things. the problem is that the internet

is a lawless environment, and people are beginning to understand the defense, the defending your systems is really going to be a never ending process, and they are beginning to look at now, how do you go on the offense and use offensive things. >> host: internationally though, the rules of law are such that how would that -- how would the united states saying if somebody cyberattacks us, we're going to retaliate, how can you do that? >> guest: well, under international law, you have the inherit right of self-defense. if under attack, you can take defensive measures including military measures to defend yourself, and that extend that to include our networks and computer systems. >> host: is the united states looking at other countries and what they do and try to get an agreement? >> guest: there hanted been a lot of international consensus on this mostly because i think the u.s. clearly in lead, i think a lot of states are beginning to set up their own

military cyberunits, the chinese just last week announced they have a cyberwarrier unit, and that was a very unusual revelation for the very secretive chinese. the cybercommand is unique. we don't know much about a lot of other countries, but a lot of them are moving in the direction. i think that will create an area for international discussions on controls on cyberattacks. >> host: david, democrat in denver. thanks for waiting, dave. >> caller: my pleasure. good morning. i have a question. since our military mission, if you will, has changed in the last ten years, what, with budget cuts and defense spending, can't we reduce those by cutting back and or closing overseas bases that were established for the cold war? >> guest: well, a lot of that has been done, but the bottom line is that the u.s. has major

global strategic responsibilities, especially to allies. japan comes to mind. i think japan, you know, doesn't really have its own military, but relies on the u.s.. we have international commitments. i think the real costs of our defense spending come in when you talk about pensions and health care. i think gates has said recently that the costs are just astronomical to maintain these, and, of course, this is the promise that was made to our military men and women that they would take care of those things so these are the things that i think are the real expensive units, and there's a lot of concerns that if we do cut these other things, we won't be able to fulfill the international responsibilities. a lot nations count on the united states' military to protect freedom of knave gages, to provide a deterrent to

would-be aggressors. >> host: the bill was approved by the house last week, and part of that included increasing in tricare fees for working age retirees for the first time in 15 years, a decision that's critical in curving the health care spending for the department. >> guest: yes, like i said, the costs are going up, and this is going to be, you know, the question is how do you -- how can you pay for everything? how can we afford it? i think those are the issues coming to the floor now. >> host: the senate has yet to take up that defense authorization bill and plans to do so next month; is that right? >> guest: yes. >> host: john in wisconsin, independent caller. >> caller: you've been talking about the issue of costs of the military, and what i was wondering is since we have a large defense budget and a large national deficit, i see signs

all the time that say we support the troops and cut my taxes. i don't know how you have military spending and constantly put it on a credit card. i'm an independent and generally pretty conservative, but it bother me that our nieces who are 3 years old could be paying for the wars now. >> host: bill? >> guest: well, it's not just the wars they'll pay for. it's overall government spending. again, that's part of the, you know, the debate. guns and butter. how do you manage to have a responsible federal government budget when you don't have enough money? you know, i don't have all the answers to that, but i definitely come down on the side of the supporting our national defense. i believe that the united states has a major mission in the world and that it needs to continue fulfilling that mission. >> host: one tweets in, haven't been paying attention,

but has the war powers agent come up yet? >> guest: the war powers act, no, it hasn't. >> host: an issue when the house took it up. where things stand with our action in libya? >> guest: well, the administration used a certain provision that allowed it to conduct military operations without having to go to the congress and get formal authorization. we know that that was also an issue after 9/11. the bush administration used basically a resolution as the bay -- basis for its war powers. this is a constant debate in washington over the war powers act, and it will continue. >> host: independent from florida. >> caller: hi, i have a question. does the other country's terrorist group attack us, like

china and russia, like attack maybe a gang or something like that? would we go to their countries and occupy, you know, and try to build up a new government like we do for iraq, iran, or afghanistan? >> host: what's your point? >> caller: that's the question. i'm wondering if, you know, if these higher power countries terrorist groups were to attack us, would we do the same thing we're doing to the middle east? >> guest: well, i would certainly think that the chinese noticed the amazing special forces raid on bin laden showing we have the capability to go into another country and carry out a military operation successfully. whether we would do that, you know, i don't know. .. not know. i cannot imagine a scenario where we would be doing that, but it is certainly conceivable.

you can hypothesize that if terrorists had stolen a nuclear weapon or a device in some other country, our forces are trained to go after those kinds of things. those are the benefits of other nations as well. host: fairfax, va., republican, dolores. caller: you said that we are in many countries defendant, for example, south korea and japan. should these countries not be paying us to do that for them? i am wondering why this president did not have the foresight, him being so analytical as and they say, to see that we do not have enough money to finish the job. guest: on the first part, yes. the military always once war

from nations that also support. most of those countries to pay for some of it, not offsetting of total cost, but some of it does. i think this is an issue, up as the u.s. plans to transfer and number of troops from okinawa to guam. the japanese government is going to spend billions of dollars to take care of that. host: caller: i am a registered democrat, but i am really leaning towards more of a citizen view. it is apparent to many that a lot of our international affairs really come down to dollars. it appears the me go into these countries where we've said we are going to have a democratic

rule, but it appears that they're just looking to increase market share and open up new markets for business. generally speaking, these politicians who run our country are businessmen. they do this to spread business. but the same time, the american people are losing are losing -- american people are losing their homes and jobs. how do you see this thing in to enter national security scheme of things? guest: it goes back to the guns and butter argument. do you spend your money at home or do you want security abroad? that has been a debate that has been under way for decades. some people argue that peace can be assured by promoting stability abroad. that has become a very expensive proposition.

that is being re-evaluated since the 2008 financial crisis. i think that there will probably be some changes to that. can you afford to do these kinds of international security missions? i do not know how that will come out, but that will certainly be debated. host: indianapolis, independent caller. caller: good morning. i am speaking with 25 years' experience as a department of defense auditor. there are spending a lot of money on high ticket items that get you jobs in your home district and you are not sending any money on maintenance and training. that way you end up with flashy equipment but no one that can use it. you have a lot of smaller equipment that cannot operate. secondly, we will never get out

of a problem until we have an accounting system that can tell congress how the money is being spent. that will not happen until the department defense gives up control of their own accounting. the question i have is in do you think there'll ever be the will to stop helping the eu with massive military defense? about 25% at is providing the nuclear umbrella and a defense guarantee the eu nations such as france, germany, spain, and all of these countries that are quite wealthy and could very well spent. they spend less than 1% of their gdp on defense and are quite willing to criticize everything that we do. guest: there's no questions that the europeans have not been spending their fair share on defense and has been riding on the u.s. defense umbrella,

blanket, however you want to put it. some of the things that may have changed that are new concerns about a resurgent russia. we saw the russians going into georgia a few years ago. that definitely alarmed a lot of the eastern european new democracies there. they are obviously concerned about that, but the western europeans definitely have not been doing their fair share. i do not see that there's a lot of the pressure for them to do more so the u.s. can produce when they spend. host: here is the may 29th version of "the washington post." "go big or go home with the weapons that you have." what did they decide on this helicopter? guest: i think they canceled the

program. helicopters are one of the most important counterinsurgency weapons and clearly if you are going to have a counterinsurgency-oriented military, you need new helicopters. host: the caller brought up big weapons systems and there has been talk about a second system for the f 35. how has that been shaping up in the defense debate? where are they when it comes to big weapons and machinery? guest: the house authorization bill provided provisions and they said they would threaten a veto with. one was that they wanted to keep open the idea for alternate engine for the f 35. practical aircraft debate has been raging for the last several years. we have big problems with it. the defense secretary canceled the f-22 which was really the most advanced fighter jet that

we had. they capped the production at 187. they decided arbitrarily, and i do not think analysis was done if we should have a mix of both plans, and we are now going to the f 35 and they want to ever to thousand. there is one big problem. they are designing this in three models, one for the air force, one for the navy carriers, and one for marines for a vertical takeoff and landing. it is plagued with problems, cost overruns, and it is creating nervousness at the top of the military that we do not have this tactical aircraft. that is one big ticket item. how do i get this aircraft feel that? at one hearing last week about the shortfall of 267 aircraft because this has been delayed so long. the older aircraft is being taken out of service to alleviate some of the problem so they will be purchasing more f-

15s. -- f-18's. one was the white house objection to the provision that would require the obama administration to tell congress and the specific terms what it planned to do with our nuclear modernization. this is going back to the debate over the new start treaty with russia. they basically said that there was a provision that said the administration could not undertake provisions under the new start treaty unless they underlined in specific detail what they need to do to the aging nuclear arsenal, the backbone of our strategic nuclear deterrence. in then there are issues related to guantanamo detainees and whether they will be transferred to third countries and issues like that. there were 17 different issues. again, this is early and the

sausage making process and we will see a lot of changes in the senate and the real work in the conference. host: the house and the senate will have to come together and negotiate their differences. republican in kansas. caller: i have a question much of the budget crisis, do you know if anyone is challenging the constitutionality of forcing u.s. taxpayers to provide free education, for health care, and welfare checks to an illegal immigrants, foreigners who are here illegally, stealing our identities, negating taxes by working for cash, and stealing our jobs? host: i think that is outside of bill gertz's expertise. next caller. caller: do not cut me off. i have been watching c-span since the beginning. this is an important call.

who owns "the washington times?" how long have you worked as a reporter for the military? why does he not know about the trillions of dollars that are missing in which donald rahm spelled gave a speech about it should be investigated to find the money -- donald rumsfeld said was missing. guest: i have been at "the washington times" for 26 years and we are under new ownership. we are rebuilding the paper and going forward with a redesign and a rebuilding effort. i have been covering the pentagon for a long time, and it has been a fantastic experience. i have traveled all over the world. i have gone from china, russia, and backe including all points n between. host: when will of the redesign

the launched? guest: we are now in the rebuilding process. they will be announcing a new editor in the coming days. host: wisconsin, go ahead. caller: congressional week is pensions and health care. what affected do they have -- host: pensions. guest: i am not aware that they have a major impact. that is always one of the shares -- one of the issues. a recall one of the editors that mentioned that certain legislation would be swiftly moved to converse. i told them healing thing that moves swiftly through congress is when they do their own pay raises.

host: leon panetta will take over at the pentagon for secretary gates. what are his takes on the spending cuts? guest: that will be interesting. he is walking into a very, very difficult situation. leon panetta is a centrist democrat. he has done a pretty good job at the cia. he is going to have to deal with all of these issues that the outgoing defense secretary has sounded the alarm about. he has some experience in doing that. i would say that he is going to have a very difficult challenge, to be able to work within the pentagon system as it is set up now. we heard from a former dod are offset -- the auditor about how difficult it is to do that, but on the other hand he has the trust of the president so he will be given a lot of authority to try and implement these

large-scale spending cuts. host: one more call for bill gertz, the national security reporter for "the new york times." times."washington caller: a remember you were on a radio show in california in 1999. at that time, you told the george and the audience that the russians had no way to deal with the change going into the new century, okay? you said there missiles were very likely to go off and attack the united states. you said that you had a very secret information because of your contacts, okay? guest: i do not remember saying that. caller: this was a dean -- was

the y2k problem. host: last call for bill gertz from akron, ohio. caller: the donald rumselfd issue $2.3 trillion missing. so you don't know? guest: it keeps going up with every call. host: let's talk about the battle between the administration and republicans over these spending cuts. what does the president want to do to lower the pentagon's budget? what do the republicans want to do? guest: defense has always been a target for liberal democrats.

that is clear. republicans want to hold the line. the have always been in favor of more defense spending. how can they come to terms and finding middle ground where w

very timely and special edition of the treaty leadership forum. we created this leadership forum for locations just like this to have dedicated leaders from the united states, southeast asia, australia, new zealand and the

pacific to share their insights and perspectives on timely and important trends that will impact our lives from investments to security and political affairs to foreign policy and the important basis for all of the above people to people. we are very lucky today to have a good friend, assistant secretary of state kurt campbell with us here this morning. he is a leader in the traditions. he leads from the front -- [laughter] he says what he means. [laughter] no comment on. seriously, he leads from the front. [laughter] he means what he says and he follows through. he's thoughtful, creative and backs good ideas with energy and action, and you can't say that about many people in certain

leadership roles. although she's pervaded brilliant ideas and strategies, secretary clinton and he deployed throughout asia, i can't stand here and not share an example of kurt's leadership that is seared into my own consciousness. we had the unfortunate experience of being together in christchurch's zealand when the devastating earthquake of february 22 hit like a freight train during a lunchtime. it was a tragic day and a lot of us will never forget about 150 american leaders including younger leaders were on hand for the partnership forum which is the vehicle for strengthening and reinvigorating our ties with new zealand and courage of course has been a major driver of this initiative. the support of the friends of new zealand, they evacuate as to the antarctic air base, and we were waiting to be evacuated on that airforce c-130 and was

curved campbell who stood covered in dust and earthquake along with of the new zealand counterpart, and he really took charge. he took charge when the chips were down. he took charge of that evacuation. he sort about who would go first on the airplanes, who would go win and he wasn't first, he was last on their plan and i was really impressed he took great care to personally sit down with the younger leaders and put them at ease as we backed our way out of their and i can't tell you how impressed i was with leadership and action like that. this is an important time for u.s. policy in asia. that's an understatement and i will sure you will explain why. with the secretary planned to head out for the four on and the president looking at the first e east asia summit as well as to hosting the apec leaders' summit

in honolulu this november this is a timely talk. i don't think many people than washington can put 300 people in a room on the morning after memorial day holiday. please, well, my friend and our assistant secretary of state, kurt campbell. [applause] >> thank you very much. i've never seen a program stood up more quickly and greater influence than the one ernie put together the last couple of years. i have more to say about that as the discussion goes. let me welcome everyone on a very hot -- is it august or is it still may? but there is no climate change. [laughter] welcome, everyone come here to csis. let me welcome all of the

ambassadors and colleagues and friends, lots of distinguished people in the audience. ambassador more, a ambassador carla hills, i think you for coming. it's honor to be here. what i'd like to talk about today is our engagement and how we see the next steps when it comes to southeast asia in particular. i'd be happy to take questions or comments but the particular focus today is going to be southeast asia as a whole and i would like to begin with something i think it's extraordinary, as extraordinarily important. as occasionally you will find discussions about whether the united states is back in asia or stepped up hour game. i would like to reject some of the concept because one of the most important things for the foreign policy in asia as a whole is for the last 30 years it has been primarily bipartisan. and the fact we can count on strong bipartisan commitment

from both parties to an expansive engaged strategy in asia has been one of the principal achievements of american foreign policy in asia and one of the most important things we can count on going forward so one of the things i would like to see going forward, and i would counsel my friends in my own administration is to underscore the bipartisan quote the what we've done and what we will seek to do working closely not only with friends on the other side of the all but the legislative branch. clearly the legislative branch has equities and interest in southeast asia and we try to work closely with them as we go forward. that being said, adding it is clear with president obama and sector clinton came in one of the areas they looked at said look we want to intensify our engagement in southeast asia and i think what you've seen the course of the last two and a half years is the beginning of the process, and i see beginning because in order to be successful particularly in

southeast asia, it is going to be important to continue this to make sure that it lasts not only this administration but further in the future administrations that it's absolutely central to be able to underscore an enduring long term step in that engagement in southeast asia. so if you look at the things sector clinton and president obama did at the outset, first of all regularized the truffle, psychiatry clinton has been to asia seven times. many of the trips have been to the southeast asia. she has a couple of remaining countries she would like to go to all of the southeast asian countries during her tenure in office. we signed the treaty and the cooperation that's an important source of guidepost to get through that allows us to have more intense engagement on a variety of not only bilateral initiatives but institutional initiatives as well. president jul instructed the department to undertake the brummer review on burba and we

went through that process over the course of the first eight months, and we put in place very careful new strategy which is designed both to keep our pressure in place but also to explore opportunities for consequential engagement with the new leaders in particular we were one of the first nations to appoint an ambassador in jakarta. we believe one of the most important initiatives that can occur on the course of the next several years and the infrastructure of the institutions you see the developing in a variety of places that in particular when it comes to the secretary it takes on new responsibilities and authorities we think it's extraordinarily important sector clinton will be reaching out to all the partners that participate in the regional forum requesting them also to send an ambassador said that

david, who has been confirmed now for a couple of weeks a close adviser to the president said he is not alone. he is currently serving with japanese colleagues but we would like to see that full house going forward. we have come prepared each year in the form we spend an enormous amount of time on a range of issues both security, economic, political and cultural and i will talk about that as we go forward. and we have come hopefully bearing complex will decisis initiatives. last year in vietnam we can and worked closely with a variety of countries related to the initiative and we can talk about that as we go forward. i think what we try to do is demonstrate we recognize for a host of reasons, and i think we all look understand the detailed facts that made southeast asia more important economically to

the united states than even western europe and how to make that more clearly understood by the american people has been one of the things we have worked on consequently going forward. rather be in bye country by country i thought i would spend a few minutes to talk about the institutions. it's very rare that we think about the specific institutions and what our agenda is but in particular southeast asia of a current period really calls for coming forward with an integrated strategy are you go forward. before you do that let me say that oftentimes if you ask people what are the overarching goals of american foreign policy not only in the world, but in a particular place, you often see a breakdown between to general world views. the one which of you would see one of the most important things for the american foreign policy is to sustain american