through a variety of mechanisms. strong military commitments, underscoring the leadership role of the united states, that is a critical component of american foreign policy. there is a second school buses one of the most important things the united states has to do over the course of the next several years is to prepare the way for the recognition that other states arrived at and it's important to create institutions and capabilities in which other countries are asked to share the responsibilities of global power. and too often i think it is the case that these schools of thought are played off against one another. but it seems to me the most creative diplomacy and the most important diplomacy over the course of the next several years is a blending of both. clearly smart diplomacy asks and demands us in the united states to take steps to secure american

power to do what is necessary to make sure our position both as a dominant economic security and political player in doors, but at the same time creates capacities and institutions whereby rising states and other states have a chance to interact and can play a larger role in the shaping of the very institutions the will define the 21st century as a whole. it's words that end, asia as all of you know have a number of institutions. each with different memberships with different agendas. it's been signed so have shallow roots and is going to be critical over the course of the next several decades to put them in deeper roots to make investments in specific initiatives and institutions in and to see those through to stronger completion and stronger roots. i'm going to go through with a

couple of those institutions are and how the united states is proposing to engage with them. the biggest surprise i have when going to the regional forum two years ago is how much the institution evidenced in the years i was out of government. we spent most of our time at the regional forum thinking about the performance and the social engagement in the intervening period that has become a very serious institution. it has been engaged on some of the most difficult and challenging issues confronting asia over the course of the many years. proliferation, challenges associated with burma, questions related to what is the best way to promote dialogue and areas surrounding the maritime security and the like. one of the things we have sought to do is to use the regional forum as a venue to engage key partners, friends and allies on the issues of importance. that is one of the reasons why

we work closely with so many nations after to underscore principles of the time security that were associated with the initiative last year. this year 63 clinton will be going to bali for meetings both bilateral meetings in the trilateral engagements we will talk more about in a moment and also for the regional forum. i want to underscore one of the most important things we seek to do this year both the regional forum and the east asian summit is to demonstrate very clearly the commitment the united states has to work with the asia-pacific region so we will be seeking to highlight areas of common pursuit, concrete cooperation and specific projects the two countries are going to be prepared to work together on so we want to dispel

any concerns in southeast asia we see this as a venue for larger competition that will

asia-pacific region and move it back towards its original intent. i think over the course of the many years it had taken on a set of responsibilities closer to security, and

i think we will come prepared with how to interact on the existing agenda. at the same time i think we will also try to find a few areas where we hoped to make modest contributions and gifts our insight to where we think the institution should go over the course of the coming year, and they will be in areas associated

with disaster assistance. one of the things that we have found in the recent years whether it be tsunami is or earthquakes and tragedy in new zealand or japan is the need for the institution as a whole to have capacities to rapidly respond to those challenges, and that's one of the things we would like to explore when the president goes to volley as a whole. also hope to continue the practice of the u.s. summit. as you know, we had our first-ever meeting in new york last year after the u.s. meeting on the singapore the year before. we've had some wonderful suggestions and ideas. we are working with a variety of countries to expand the educational opportunities both for students from southeast asia coming to the united states and vice versa. and also to create opportunities

for a much larger group of american coleworts involved in the teaching of english throughout southeast asia. it is the number one goal of many of the leaders that we work with and it's the desire to see their populations more skilled in english and the role that the united states can play on that i.t. is welcomed as a whole. you will also see that in several of these initiatives we will be focused closely on trade. ivies you have all heard and have seen the reports about the tpp and lots of good work to be done. i will let my trade officials talk more of that, and when they are all together in apec in november. i would simply say that if you look at the totality of the organizations, again, different memberships, different agendas, one of the goals and ideas is to create some form of loose

integration more understanding of perhaps how the aussie on regional forum might relate to ideas put forward by the east asia senate, how the process that the meeting of the defense ministers can work on a variety of issues like piracy and the like and how that can work in a larger set as institutional frameworks. this is the enormously challenging given again the plurality of then use, the difference in memberships, but one of the things that is great to be absolutely essential if asia is to enjoy the promise in the 21st century is that the institutions of asia have to reflect the growing dynamism, and they have to address the specific issues that confront all of us. the united states accepts the critical institutions both the es and the asian forum that it's the central component and that the institutions are built

around. that doesn't mean the northeast asian issues or any issues in the pacific are affecting australia and new zealand should not get important attention. in fact one of the things we think is most important is if you look over the course of the last several years, we think that the way that northeast asia issues have been addressed at the regional forum and other institutions like the es has left other countries wanting a different approach and i think we want to work with southeast asia on that process as we go forward. on specific countries -- i think i will go through this quickly -- but you understand some of the things we're trying to work on but i will go through as quickly in some of the things that you expect we would be wanting to work on over the course of the next couple of years. obviously given president obama's unique experience in asia, it has given us an enormous opportunity for the

comprehensive partnership to take this bilateral relationship to the next level. i.t. give you made a list of those countries that were important to the united states it's a little awkward important to the united states the united states didn't recognize the importance and the issue to be a top of the list incredibly important not only in its role as a leader in southeast asia but also its role in increasing leedy beyond southeast asia in the middle east and beyond. we are finding that the experience in indonesia the course of the last several years speaks extensively and importantly to countries in the middle east that are struggling with a number of very trying and difficult domestic issues. we have been very pleased that our progress we have seen today with the new philippine government. working closely with the foreign minister, the ambassador here we have made a number of decisions about partnerships and how we would like to work together on

maritime security and a range of economic initiatives, and i think that we are beginning to see a degree of progress in relations between washington and that have been frankly difficult to get traction, and we are finding the traction as we go forward. everyone appreciates the important role singapore house played. i will talk to a mormon to delete a moment about the review that the united states while the same time remaining the very strong commitment northeast asia is seeking to do more to southeast asia to send a diversified message and also to increasingly linked operationally the concept of the indian ocean with the pacific points are made extraordinarily vivid in the book monsoon. one of the first countries to step up and say we want to be engaged in this has been singapore. if you want to have good advice, if you want to hear it on furnished and even if it's

tough, go to singapore, and singapore will give you a very clear assessment of how you are doing in the region, and that advice and counsel has been enormously important for us on every time mention that we have been involved in over the course of the last couple of years whether it is architecture, with its issues associated with trade, with a disapproval position on the region as a whole. we have made also important progress over the course of the last several years with vietnam and i think you have seen a very clearly with respect to our economic engagement and a variety of our political interactions. i think the only limiting factor in the current context is the domestic situation in vietnam earlier with our friends in hanoi and our desire to take the next step in the relationship we will have to see further progress on the domestic environment as a whole. i find that the strategic intersections with our friends a copy of mom are extraordinarily

impressive and i think one of the things we want to do is make clear to vietnam with our desire and intention to improve the relationship going forward based on their acknowledgement of some of the situations they are facing domestically. in malaysia we've seen unprecedented progress on a variety of issues beginning with non-proliferation but not ending there. we worked closely on a whole host of bilateral initiatives. the president had an excellent meeting with the press minister during the nuclear summit last year, and i think this is the relationship that has traditionally underperforms and there is a recognition that working together with the united states and malaysia can do going forward as a whole. i would turn to the last couple of countries as we conclude here, but i do want to say a few things of the global posture review. secretary gates and his team and others aren't involved in a very

intense process and you know the mantra diversified politically stable arrangements are our overall goal is to secure a strong and enduring american presence that sends a message of commitment not just to northeast asia but increasingly southeast asia and other countries in the region as a whole. it is an animated feature of the global posture review, and you'll see in shangri-la secretary gave some feeling some concepts and ideas in the coming days as a whole. let me just say what's the to do list, per the things we think are important going forward and i will go through those quickly if i can. the area that i would like to see beginning with me more consequential engagement is in thailand. we would like very much to work closely it is a complex period and i think that you will follow the situation closely. we have an election on july forward. we have been involved deeply in

the discussions with friends in thailand about what our expectations are and we worked closely with indonesia on the situation on the thai cambodian border that we hope to remain peaceful and see a dialogue in that respect. overall, we believe that as a treaty ally this is a relationship that we need to focus on more and the course of the next several months is likely to be decisive. cambodia and laos, both countries in which the united states has important though smaller engagements with respect to our overall programs. we have put in place schedules of strategic engagement which frankly have been remarkably productive. we seek to take these to the next course of the next year or so. i think some of the other things i would like to say the process

of creating deeper institutional commitments in asia where there is the secretariat or a clear sense of how the plus three for instance or plus six engages in the act. it sounds easy but it's extraordinarily challenging. that's one of the things i think the united states wants to work on over the course the next several years. i will say i think the united states has a very clear view that if it's important inconsequential, if it involves the political, the strategic, the military issues confronting the asia and pacific region than the united states wants a seat to the table and we want to be engaged in those conversations going forward but i think that process is going to be more challenging and taking longer period of time when forward. most particularly is how northeast asia issues are addressed within the larger context of the senate and the

regional forum. they cannot be bystanders, they have to have an active engagement in this overall process if these vehicles are to be important going forward. let me also say that despite the challenges in burma the united states remains committed to a process of dialogue. we haven't changed our policy sanctions and various policies designed to put pressure on the regime but at the same time i think it is our policy review has underscored we are prepared to work with the new government in a positive way given the appropriate signs if there are any coming. joe just got back and we are in the process of going over his interactions while he was there

in country at think it would be fair to say to date we have been generally disappointed and underwhelmed by the progress that we have seen. it is often said that we love when we go to china we hear very complex and wonderful stories. the united states has very few quaint streets but one of the ones we use is it takes two to tango. we need a dancing partner to be engaged in the complex diplomacy and we want to see more from our friends and it's not enough to say be patient, give us time. there's been an enormous amount of time. there's been substantial patience first from our friends for years hoping and waiting for progress that hasn't come to pass. so despite the disappointment in the elections, we believe that there is the prospect for the dialogue here we are deeply involved in a dialogue with of their key players inside of the

country, deeply engaged with the party as well as other groups involved at ethnic minorities and others in the parliament and we will continue that process of the dual engagement going forward. last let me say one of the most important things we can do is to build institutions and awareness here in washington, d.c.. i often tell my friends in southeast asia why don't these issues get as much attention? frankly it's because the institutions only of late have gathered enough steam to support our larger goals and ambitions. the business council has done a fantastic job but she needs more support. again, i just cannot -- every day when i look at what they've done it's just astonishing to me what they've been able to put together. but frankly, nothing improves performance like competition,

nothing improves performance -- i'm sorry -- [laughter] and the ability to be put to put together consequential and important programs. one of three southeast asian visitor comes to washington we want the opportunity to bring their wisdom and knowledge to bear with the important americans. i think we can do much more in this respect of the course of the next couple of years. i'm going to be working with a lot of institutional supporters both think tanks and others to bring this to bear. i think with that i will stop and i would be happy to take any questions or comments you might have. [applause] thank you very much. i -- why don't we take questions sitting down so you can be comfortable. i would like to ask when you have a question just tell us what your name is and who you

represent and please, questions, not comments. we will start here in the front. >> mr. scirica last week 45 senators from both sides of the aisle sent a letter to the president and earlier senator lugar sent a letter to the secretary urging the administration to approve the sales to taiwan as soon as possible. what kind of an impact will these letters have on the administration's decision whether and when to sell to tie one? thank you very much. >> obviously i'm not going to get into any specifics associated with our sales. i would simply say that we take the exit could branch through --

every administration takes it very seriously. we understand the responsibility in that regard and recognize that the taiwan relations act requires respect to the partnership and the executive and legislative branch and we take that relationship seriously with feedback in this respect as important. all i can tell you is the united states understands our role with respect to the maintenance of peace and stability across the street. >> thank you assistant circuit three. given the importance to the region, can you tell us a little bit about how you think burma william gage in 2014 and whether you think that's an opportunity and how the u.s. will engage with the prospect of the future as an opportunity will be a

challenge or a mixture? thank you. >> first let me say i'm not sure that that decision has been taken yet. i would say in terms of our own bilateral relationship there are several things we've been looking for and we try to underscore and we think that progress on these issues would be important in any circumstances, but clearly if that country seeks to play a larger role in the international stage. we have asked that there be a political process, a dialogue between the new government come and we think this is entirely appropriate and we'd like to see that come to pass quickly. we recognize and understand that there's a large number of political prisoners inside the country. we would like to see the release or the beginning of the process of release of these prisoners. we think there would send an important message going forward.

obviously, seeing a more responsible dialog between the government and the various countries, various ethnic minorities and organizations inside the country would be very welcome, and we have to underscore the economic performance and the spending on health and welfare is among the lowest of any country in the entire planet so we like to see improvement in this regard, and perhaps last but in no way least we need to see burma, myanmar, respond very clearly to international mandates associated with the security council resolution and the materials from north korea, and we did underscore and all of our meetings with our interlocutors the importance of progress on

each of these issues. we recognize that it is a new government and assigned people with new responsibilities never the less we expect there to be a clear break with past presidents if there is to be a better relationship with the international community going forward. >> [inaudible] >> in terms of this how would you address the contradiction between the u.s. leadership and

the contradiction between the u.s. leading economy which excludes china and dominating the ten plus whatever. >> first, think you. it's an important question. i think the key thing right now for the united states is to underscore the commitment obviously we are in the process of dialogue with capitol hill and not only the columbia and panel as well. i think the tpp have reached a critical juncture and it's not in -- you're correct a sidestepped that. that is largely because of the very important stage we are at right now in terms of the negotiations and discussions ongoing. i don't think i'm going to get into the sort of future particular sort of architectural

, but i would simply say that the then you is by its design not meant to exclude, in fact i think there is a clear statement by the key negotiators and key players inside of the u.s. government that is very much prepared to engage in the countries interested in a dialogue about tpp, so i don't think that those possible additions in the future have in any way been ruled out. >> foreign policy magazine. you mentioned the summit in senator ann gates and mengin you might be on building some specifics. could you please elaborate or

mengin what we might expect? >> the way that works in government and when someone says -- she's going to be talking about the force posture work that is being done at the pentagon at the dialogue and i think that is pretty much washington talk for standby. [laughter] >> thank you. you mentioned south china and i think it's a portent to address a year ago this is the issue that created from u.s.-china and the southeast asian countries. so a year later to i think china is playing its role in southeast asia would you expect from china, thank you. >> i very much appreciate questions. let me say that last year

although a lot of attention to this, if you look carefully at official statements made by psychiatry clinton and people traveling with her and also subsequently, you will never once find the mention of any country with related to the south china sea initiative. this was an attempt to lay out some expectations about the norms and process. one of the things we have seen in recent months that we support completely is the dialogue that has been undertaken by indonesia has to share with china, and i think we support this process dialogue between china on issues related to the south china sea, and the united states has in many respects tried to let that process play out. we continue to have a strategic interest as a secretary clinton has underscore but we think right now the most important thing is to see a process of

dialogue emerge. i think that process is -- it is hits and starts, but i think there has been some progress, and i know that leaders in beijing are committed to building strong ties through a whole range of initiatives with southeast asian countries and as i try to mention here, one of the things that we want to underscore in our meetings in the east asian summit is the united states and china one to work together and demonstrate that very clearly through specific initiatives. ..

>> thailand and cambodia to have uncertainty has been disconcerting. i think that role has been extraordinarily important. and, of course, the role that they have played in trying to begin a complex process of dialogue. not only with stakeholders like the united states and europe, but also the rest of the southeast asia with burma and myanmar. i think indonesia playing the larger role is very welcome. and the united states seeks to support it completely. >> back gentleman in the pink shirt. >> thank you for this

opportunity. how does the united states deficit issue shadow on the effort that you talked about? you said you maintained the commitment to northeast asia and has to southeast asia. but on the -- especially on the security side. can the u.s. manage to enhance the commitment throughout the region? thank you. >> thank you very much. it's an important question. and i think it affects not only our military presence, but particularly our other assets of governance, including our a.i.d. work, that's the work and the capacity that will be most urgently asked. i think one needs to only look at the statements of president obama, national security advisor, secretary clinton, secretary gates, clear desire over time that the united states shifts the gravity of our strategic focus from the middle east and south asia more towards

asia. i think there is a recognition that these challenges facing in the middle east are extraordinarily important. the truth is the 21st century -- much of the history of the 21st century will be written in the asia-pacific region. it's going to be important for the united states to step up our game. that's what we are determined to do going forward. i say that in the context of a strong commitment across the political aisle. if i could just make one other point to that, you know, it is the case that often times we use the term asia-pacific. but the truth is it's the second word in that that gets short shrift. if you look over the course of the last 20 years where we have profoundly walked away from some of our enduring, strategic, moral political commitments it is in the pacific ocean arena. one the things that we have been attempting to do over the course of the last couple of years is

to work with new zealand, work with australia and other countries to support them and also to put more capacity in the pacific. where even small investments go along way given the challenges of poverty, climate change, health and the like. and this fall in auckland will be the 40th anniversary. united states will bring the largest delegation from assistance from the military from the state department and other capacities to demonstrate our strong support for enduring american commitment in the region. i believe that there is the deep understanding. one the most important interactions is the design that

the united states not step back from the asian-pacific region to do what's necessary to create the infrastructure, the operating system that will allow for strong enduring presence now and into the future. >> thank you for calling on me. this row has two questions. >> it's a good row. i always try to sit in that row. >> yeah, i was planning to move over there. anyway, my question is regarding -- i appreciate you. my question is can you give us more specifics on the government to government military assistance regarding coastal watch and maritime security and also the new challenge corporation?

i know it's linked with the human trafficking record. is it on track when it starts it's implementation with you? >> okay. i think i understand your question. okay. look i, you know, we've had some important work that has been already completed on the millennium challenge corporation and we look forward to new projecting and engagements both in the philippines and in asia also in the pacific as well. there are enormous and important criteria that have to be falled with the respect to specific investments. we work closely with the countries that meet those criteria. i think we were very pleased to be able to welcome the philippines into this agenda over the course of the last several months. on the specifics associated with our military engagement, i think i could give you a general

overview, but probably would refer you to the pentagon to go over some of the specifics associated with coastal watch and the like. i will simply say that one of our goals going forward will be to increase the capacity of friends and partners to play a role in situational awareness with respect to their own maritime claims and a stronger degree of consultation with respect to issues that take place in the maritime realm. i think you see with all of our partners in asia pacific region that some of our discussions have shifted from simply issues associated with traditional areas which tend to be associated with armies, given

the role that armies have played in southeast asia. increasingly to naval coast guard and other capabilities. which will be central to the maintenance in southeast asia as we go forward. >> last question, in the back, the gentleman. >> thank you. mr. secretary, i have a follow up question about south tennessee. you mention that dialogue between china and asia is undergoing and also taking progress. but in the -- during the past week, we saw the new dispute between china and does the united states take any position on this dispute? thank you. >> thank you, almost every week we see instance of various kinds between fishing vessels, between

scientific vessels, prospecting ships and the like. our general policy remains the same. we discourage and resort to violence in the circumstances or threats and we want to see a process of dialogue emerge. we communicate intensively and privately with a various of states associated with the south china seas. i think we were going to continue to do that as we go forward. we'll take one more. >> one more question. right up front. >> that was a hard one. >> a nice easy question. >> i have two. >> well, thank you so much for your insight. nhk television. i'm sure you know it's the third time that kim jong il has visited china. and i want to know how you are -- what's your take -- what your take is on china intensively

trying to help north korea and how it might be hindering all of the efforts that you and your allies are trying to in terms of addressing the north korea nuclear issues. if you are planning to address this at the fn, then to china directly, when you say you are working with china with you, how are you trying to address this issue in particularly? thank you. >> first of all, we have not yet gotten a formal readout from chinese friends about the visit of kim jong il to china. we look forward to those discussions in the coming weeks. i think our position remains the same. we both privately and publicly encourage china to make clear to north korea our expectations of what's necessary with respect to both an important dialogue that needs to take place between

north korea and south korea, but also the necessary steps that are necessary -- that should take place before the resumption of the six party talks. thanks. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking craig for the comprehensive look. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span2. president obama announces his nominee to head the commerce department. then congressman --

>> now available, c-span congressional directory. with information including twitter addresses, district maps, and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop.

>> president obama today announced the nominee for congress secretary. former ceo john briceson was confirmed. from the white house state dining room, this is five minutes. president obama: good morning, everybody. today i am pleased to announce that i will nominate john briceson to be the nation's next commerce secretary. john is somebody that will bring together a wealth of experience in

the public and private sectors. in my mind, nothing has prepared him more for the demanding role. a role that required diplomacy, delegations and folks with strong views than being the father of four daughters. they are all here today. as with john's wife louise, and i'm sure she gets the credit to how they are turned out. he's going to be part of my economic team promoting business and products across the world, by working with companies here at home and representing the interest, i'm confident that he's going to help us meet the goal that i set of doubling our nation's experts. in the new role, john will be able to draw on decades of business experience across a range of industries from the role on the boards of major companies like disney and boeing to his leadership in the clean energy industry.

that's the expertise that will help us create new jobs and make america more competitive in the global economy. of course, john will be building on the success of outgoing secretary gary locke who has tirelessly advanced u.s. economic aboard and supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs here in america. including an agreement with china where gary will now be serving as our next ambassador. we couldn't be proud of him and confident he's going to be doing an outstanding year there. of course, the key to the export goal will be promoting clean energy in america. that's how we will reduce our competitiveness and encourage new businesses and job to take route on our shores. john understands this better than virtually anybody. throughout a distinguished career in which he's led nonprofits, government agencies, and large companies, he's been a fierce proponent of alternative energy.

as a young man with a degree in hand with a prestigious law school, he took a chance on an idea that he cared about and co-founded the national defense council. and it was important for protecting the safety of our air and water. it was then he caught the eye of a young california governor named jerry brown. i'm not sure what happened to that guy. [laughter] president obama: but for john it led to leadership positions in government where he got a firsthand look at the real life impact from energy to water policies to water conservation and electricity production. later he rose to become the chair, one the nation's largest utility companies. john headed the company for almost 20 years, during which he helped edison become a leader in solar and wind power

improving the profitability of clean energy. just before retired from the company, he launched a plan to turn 65 million square feet into solar power stations. the largest array in the country with enough electricity for more than 160,000 homes. today he advises companies around the world as a business leader who understands what it takes to innovate, create jobs, and persevere through tough times. he continues to carry himself with the integrity and sense of responsibility that have guided him his entire life. his experience and these qualities will serve our nation well as john takes on yet another tough assignment in his career. so i want to thank gary again for the extraordinary service. he has done an outstanding job while at commerce. and john, i'm grateful to you for your willingness to serve. i look forward to working with you. i know that you will help us deliver the kinds of growth, prosperity, and job

creation here in america that we all want. thank you very much, both of you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, everybody. >> today house democratic whip steny hoyer touted the democratics "make it in america" initiative, aimed at increasing u.s. manufacturing and expressed hope that republicans would support parts of their plans. his remarks came during the discussion of u.s. manufacturing, hosted by the center for american process action fund. this is about an hour. >> welcome to the center for american progress. i'm the vice president for economic policy here. so let me start by saying i flew back from

cairo, egypt yesterday. which i see is relevant for a couple of reasons. first of all, i'm really jet lagged. i had originally planned on taking today off. this event was too exciting to miss. as long as i stay awake for the whole thing, but i'm very excited for it. the second reason that i bring it up, i was in cairo for a conference on youth unemployment. it was organized by something that we have -- we organize out of here called the just josh network. which is a network of think tanks from both developing world countries and the developed world. it works on labor market issues, you know, of mutual interest. and they are at the conference, there was a comment by one of the egyptian economist that made me think about our program today. he was urging egypt to move away from industrialization and to instead focus on agriculture. putting back into

cultivation land which has been taken out of use by the government there. i asked him during a break about that. because, usually when you think it. when you are facing large problems of employment and you want to advance the economy one don't think about going back to agriculture. and what he said to me was sort of interesting. his answer was more or less that he didn't think egyptians could build that. ironic, given that i visited the pyramids the next day. but that was what he said. and, you know, his example was that he said the only reason there was fine assembly of automobiles in egypt, because they were tariffed and that the egyptians factories produced shotly made vehicles and egyptian factories would never compete. before i go on, i talked to other egyptians. they did not necessarily share this view. that was his perspective. what struck me was to

some extent, that is some of the kind of thing that is we've heard about about u.s. manufacturing. it's, of course, especially i would say an elite political and in some cases economic circles. and, i mean, it's of course absurd. for people to be talking in egypt about given the different histories of our country and in terms of manufacturing, and very different situations presently. and 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 that it should to what is still very much an important sector. and that attitude and what i saw as the dangers of it was a large part in motivating me to write a paper that we released a couple of months ago that focused on how notwithstanding the challenges that we faced in -- that manufacturing faces and, you know, the head lying

grabbing attention to losses in employment and manufacturing. u.s. manufacturing is still very competitive and produces enormous value and really hits above it's weight in our economic well being. that we have copies of the report. it's called the importance and promise. i co-wrote it with kate gordon. to me the most interesting part of the paper, there's a lot of numbers in it. what they show is the u.s. is still outproducing every other manufacturing country in the world. we are a major experting of manufactured goods. and it's not because consumers and purchasers around the world are buying more than made products out of an act of charity. they are doing it because they are producing competitive good in large quantities. that was a modest goal. to get people to realize to understand that the u.s. manufacturing is far from a lost cause. it's not just some

historic relic. it's actually a great strength of the country. what it didn't do was outline policy 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 mentioning that a lot of that is because of very aggressive, promanufacturing policies of other countries. we do have another paper, a paper that's being released today which is by barack and hendrick called "low carbon innovation" which focused on policies particularly about the relationship of manufacturing and moving to a low car borrow economy. but some of those policies actually have broader applications within manufacturing. we also have a great panel to talk about policies and where manufacturing is going in this country. let many introduce that

panel. congressman steny hoyer of maryland to my immediate right is a great friend and needs little introduction. but nevertheless, he's been a member of the house since 1981. he's currently the house democratic whip and second ranking member of the house democratic leadership. he previously served as the minority -- majority leader from -- yeah, yeah. [laughter] >> he was majority leader from 2007 through 2011 and prior to that, he was also the democratic whip. he's been a very strong advocate. i know our meetings with him, you know, 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 security. it's been a huge focus. you know, i think, very relevant today, he's

spearheading the make it in america strategy to create 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 brought with him. next let me introduce ron bloom. ron has been the administration senior counselor for manufacturing policy since september 2009 and has been senior advisor to the secretary of the treasury on the president's task force on the automobile industry. i think it's worth remembering that just two years ago, the american auto industry was on the brink of collapse. the president made a different decision to provide support to chrysler and general motors. ron was a key player in the administration team that engineered those 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 brings the total to over $10 billion. earlier, gm announced it was hiring 4200 more workers in the u.s. so, you know, i think, you know, reflecting back on that experience, i think, you know, it's useful as we think about, you know, the public role and the relationship to manufacturing. prior to joining the treasury department, ron served as the special assistant to the united states steel workers. he's a graduate of wesley and has an mba with distinction from harvard business school. chandra brown is the president of united streetcar. it was founded in 2009 and is the only manufacturing of

streetcars, oregon iron is a world class metal fabricator and systems, serving many industries. she works for oregon iron works where she started as an administrative temple over 15 years. as oiw she's responsible for business and marketing actually. thanks in large part to her efforts, oiw is one the ten overalled most admiralled companies in oregon according to the portland business journal. in august 2010, she was appointed to serve on the u.s. manufacturing council by secretary commerce lock and in february 2010, she was appointed to the oregon business development commission. so now let's turn to the conversation. let my actually start with you, ron. i just wanted to ask you, you know, obviously the administration came in at a real low in the

economy. and not just in manufacturing, but definitely in manufacturing. i wondered if you could just frame things up a little bit around sort of where we were, where we've come, what kind of progress that we've made. specifically in manufacturing. >> thank you, it's great to be here. and the comment about the low, i think it's a good place to start, unfortunately. you know, we very good week last week with chrysler paying back the balance of the money that they borrowed. but it is really remarkable if you think 28 months ago what our economy was doing. we lost 800,000 jobs in the month the president took office. the automobile industry was literally teetering on the edge of collapse. it's kind of easy, sitting here in washington, but 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 that you have 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. obviously the president took an enormous series of actions, the recovery act, other things which help stabilize the economy, working obviously very closely with democratic majorities in the house and senate at the time. and those overall things are the reason that we are not in a worldwide depression today. i think again, occasionally, we need to just stop and kind of remember that. let me talk about manufacturing. because during the recession, manufacturing lost $2 million. 25% of all job loss was in manufacturing. and this exacerbated a trend that had been happening through the period beginning at the beginning of the decade

where manufacturing lost $4 billion between 2000 and 2007. i think what we had going on there in america was the two very, very dangerous beliefs that were people like representative hoyer never bought it, but a lot of people in this town believed two things about manufacturing. first they believe that manufacturing's decline was inevitable. that was, in fact, what it had to be. they thought it was a good thing. they thought it 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. 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 of 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 competitiveness 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 decline. that there are many, many things that we can do in america and do them well and we can be a leader in global economy and manufacturing, number one. and number two, while the decline is not inevitable, it's actually quite dangerous. let me focus on one point which i think represents a bit of a change in the way policy folks have thought about this problem. again, there has been people like representative hoyer who have been trying to

sound this alarm bell for a long time. i think they are getting heard now a lot more opinion and the president is trying to exemplify those efforts. that belief to invent stuff here and make stuff here is now under serious reconsideration. what people are now beginning to understand, this is a critical piece of business is that if we let manufacturing go, the innovation will follow it. and if you look at how both other companies are behaving, how corporations are behaving, if they relocate their manufacturing operations, slowly over time, r&d and innovation will go with it. this is a feedback that happens when companies make things that feeds back into their ability to innovation. if we let the manufacturing go, our ability to be a gloam global leader in innovation, which i think everybody would agree is central to the future is at risk as well. so i think that reframing of the discussion is critical.

let me just say one more thing. i could do the whole thing. i'll try to be belief. i want to make one other point. 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 john's who's create the 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 r&d, whether it's funding stem education, whether it's making sure we have a good patent system, all of these things, whether it's making sure we have the right kind of tax poll -- tax policies

that government and people believe the market will solve the problem haven't 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 over reach. we don't want to do things that the private sector can do and will do better. we are not humble about the necessity for a vibrant role for the government. our job is to set the table to make sure that 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. and i think that's really what the administration's policies are about. obviously we have a huge distance to go. no one is in respect 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. you've made this a real focus. you know, i think we'd like to hear why you think manufacturing is important. also specifically with respect to make it in america, i mean to be interesting, you know, to hear your articulation of why do you think that's important? but i also, you know, 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 that you are trying to pull to help the manufacturing sector? >> well, first of all, thank you very much, michael for having here us. i want to thank c.a.p., and john, somebody that does real things every day. that do real things that sometimes people don't understand. clearly in our 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. a lot of discussion in the last, listening to 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. not only that, they have a real impact on the creation of other jobs in the economy. we had a pollster come in and say that one the most positive responses the american people gave in a poll was to the

phrase made in america. they thought 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 were discussing, i said, you know, we ought to name our agenda, the 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 to profitably here in america. and make it, of course, had two meanings. make it, you are going to succeed, win, get the objective. and then make it in america, you are going to actually make a good. for those of us who do shopping and particularly it's so

clear to me at christmas time. go and buy toys for children and grandchildren and now great grandchildren. you see made in china, made some place else. you say to yourself where are the jobs that are creating these goods. you say to yourself, overseas. so we focused on a make it in america agenda. everybody enthuse enthusiastic about it because it can be unifying. not devicive. we have too much division and disagreement on the direction that we ought to go. when you have 85% of the american public saying we need a make it in america agenda. and very frankly, it out polled almost all of the other issues by a substantial amount. and if you use made in america and make in america together, they

out poll almost all of the other issues combined as a focus. people obviously concerned about jobs. andy grove spoke about make it in america. he didn't refer it to exactly that. he said what we're doing in america, as ron pointed to, we are inventing things in america. we are 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 last christmas. two christmases ago. that kindle, of course, was invented in the united states of america. now, however, when you spent $185 or $250 or whatever you spent, less than 25% of that is american. in terms of value that's 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 assist in making sure that people can do so and do so properly. they owe it to their stockholders to do so profitably. then we look at what other countries are doing. andrew with dow chemical has written a book that i brought along. we wrote the book, by the way, after we came up with it. no copyright. we want everybody to use this phrase in which he says make it in america. got eight chaptered on a) why that's important, b) how to do it. first of all, clearly the president of the united states in his state of the union talked about tax policy. the tax policy between ourselves and the rest of the world. if we are going to be able to encourage the

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 need to make sure that we regulate it in a way that provided safety and oversight and the following of statues and laws, but that did not impede the manufacturing progress, the growth of businesses that were manufacturing things. and he -- both points out 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 pointed ron bloom, who's been in the manufacturing process, knowing the kinds of jobs that can be created, and knows the impact they will have. we make the best deal in the world now. there was a time when we didn't. why? because we didn't

upgrade our steal making capability. and we lost our edge. well, we are now back. we make the best deal and we can sell it competitively around the world. so that what we are focused on is tax policy, regulatory policy, infrastructure, we must invest in infrastructure in this country. also investments in school, and education, and almost everybody agrees the government state, government, or local, needs to invest so that chandra can do the jobs if we are going to compete. i found out that we can do it. we can make it in america. how it works, it has come to this country and is making suvs in south carolina and

selling them in europe. now they are selling them here too. they are selling them in europe. germany when we talk about salaries, has substantially higher salaries for manufacturing jobs than we do here. and they are one the leading experters in the world. high percentage of their gross national product comes from experts. so that we can do it if we set our mind to it and make it a priority. one the bills in the make it in america agenda is to make sure we have a manufacturing strategy in america. a plan to win. the president talks about winning the future. we want to do that. if you are 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, end i believe, we are going to be the kind of economy that creates jobs and is competitive worldwide. >> thank you. chandra, maybe you could talk a the 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, it's a pleasure to be here. i wanted to thank captain. i'm on such an increasingly distinguished panel here with three gentleman that know a million statistics and information i encourage you to ask them everything. what i'm going to talk about, they are the brilliant ones, i'm going to tell a story about how everything they have just talked about impacts my company and the workers that we have both at work at

iron works and united streetcar. we would not be where we are at today without these government programs and this partnership. i mean it's as simple as that. 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. that's where 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 brought 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 so aptly put, we are still the most productive and the 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 gentleman 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. but what our primary focus is on building and creating manufacturing industries in the united states that are going to have unlimited growth. and again, just some very specific practical example. united streetcar was formed basically in december of 2005. so really 2006. since then, as i said, the help of the federal government, we built this prototype modern streetcar. where we are at today, we have over 50 million in order. zero to 50 million. we took 100% basically foreign designed week, converted it to 70% because we want to make

by american which is a critical law that must be strengthening. then again with the help of the federal government and the federal transition 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 think we should double and be over 100 million within a certain time frame. so the next year or two. so 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, the great thing about manufacturing, is

that it's a huge amount of trickledown if you will. i have over for one streetcar, over 200 vendors across 20 states. you know what a lot of these folks told us, the other smaller manufacturers, they had never built a product for 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 and commuter rail. it opens up the new market. it's not just about the one company, it's the reality of people that build seat, glass, windows, it's a new industry and product that is now done competitively here in the united states. so it doesn't come without investment. i do want to say from the private sector, we have to do our part. we have invested well over 10 million.

for example, we built the streetcar test track with our own funds. the only one in the united states. we want to have the highest quality and continue to be able to innovate. it's that partnership. we can't do it all alone. we have to have the support from the federal government. 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 huge, called like an urban circumstancelator. where cities could get $25 million, a small amount of money, right, on the federal side, and basically there was a huge overwhelming interest that they small amount of money could help them build infrastructure in their cities that would create economic development, increased emissions as well as transport people. 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, let me ask -- something ron raised was relationship between innovation -- you know, having innovation and manufacturing. and the loss if manufacturing goes elsewhere, the innovation goes with it. i'm wondering if you could say a few words about kind of the relationship between what happens with your engineers, your designers, the people that, you know, 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. and our problem is how do we build it high quality, faster, how do we build is better and

competitively. we can do that through innovation. how do we get innovation? this is the interaction every day, our project manufacturer teams are out on the floor, work, welders, fitters, these guys who build things are brilliant. i would call them artist the work they do in our shop. they have to be coming together. we take lessons learned from boat industry and aerospace and apply it to the crete -- streetcars. take solutions from other industries. to be successful, you need location. we would never separate out. that's the heart of the business. we would not separate the design. we need it coming from the shop floor to the engineering team. how do we do this better? >> can i follow up on that? >> sure. michael, because chandra is absolutely right. i have an advantage in the public sector. where naval air systems

command has been co-located at pac river. where the navy brought it's enterprises on research, development, test, and evaluation from sites essentially all over the country and brought them to pax. the reason they brought them to pax is centralized them was exactly what john was said. the synergy that's created, and people understand if you have the opportunity to be in the lunch room, and somebody could say maybe you could do it this way. it has an impact on innovation and quality. we see at pax river. the inevitable according to andy grove of us following where things are taking still, i think is absolutely

correct. it may take a decade or two. but inevitably if we are the inventing, and innovative quality of the world. they are taking it some place else. we've got to make sure that doesn't happen. >> i wanted to -- one thing i wanted to make sure we touched on was sort of the connection to moving to clean energy with renewables and energy efficiency. the relationship between that and manufacturing. i know i kind of like to hear from all three of you on that, maybe starting with you, representative hoyer, i know there are elements to the make it in america agenda that address that. >> first of all, as you know, in the american recovery and reinvestment act, substantial amount of investment was in clean energy. clearly, the germans and

the chinese and others are pursuing very vigorously clean energy technology. they see that as the future. and in terms of exports. we are at risk of not being that center, but the investment that we've made in the recovery act is starting to have a real impact on industries, including solar panels which are at risk of having made exclusively in china. germany now, most of it -- much of it's energy not only have a solar as it's basis, but they have a program where you selling solar back to, selling the energy created back to the government as a profit. so that gives encouragement to create that kind of energy. so all of the people that i have read and talk to believe that a focus on clean energy and the manufacturing of products to affect clean

energy is going to be a major source of growth in our economy. and job creation obviously. >> apparently germany is going to be doubled down on that now that they have decided to phase out nuclear. >> again, let me go back to the plan. you know, we're not talking about a five year plan. we're not talking about a mandatory plan. what we're talking about is a strategy which ron bloom really is -- we talked to ron because ron is -- he's the commander and chief in the strategy asked by the president to put together a strategy so that america, like it's competitors, has a claim 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, cut, you know, get the pass. people know what they are doing. we need to do that if we are going to be remain competitive. ron is the leader here. >> let me say a word and

make two different. i think the future is both distinction it is important. one, as representative hoyer said with the support of his leadership and others in the country, we were able to make substantial investments in the recovery act. as he points out, other nations are not standing still. in the new budget, there is a request for continued investment. if we don't make it, we're not going to win this element. clearly few look at what our future holds, whether it's dependents 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. clearly, this has to be a central focus of our manufacturing strategy. but the other point that i wanted to make, this is a point that doesn't always, i think, get talked about enough.

but it's really very important. i'm as passionate as an environmentalist as, i think, anybody. if you believe in the dangers of global climate change, if you believe that we have a responsibility to our grandchildren on this, then we ought to make steal in america. we make steal cleaner and less emission of carbon than anyone else in the world. this is true for many, many things. we do have tough environmental rules. that's a good thing. when we make steal in america, we put less carbon than just about anybody else. now the global demand for steal is going to be the global demand for steal. the question is where do you want it made? if you are passionate about the environment, which i think we all are and need to be, the answer is we need to make more things here in america. that has the cleanest way to make the goods and services that people need. most of the world does not have the fine thing that is we enjoy.

most of the world doesn't get to live in a nice house or have a decent car. they want those things. that is a good thing. we should be hugely in favor of that. but if the world is going to be supplied with though things 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 is 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 are making steel or tires or aluminum or papers and recognizing the ability to use it and make it and put less carbon and produce is something we good at. therefore, we ought to be not just the leader in the green part, which is terrific, but the basic manufacturing process generally has to

get green and clean. we're good at that. this ought to be a place that we should leave. :

from other sources overseas but that we can rely on our own sources of energy we will not be as competitive we need to be so it is a critical component of this making america agenda. >> i have the perfect practical example to put the icing on the case which is the parent company is dosing of the first commercial wave energy device and will be selling off the southern coast of oregon. a brand new emerging industry. these are huge decisis and one of the great things about why they are built in the united states and won't be exporting them is the need to be built close to the site. they're very large, very

intensive structures but this is the perfect a sample of again where the federal government and importance of having a clean energy and a national energy policy. right now in the last month we have had from scotland, new zealand all coming out because we have a great wave resources 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 country so that's an example one of the things i've often thought about is the department of defense and transportation. they do things like by america incredibly well. in fact the d.o.t. has a fantastic website where any large or small business can go you can see anybody that's got him a waiver if you go you know immediately that supposedly the product is not built in the united states and if you want to build it you know that you've built in demand for it. energy in my opinion has been behind the curve.

it's not that by america has great policies we are talking about have applied to energy so there's much fewer coming in. i think you could have thousands of jobs on the renewables if we can get a clean energy strategy in place and supported and that does need to come from a federal government level. so all the company is looking to bring their capital here and then we get to build it which in my mind is a win when they're waiting on policy issues to have some of the risks taken out the theme of this will be used and is a viable long-term industry so again this is a practical point on why it is critical for this to happen so we can continue growing these renewables and creating many more jobs and a queenie efficient way. >> the liability, one of the things we need to do is have a permanent not annually renewed research and development tax break.

if the investor will be there for them in the future. bottom line is we need certainty in policy so that those who are planning to expand or to establish an effective and facilities know what the rules are going to be for significant turco of time so they're investors can rely on that. >> 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 decide it does because if we keep flip-floping every time there is a change in any kind of aspect of our politics business really doesn't know what to do. so we have an aggressive push and feel like we are moving in the right direction and then part of what we've got to do here is we really do have to establish as something people stopped debating that we just

agreed that manufacturing has to be central to our future that we we can start developing these long term policies. it's tough for my budget perspective to meet the r&d tax credit performance but if the president went out front on that said we have to do that and willing to take the political leadership to say we need to do that and by understand what that means and budget score land but if you are asking a business to come here and do things you can't say every year i will tell you whether or not this happens because that isn't how businesses plan and every time we talk about corporate leaders being short-sighted and you need to look long term and not be driven by quarterly earnings, yet here we are in washington doing exactly the same thing. bling with the political wind and offering the environment we criticize them for. so if we want to say to business you need to be long term and they talk about wanting to play long term and wanting to make a long-term commitment here we've got to be their partner with that kind of approach.

>> if you don't have to plan your apathetic and in washington we operate certainly in the house of representatives of a 24 on the cycle. you can't operate a long-term business with the kind of investment and innovation and development that you need in a 24 month cycle. you have to have a much longer cycle. that's why we believe that focusing on an agenda long-term which ron is now doing in the instance of the president which we want legislation passed to require and i feel we have a consensus in this country. we don't have a consensus on the left things in this country. >> there's a lot of division of this country on almost every issue you can name but on this, there's a unity of thought by the american public that an agenda which is focused on

enabling america to make things in america is a great to it's not ideological or conservative or liberal you can do to any district in america and say we want to pursue a make it in america agenda these are the kind of things we want to do and people say yes that's a smart thing for us to be giving as a nation and as a people. >> that is a perfect segue to the question amount to add to. you know, so what's the problem, you look at the make in america agenda and i don't know, some very large percentage of that i don't see as particularly ideological the troublesome. it seems like something republicans can support and embrace if they were in charge and they put it forward. how do we get past what they introduce is their jobs agenda next week is something very

different. it's very reminiscent of what we saw for eight years under president bush. 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 with this given the reality in washington? >> we had bipartisan support legislation that we passed dealing with encouraging the importation of the parts more simply, things of that nature. i believe, and i have sent a copy of our make an agenda to every republican share. i talk to the republican leadership about it and i'm hoping we can forge bipartisan support and if one of our bills or one of our ideas is sponsored by republicans who is chairman of the committee we are going to sign on.

we want to support that because the objective is the critical thing and we benefit as a nation so i think that we're moving on the patent reform and we need certainty in the area of patents. there's a difference between the senate and the house but not a difference of opinion we need to get patent reform done. so that the united states patents will be protected and there will be certainty in the patent integrity said there could be investment based on that patent. i'm working hard republican leadership to further make an american agenda. >> let me open up for questions. i know we have some members of the press i just want to give them a first try for any questions, and if people could identify themselves and affiliation before they ask their questions. >> mr. hoyer, you talked about

having certainty from the policies. we are going to have a vote on the debt ceiling leader tonight. a lot of people are viewing this as a mood to vote. what about the uncertainty as these negotiations continue forward and no one knows quite what the real outcome is going to be as we approach august 2nd what sort of on the certainty in your mind does that contribute to the economy? >> i will discuss that with you in a little bit but i will discuss it here first. i think this vote today is an unfortunate vote because it is offered for the purpose of failing. the majority has made it clear they expect it to feel and my view is they are going to vote against it. to the market's consequences on this action that all the markets essentially we expect this to fail and we are offering it so that it will fail.

we need to come together both sides of the aisle to work in a bipartisan fashion to say what would every leader in the republican party is observed that not passing the debt limit would have disastrous consequences on our economy into the international economy. doing to bring down the debt? and so will become a deficit-reduction, absolutely. we pursued policies that credit $5.6 trillion surplus. we dissipated that under the last administration so that we had over 10 trillion-dollar deficit confronting us now it is at $14 trillion. we must adopt policies that will reduce spending, reduce the deficit, and consider everything the government spends except for interest which is not negotiable that has to be played the lead co-pays. but everything else needs to be on the table to bring spending down. but not allowing us to pay our

debt that we already incurred is not a viable policy alternative period. and every republican leader and almost every democratic leader has made that very clear. i think every democratic leader has made that clear as well. so this vote today, which is on suspension, very limited debate, 20 minutes on 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 but i am hopeful that in the near term within the next 30 days we can come to an agreement on doing something everybody understands is essential, not withstanding the fact the overwhelming majority of the american people are opposed to opposing the diplomat because i think the of a misunderstanding that means what we will incur

more debt, but what it means is we can pay the debt we have already incurred. this is allowing us the head room to make the payments but the zero people for passed barring. >> to we have any questions from the press about manufacturing? >> peter from ceq research. >> can i stop -- to some degree that does relate to manufacturing. the fiscal responsibility in the united states of america absolutely relates to manufacturing in the sense of confidence that the business community and the investing community has. so with a certain respect i think we need to act responsibly and responsible action in this regard everybody agrees. i haven't heard any leader on either side of the aisle say that it's not, not allowing the

debt to be increased so we can pay our bills is irresponsible act. in fact they both said this is simply posturing vote, not this particular vote but the debt limit in general. excuse me. >> from ceq research there has been research here to other countries policies for encouraging manufacturing some of those i believe include measures that have often been derided as protectionist including currency adjustments, protection of the domestic industries to limit imports of competing products. to what extent does the country to move in the direction where there's not so much agreement between parties for whoever.

we passed a bill overwhelmingly bipartisan support that said we need to look at the -- china needs to stop manipulating its value of its currency so that its exports were cheaper and imports were expensive. in the act we do needs to be wto compliant. making it in america is not a protectionist policy or agenda. it is, however, a competitive agenda. the workers can compete with any workers in the world given a fair playing field and that is what our agenda seeks to create. in his book he points out and others pointed out as well let me bring it back my state now

competes with other states for industries. how do we do it? we give them incentives, tax incentives and land, public land at a discount price we do all sorts of things to me get more attractive for them to move to maryland. what we want to do is the same kind of policy making sure people stay here or come here. the auto manufacturers from all over the world are coming here and they are producing a product here and in fact as i said with the exporting it back to your opinion and other places in the world we need to compete effectively without however violating our wto obligations and i believe so. >> i would add to that given the perspective of i think it's very

clear exactly as the congressman said it's about competition. let me be crystal clear on my perspective and of most businesses it is not a level playing field. the domestic protectionism is ridiculous, it is not a level playing field. we are not competing fairly when it comes to the health regulation, anything related to the environment. all those things if we have to compete with china it's not a fair basis so you must have measures to help us at least compete. that's not existing currently, and i think measures were incredible like by america and there's ways of doing it and i will give you an example. there is a new piece of legislation on the seine senate side talking by giving extra credit for procurement of your government is procuring things and you go over 60% u.s. content maybe you should get a lot of extra credit in the procurement. that is absolutely appropriate,

necessary and important and i think if we are not going to take care of ourselves and country first what are we doing? >> i think there is a tremendous amount that we can do that is fully within the boundaries of the wto to make this a better place for people to make things, so i think we have a long way to go whether it can be general stuff like investing in the education or the infrastructure bank which is part of the package, there are a lot of things we can do that are completely within the wto rules that can make this a much more effective place for people to make so we have a lot of work to do in that area. the president has been candid and forceful on enforcing the rules and has not been afraid to use the trade law when we believe that other countries are not playing by the rules. so it has to be both.

we have to vigorously enforce our rights and on the other hand there's a lot more we can do that we are not doing and that's got to be an important focus. >> prosecuting of the law when i say prosecuting pursuing redress on the wto violation we had a huge victory just a few weeks ago on building where airbus and gear up was perceived to very heavily subsidized airbus and therefore bolling was not competed on a level playing field. some, like that is the kind of vigorous oversight and pursuing our rights and creating that level playing field that is absolutely essentials. again, if business is going to feel comfortable in an indirect can compete effectively on a level playing field 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 i hope everyone else did as well, and i'd like to speak to the audience for coming. i'd like to add one quick thing which is we have the two papers in the back which we are happy to pick up and the lead author on the low carvin innovation paper sitting up front here if anybody has any questions about that paper thank you very much for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

at the heritage foundation today congressman allen weston member of the armed services committee talked about u.s. national security and the role of the u.s. military. he talked about the conflict in iraq and afghanistan and the defense in egypt and the rest of the middle east.

fallujah remarks to congress and 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 but mckeon the chairman of the committee, tremendous advocate for a strong america and the defense that has adapted to protect security and we have another such advocate today. a member of congress who is short on official seniority but long on experience and influence in defense matters. it is 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 and leader went on to the master's degree from kansas state university both in political science, perhaps foreshadowing what was to come. he holds a master from the command in the general staff officer, 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 in his service in the army in putting a bronze star, three meritorious service medals, three army accommodation metals, the dollar and the valor yet award he received as a captain in desert shield and desert storm and was the structure in 1993 and was a distinguished honor graduate from third corps school. he proudly wears the army master of parachute badge, the air assault that, the navy and marine corps parachute insignia. he represents the police and district and i'm told the on the

issue he may not reflect the views of his constituents is that congressman west is an enthusiastic fan of the tennessee volunteers. he was elected to the first term in congress we hope for the nation's state he's going to have many more. ladies and gentlemen hour honored guest today, colonel allen west from florida. [applause] thanks so much for that introduction and jess being a prada volunteer i've got to kind of be concerned about some of the decisions or athletic director made recently and also bruce pearl in the basketball team but not as bad i guess as the ohio state fans who look up to some pretty bad news. [laughter] but it's an honor to be here and

i was reflecting with danny about the fact that when the heritage foundation the new facility here was being brought i have the opportunity back in 2008 to come and meet with danny and that was still my first run for congress, and of course we felt about five percentage points short. but to now be standing here on the stage is absolutely phenomenal and i want to think you for all that you've done for me the past three years and the support and encouragement and wisdom you provided me to help me become an even better conservative leader for the country. thank you very much for that. [applause] >> we are here today with protect american on the end of the whole purpose is for me to kind of bring my experiences from the battlefield. washington, d.c.. i served operation desert shield desert storm, iraqi freedom and i spent two and a half years in afghanistan in november of 2007 working with the afghan military down in kamrar and i titled what

i want to present to do all as a 21st century battlefield because i think as you look at the paradigm of battle and combat operations to date is totally different from what i experienced back in 1982 when i was commissioned as a young lieutenant and a was simple. the soviet union 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 border patrol missions but that is totally left. so how does the united states of america if we are going to be successful in protecting this country, how do we quickly adapt and understand this new battlefield and be prepared to go out there and have success and a victory because this is a very complex battlefield. i can tell you in desert shield desert storm in 1991 was totally different 12 years later. when i went back as a battalion commander in the division in 2003 so how we in this and these

complexities and the change? how we understand this global in which we are engaged because i have to tell you i think the future is going to be more of the non-state common on uniform religion that we find, and unless we can get a strategic level perspective we never lose that the tactical level on the ground with the best soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guard and the world has ever known. but the thing is if they don't of the right type of strategic goals and objectives if they don't have the right type of operational goals and objectives the then filtered down for the tactical level, it's very much like a hamster in a 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 a repeat of what happened in vietnam. where we won on the battlefield constantly. but at the strategic level, that's where we did not have the

focus and that's not where we had the great objectives. so i want to start off with this. when i hear people talk of the war met on terror that's an incredible misnomer. because a nation cannot go and fight a tactic it would be the same as we said world war to the united states went to war against the creek read or on the pacific theater the 12 war against the kamikaze tactic. 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 we are up war with al qaeda and with the taliban, we are so narrowly defined this to the point where we go to war to fight against the 12 german division? did we go to war to fight against the japanese infantry regiment? if you merely define yourself you created gaps by which you

can be exploited because we must remember before al qaeda the terrorist kurth 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 has become one of those non-state, non-uniform belligerent armies. such a capable military right now that they have missiles in their arsenal that can strike every city in israel. but yet we don't see them as being part of an enemy. back some time ago in the early 1800's the have an incident with some folks recall the barbary pirates, and we sent the marines along with the navy. here we are today in the 21st century we have the somali pirates but we don't know how to continue with them. that is one of the questions that i asked the department of defense legal team when they came 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 were on the u.s. commercial vessel, their own private vessel, then we give them constitutional rights and bring them 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 any? that is what we must come to understand and because if we don't have strategic level objectives to fight against 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 were trying to go to the theaters of operation and fight. i will ask you a question. when is the last time you heard the past ten or so years these are our strategic objectives as we prosecute this current war? haven't heard it. that's what it's missing.

these are the four strategic objectives we should have. first of all you've got to be - -- enemy sing trippi the asset is a strategic mobility. and when you take it away by setting a military down, be yet iraq border afghanistan and you get focused on the nation-building and occupation warfare then you take away your number one advantage, that mobility. you meet your military target and i can tell you there aren't that many that come out of these four were operating basis. so you make it easy for the men and women to be attacked so when you think about the number one to deny the enemy sanctuaries that means that wherever this any that he must clearly define who he is tries to present himself you have to be willing to go it stretches to both these because the borders and boundaries and things of that nature. so therefore, if you have to

step outside of your comfort zone and people to take the fight to this enemy and take the initiative away from him. instead of fleeing this little game like i saw us plea in iraq for a while called whack-a-mole and then he moves over year and we go and fight him there. if you go back and study with alexander the great did in afghanistan with his operations when he took a large macedonian feelings and split up into smaller detachments and they took the sanctuary away from the enemy, the same thing we did in vietnam with a strategic program where we got out into the countryside and we denied the vietcong the resources they needed but when we pulled it back and stopped the strategic program and got wired down on these large pieces they went into the countryside.

if you want to talk about what we had an iraq with a quote on quote surge, it is that when we took the ground, we hailed ground and stake out there and denied the century. we try not the whole. that's the type of mentality that we have to have had a strategic perspective. now the second thing that's clear for the strategic objective is that we must cut off his flow of material and resources right now because as you know when you put the pressure in iraq then they traveled to yemen or afghanistan, and we must be able to follow them and cut that off. we have to interdict the flow of resources because that's how you draw up his ability to resupply himself and also replenish his ranks. but yet we haven't been able to connect the dots and understand that. already we see a relationship

building between the somali pirates in operation happening in yemen not far across the runways to transit. second most important thing, third most important thing for the strategic perspectives we must win the operation war. we never did a good job on that. the colors on the trigger was web sites. getting the message out. what i remember what happened with israel with a flotilla and i was sitting their watching that tape and i told myself those guys have handguns on their back she said how can you tell? i can tell by the silhouette of a handgun but yet what has happened is that the other side took that and they turned israel into a aggressor. we have to do a better job of feeding them as far as the messenger. we have to do a better job of getting the word out. we've got to be better job of our operations units. when i was in afghanistan one of the simple things i asked the

state department representatives in kandahar why aren't we still will show more radio stations on the larger pieces that can broadcast locally? some of these young afghan soldiers on to talk about what they are doing, talk about the problem in the country, talk of the things that tel dan is doing. so you can turn people part of that is our own media. i hate to tell you. i see most stories about us doing things like abu ghraib. how many pictures did we see about abu ghraib? just last week we lost over 14 soldiers in afghanistan. i don't hear anyone talking about that anymore. our media sees themselves as an ideological political wing have serious concerns about that.

part of the nation's power, the ninth theory informational, military and economic if we use it as an asset for us then we lose the country. the west objective we have to have is we have to court on the enemy and reduce his year of influence. we have to shrink down where he is. we are allowing him to come to the united states of america. what happened with him shouldn't have happened in the united states of america and i was stationed in fort hood texas. anyone that wants to deny that was a part of the battlefield you've 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] and that is what we are doing a lot in this country.

we're turning a blind eye to a bold enemy. that is telling us exactly what he wants to do. it's of to our elected leaders and it's up to our strategic level military officials to come up with the right type of strategic perspectives in order to combat against them. it's not a war in afghanistan. it's not a war in iraq. those are kombat series of operation. that is the second tier, the operational warfare. it's just this strategic year where we have missed out on the agendas. the next thing i want to talk to you about is very simple. you've got to understand the economic impacts on the 21st century battlefield. if you go back and look of what happened in the collapse of the soviet union, the soviet union did not collapse militarily. the soviet union collapsed

economically and there was one country that can really close attention to what happened, and that country was china. now we find ourselves on the 21st century battlefield there are to use the expression kinetic battles we are fighting and truly non-kinetic battles and part of that is an economic battle we are fighting, and we are providing an advantage to china with the trade surplus that they're able to build up. the fact they own 29 almost 39% of the debt thing to realize is that china is not taking that to improve the standard of living of the chinese citizens. china is taking this economic of vantage on the 21st century battlefield and about eight to ten years the world's largest blue water navy is going to fly under a chinese flag. why is that important on the 21st century battlefield? i have to tell you 70% of the earth is what? its water.

you can go back to the great civilizations, the romans, the phoenicians at the turn of the century the portuguese, spanish, dutch, the english, the japanese, everyone knew that the means by which you extend the power and the reach of the nation, and it's going to hurt my heart saying this it's not through a great army it's through a powerful navy. and in 1990 we had 546 naval war vessels. today we have 283. and if you can't protect the sea lanes of commerce, if you have for americans that get murdered right under the shadow of the naval vessel. it's very unfortunate for us as far as economic impact where i am in my district because the

everglades. the world's busiest terminal $90 billion of revenue and it's very important that in 2014 the panama canal will expand to bring a larger shipping its the panama canal the united states american-built 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 we couldn't find yourself militarily defeated mabey but also economically defeated and another part that's so important, first century battlefield is energy independence. now i remember being back in georgia in the late 1970's when we had this little saudi oil embargo crisis thing remember you had 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 to go out there. [laughter]

i have a distinct understanding of what energy independence should mean. we created a government agency called the department of energy had one mission to make the united states of america energy independent. but yet where are we. we don't recognize that there are certain countries for using energy resources as a weapon as its 21st century battlefield once again we lose. there wasn't a lot of contention coming out of europe because the natural gas pipeline but we don't understand the saudis and what they're able to hold over us because the venezuela and hugo chavez and you just heard what hugo said last week if there's a time we should look at the united states of america and say we are going to permit ourselves to be energy independence the time is now. and people say it's going to take ten years, it's going to take too long. read the story.

after the battle of the coral sea when it so severely damaged it lent back into the pearl harbor and it's going to take six to seven months for the uss yorktown the great air craft carrier to be prepared to go back out to the sea. dennett strong launched the sailors and the contractors. and the yorktown steam out about three weeks and married up with the pacific fleet in a place called mid way and the rest is history they respond to a challenge and the american people respond if they have a strategic vision and that is all we are lacking in the country right now because we don't understand the current battlefield in the direction that we should take. we have to get ourselves off of the dependence of the foreign nations such as saudi arabia and

others. we have the natural gas, the nuclear capability we should be developing, the coal energy power, the biofuels, the wind and solar, it's a complete developing of the full spectrum of these energy resources on the 21st century battlefield if we don't do that, if we keep kicking the can down the road we are going to put our country in a very, very bad situation. so, what are the solutions? we have to develop a national security roadmap. we have to seriously start sitting down and looking and thinking about what is the world going to look like. we should not do that after the collapse of the soviet union. we said after the collapse of the soviet union the major contention and ideological fight in the world is over. we fail to read the book the class of civilization and the remaking of the world order and who became the bill payer?

the united states military. and i can tell you that. because i was serving at the time when my friends who were in tank units at use golf carts to practice tank tactics. i can tell you as an exhibit is officer when we didn't have enough money to buy tools to repair our house is orie enough money to get to rebut paper for some of our soldiers we didn't have enough money to buy ammunitions so the guys could stay out on the rifle range and we find ourselves going down the exact same path. and the united states military in the 20th century to today you see this ready for world war i and we go all the way down to the bottomless pit. in the literature and that backup for world war ii and go back into a bottomless pit. if we don't have a steady state and then a plus or minus, and then we lose an opportunity to

ensure that we protect america for the future that our children and grandchildren. we took the road map or the respective areas of operation and combat and commander area responsibilities and look at the threats to their and that is the capability to the threat, and that is not what we have done. we always look at the military to be somewhat of a bill payer. this war is ended, so we can then go down to the bottomless pit. recognizing what the 21st century battlefield truly is and have the strategic vision that plays down this entire world that we can see then by the door as they say down south. we might not be able to recover. that is what we must do. and that is why i have to tell

you standing here in a great think-tank like the foundation and the work they've been able to do it's absolutely phenomenal but we've got to roll the hour sleeves and come up with a road map for the national security that looks at the threat, look set their goals and objectives and in the art of the war war and to know yourself and the environment and the countless battles you will always be victorious. if we don't understand that simple maxim then there could be some dark days. not just the united states of america but for the entire world because no matter what anyone says, we are that began and the white house, as ronald reagan said the shining city that sits upon the hill if that light 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] [applause] >> thank you, congressman west. i just have to say before it began popping these questions that your focus on the need for strategic clarity is so welcome in this town and we just heard a person with some real vision and i'm going to go are around i think we have a pretty hard deadline at 11:15 there is some mild interest in your appearance because i have all these questions. so let me jump in to them. beyond terrorism what do you think is the greatest foreign military challenge facing the united states? >> i feel we have to be very concerned about what china is doing. as a matter of fact not last week the week before china is already going into some security

agreements and arrangements with pakistan. they talk about selling some fighter aircraft as well as building them a naval base and facility. if you look across the world you see the chinese flag flying in different places of course going after energy resources, raw materials, so i think that that really is if you want to talk about the conventional threat we have to admit china is a conventional threat for the united states. >> what impact do you think the death of bin laden is going to have on the war montara? >> one of the kind of things i got upset with people appear in washington, d.c. said you cut the head off a snake you cut the head of a multi headed hydra. but a lot of times this hydra can regenerate its own hands attendees after that you see that they've named a new

successor to osama bin laden. this is the thing you have to realize is that al qaeda and all these islamic terrorist networks must now show that there still relevant, they are still viable and they must do so to continue to inspire your man to want to join their ranks so they can bring a defeat to the great state and so once again, it is not about dancing in the end zone and having a euphoria. absolutely not. i'm happy i got it but then you have to say what happens next? what happens in the next phase of the operations of that is what we had to be prepared for. >> i have several questions about pakistan should the united states give aid about the drone and it's one of the difficult issues of the foreign policy you want to comment on pakistan? >> absolutely, i was one of the first that came out and said that we do. need to cut off funding for pakistan i spent two and half years in kandahar and every time we put pressure on the taliban they went to pakistan.

there's a reason all of a sudden the groups are finding sanctuary there. either they are welcome 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 them to go to a long-term security arrangement pakistan and china not the united states of america that's not an ally. china is going to build a naval base. that's not an ally. when i look at this incident with osama bin laden it comes down to three things. you see the ignorance, incompetence and complicity. the sum of all those three is really bad. in that part of the world's very simple people understand one thing, strength. they don't understand compromise

on negotiation or they definitely don't respect the peace deal. that is putting pressure on them not showing them that we are cutting you off. i wanted something simple plate over the media we don't need pakistan to be successful. as long as you continue to let them believe that you need them deeply like a battle and that is exactly what's happening. in the middle of the social the experimentation what efforts should congress and the topics to give leadership to ensure that the effectiveness is sustained a superior level. >> let me put it very simple. the united states military exists to win the nation's war. when you join the military it takes individual behavior and conforms to the military. now if we have a perspective and believe in this nation that the

military confirms to individual behavior that we've lost the understanding of what it means to being a united states -- there appear in the united states military abide by the rules and join the united states military don't join. and for those that will set up there and say congress and west, you should understand because after all your black. unless i michael jackson i can't change my color. [laughter] but people can change behavior and you do not base being part of the military on adjusted to individual behavior. that's my concern. and when you look at what our young men and women have to contend with, we are talking about men and women fifth and sixth tools and combat zones. to try to appease a very small special-interest groups and i will leave it at that.

[applause] >> to make a great point that in the military if there's some individual activity or interest involves that makes against unit cohesion to go to the whole, the typical culture is the individual gives way. when you were in the service if you wanted to write a letter to the newspaper attacking the commander in the cheeks politics that is how it might. a couple of questions about funding, why should we increase funding or sustained funding in these difficult budgetary times and then also a question relating to and the pay cut may be addressed the whole thing and perhaps if you find additional balances in the department. >> well, i have to tell you when i was appearing orientation and i get an interview on meet the press and david gregory thought

he could catch me in a trick he said would you support cuts in defense spending? absolutely because i've been there. i know where the bodies have been and where there's some facts so as i stand here today - three wasteful government programs that will add up to $800 million of savings for the american taxpayer over ten years so that should be the focus. cutting the benefits we give to our soldiers, airmen, coast guard, we should be looking at every single way that we can increase the benefit that we give to them. you can cut my pay, but do not cut the pay of the men and women that we've asked to go out and 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 the american citizen as prosperous as they want. to the one that i first century battlefield and make sure that

americans can go anywhere in the world and not feel threatened or insecure then we've lost our mission. there shouldn't be any possibility of americans going out on their own private yacht than having to worry about being kidnapped, hijacked and executed, that's reprehensible to me, and the message that we need to send this to we will not tolerate that. so we need to develop a military that has the type of focus, that type of reach to make sure that refer to our citizens go, where are our interests may lie that you are safe and protected. >> do you have any ideas when you find savings where you might redirected? you're talking about naval power i have to emphasize again for a career army guy. [inaudible] we have done very well. >> it is a joint service.

this is what we've to look at, we can take the savings and reinvested in to procurement and reinvested into research and development, had a great discussion with a friend of mine i've known for like 13 years and he's the head of the rapid equipping force for the united states army and. she looks at small businesses to get off scholz technology that doesn't have to get into the long drawn-out procurement process. those are the tip of efficiencies we need to be looking at to get back to work and produce to the. that's what we must start to think out here in the united states of america and get back to, but i think if we can reinvest those savings we can make the department of defense

more effective and more efficient, but it has to be focused on the order of the tools that the warfighter needs to be successful, and yes, we have to look at how we project the power being hit over the horizon because you look a lot of these countries, the one thing they have in common are the polls but then also how do we go back to the forcible entry forces, the airborne forces that we still need to retain the strong land warfare armored warfare type of force but that's where it comes back to having the national security roadmap and looked at the respective responsibilities to really understand what they need to be successful. we have to have a dwell time for our men and women that is one year of combat, two years out because you're telling them right now and that's how we start to develop a force that will be capable of well rested, vigilant and prepared.

>> i was in your position with a cut the size of the army and you will recall because you were there in the early to mid 90's saying we will never have to put a lot of boats on the ground that was the opinion of washington which is the reason they were doing for come five, six tours of duty. just a couple of specific threats or concerns and then one wrapup question and be grateful for your time. hasn't he been great? [applause] we get senators over here and you ask one question and the to the whole 20 minutes answering that one. [laughter] >> i'm from a south. [laughter] >> would you care to offer your opinion on the events in egypt what they might mean for the united states? >> sure. i hear a lot of people talk about the air and spring. i do like irish spring soap, so i don't know. [laughter] i'm very concerned once again that someone has wanted a propaganda of war and dillinger down a different type of pass.

you don't really know who is going to fill the vacuum of leadership in a country such as egypt. you think about what happened in the late 70's when the sharnak of iran closed, who did you get? to gut the ayatollah. in the aftermath of the staffing down opposing the bar because this is what the military teaches you. i look at the things that have happened. i look of the fact that the war ships travel through the suez canal in 40 years. i look at the fact that all of a sudden the gaza border is open up and of the fact that there's been an increased amount of rockets and missile attacks in southern israel out of gaza and the fact you had a senior egyptian 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. i look at the fact that the christians now are fighting to save their churches in egypt. and i look at the fact that

figure coming out of egypt the camp david peace accord as land avoid. that comes back to what they said the strategic vision for every decision there are consequences and we have to sometimes analyze what can be the consequences. it's the same with operations in libya. i cannot understand it, i do not know the goal and the objectives. nor can anyone tell me was a rebel leaders are, where do they come from, what do they seek to have, what are they going to bring to the table that is different than gadaffi? ..

>> that's what is lacking out of washington, d.c. it is such a desire to say wow this was a great democratic uprising. i don't see a george washington over there. i don't see a thomas jefferson. i don't see a madison. i don't see women getting any type of freedoms in egypt. that's my concern. so the story has not been written when it talks about egypt. >> two more. >> so we experience the irony of trying to remove, i guess that's the goal and mission in libya, the dictator who cooperated the war on terror and ended his weapons of mass destruction, while we've been appeasing the dictatorship in iran that's sponsoring the war on terror and

using weapons of mass destruction. two more questions. would you care to comment on it's companion piece to the last. would you care to comment on the state of our relationships with israel, perhaps the

>> and iran with a leader who stood in southern lebanon. they said we are for the elimination of the zion state. i mean how much more do we need

to be convinced. see my fear is that it takes a cataclysmic event to occur. how many people understand the m.a.d. theory? the m.a.d. theory does not exist with iran. they need to have a cataclysmic event. and that is the whole reason about having a nuclear device. which they will turn against israel. i don't care how much land you give up, it is still about the elimination of the jewish people. and the fact that mahmoud went in and clearly states with their charter the elimination of the jewish state and the jewish people. that's not how you start talking about peace. until you eradicate or elimination hamas, and that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

[laughter] [applause] >> final. [applause] [applause] >> final questions. i don't know if you want to share. you have a lot of friends interested in your future prospects for the future. i'll put it that way. do you care to comment? [applause] >> well, i heard that potentially there was a position open for national dogcatcher. i will maybe throw my hat -- look, the most important thing is the founder fathers were brilliant in how they established the united states of america. we have to understand that being a congressional representative is a very important role to play. the house of representatives when you look at the constitution and understand the powers that they have, it's important that you have strong voices there. most important thing for me is to prove myselfs as the great america statesman, capable legislator, learn all of the rules that they have over there, unanimous consent, this, that,

whatever, when you are from georgia, sometimes the stuff seems crazy. that's what my focus is. running for reelection. i will always tell folks in the bottom of my heart, i submit myself to the will of god. as i was standing with danny, in 2007 i was sitting in kandahar, afghanistan. four years later, i'm standing here. this is a great country. this is an incredible country that anyone has an opportunity to go as far as they want to in this great nation. i am happy where i am as a congressional representative. if god has something for me in the future, that's god's decision between me and my wife and family. for now, let me be what the people in florida's 22nd congressional district worked

hard to get me me, that's the congressman from florida. thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. , allen. [applause] [applause] >> i do think they like you. thank you, allen. we've had a number of speakers for protect america month last several years. none more eloquent in defense of america's interest and on behalf of strategic clarity and warfighters. thank you. we are glad that you are running for re-election. thank you very much. we are dismissed. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> nicholas with cns news. you talked about the dangers of occupational warfare and nation building. what do you think should be the united states' position with respect to the war in afghanistan? should we pull out our ground troops in the war in afghanistan? >> i think what you have to do is look at how do you take some of the bases that you have established and they can become a rotational type of base. the most important thing is when

we start to get into a broader scheme, you know, the nation building, schools, infrastructure, things of that nature, that takes the soldiers, sailmans, airman, marines away from what the focus should be. there's a certain point we have said we have done the best. we must be able to accept that. i think it comes back to once again what are the conditions that we want to try to achieve in some of these theaters of operation? once you reach a certain percentage of those conditions, then you have to look at the next phase and moving on. i don't like time phase operation where you tell someone on the date i'm going to do such and such an action. i think it's telegraphing to an enemy. >> congressman, you briefly touched on -- sorry. inside the air force. you briefly touched on how you identified three voicable government programs in d.o.d. i was wondering what those three

programs are, how you identified them, and if you could break it down for us. >> we worked with the armed services staff. i hold them to go out there and look for some places where we can make the cuts. one the things i remember, young staff, i hated doing power point. so we looked at the printing and reproduction program, we looked at another program, like a research program that was not very profitable. and then also a work force and rewards program. so we targeted those through. they passed through. over the course of eight year, it saved the american taxpayer $800 million. >> roger with doa news. i wanted to get you to elaborate on the situation, particularly since there's been talks -- talks of talks with the taliban, reconciliation, reintegration, these sort of thicks and words have been going around.

what do you make of the whole process of trying to get the taliban to become part of the broader patch for the future? >> you know, we tried with that the clinton administration. we recognized the taliban as a legitimate government. look how far that got us? this comes back to what i think the most dangerous thing is out there is our own political correctness and inability to want to understand who the adversary is and what they believe in. i'll give you a great example is when we kick around the term about radical islam. 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 which an individual's who's vision is different and not in concert with 21st century morals and values. you can't sit down and negotiate

with a group like the taliban. i can tell you that is the number one thing that is going to cause people not to believe in the united states of america when we say that we're going to have talks with the taliban because what? if i'm a tribal leader in afghanistan, what do you think i want to throw my hat in with? if i know you are about to leave, you don't want to see change, and i know what they when they were in power. we must not forget it was the taliban who brought al qaeda into afghanistan. it wasn't the opposite. >> are there any other programs that you are eyeing in the future in terms of being able to find . >> oh yeah, this is not a revolving process. i want to look at efficiency department of defense to get the

core missions. >> hi there. congressman west, the heritage foundation. several of the reporters that are joining watching online have sent me this question. they want to know your thoughts on president obama nomination of general martin dempsey as chairman of the joint chief of staff and what you think about that nomination? >> well, i tell you i have met general dempsey before. i've had discussions with people over the weekend who have known him. he's a soldier's soldier. i think. but the important thing to understand is now we are taking someone away from training in the army, taking him away from being an operational combatant commander. now we're talking about him being a force provider and the number one advisor to the president. i would hope that he will understand the battlefield and help the president to make the right type of decisions based upon the council that he receives from the respective service chief. i look forward to general dempsey continuing on his

lifelong career of service. i got to tell you i'm glad that the army has a chairman of joint chiefs. >> what is your final position? >> you talked about beating the enemy in the information war. >> yeah. >> could you give some examples of the messaging that the united states should put out with respect to the wars in afghanistan and iraq? >> well, once again, combat theaters of operation in iraq and afghanistan. i think we don't talk enough about the successes, we don't talk about the things that we've done, we don't talk about the fact that we have a thriving economy in the kurdish area with international flights coming in. those are the types of things to discuss. we don't talk enough about some of the vicious attacks that the taliban does. when over in afghanistan, countless times, they are gunning down little girls, throwing acid on them. we have to show them for what they are, and not allowing them

to, you know, dominate the dialogue and have the initiative across the web sites and the information arena. those are the type of things that i think we need to do a better job of doing is really telling the stories and showing some of the good news stories happening over there in the theaters of operation. >> thank you so much. >> thank you for having me. >> you guys have follow up questions, feel free to contact me or -- >> thanks for the cameraman. [inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow c-span2 will have live coverage of a house hearing on the transition to self-government in iraq. the house force affairs subcommittee on the middle east and south asia will hear from state department and pentagon officials about the progress made of ending military presence in iraq. the hearing is scheduled to begin at 2:30 a.m. eastern time. >> sunday on in-depth, the balance between security and

liberty, the difficulties of a climate change treaty, and the limits of international law. your question for author and university of chicago law professor eric posner. >> yesterday president obama made a nomination. we talked about it with the

national security editor of the "the washington times." this is 40 minutes. >> host: bill gertz, here to talk about budget cuts and defense spending. let's begin with the change of leadership at security at the obama administration. yesterday the president announced that general martin dempsey will take over as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. let's listen to what he had to say. president obama: martin dempsey is one the most respected and combat led generals. he led against an inurgency, having trained iraqi forces, we knows the nation must ultimately take responsibility for their own security. having served as active commander in central command, he understands that security gains and political progress must go hand in hand, just as he challenged the army, i expect him to push all of our forces to continue adapting and

innovativing to be ready for the missions of today and tomorrow. >> host: bill gertz, "the washington times" says after two months after elevating him to the army top post, they have made him the head of the joint chief. who is martin dempsey. what do we know about him? > guest: this is clearly a pick to give the army prominence within the small circle. i think the real story here is who didn't get the job. that's general cartwright, who was considered obama's favorite general. he lost out in a big political battle with the current chairman, admiral mike mullen as well as the of current -- the outgoing defense secretary bob gates. >> host: what was the back story there? >> guest: well, it's very interesting. it was a matter of a lot of people felt that cartwright was a brilliant general, but he was 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, he was in on the osama bin laden secret operation, also had some personal issues related to his family life, some questions there. and it was a classic washington political battle. >> host: and what if -- what is it about cartwright's afghanistan strategy or what did he say about that that caused the controversy? >> guest: well, the whole question is -- this gets into the real interworkings, should we have a counterterrorism strategy in afghanistan or a counterencourage si? rebuild afghanistan? that's the issues related to troop levels and, of course, defense spending. >> host: what does this mean then that general dempsey is now

the joint chiefs? what does that mean for afghan strategy? >> guest: it's not clear. we don't know the views on the internal battle. again, i think 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 that he was going to cut defense spending by $400 billion over 12 years. the defense secretary bob gates has given three different comments recently warning that the military could be hollowed out by unwise defense spending cuts. he's urging caution at the same time, he was taking credit from himself, canceling the defense programs over the four and a half years. >> guest: right, that's the headline from wednesday may 25th. gates warning him, hollowing effect. he's reaching back to the 1970s. what was he saying here?

>> host: during the '70s and again in the '90s, this was under the carter administration and the clinton administration, steep cuts were made in defense spending. and the military began to what they call hollow out, in other words, it became moving in the direction of being a hollow force. something that is obviously a stark and alarming comment that your military is not ready for war. that's always been the high point of our military is that we are ready for any battle. and this was -- so again he's warning that we could face a hollowed out military if we don't handle this coming cuts and defense spending properly. >> host: yet at the same time, he and others, mr. mullen has said the debt is the biggest national security threat? how do you square those? >> guest: yeah, well, 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 part of the solution to that problem, but it should not be the only solution. there are real fears within the obama administration that is basically being to the left of center is going to go after the military with avengeance in terms of cutting defense spending and programs. i think that's really the fear. we're going to be hearing a lot of debate in the coming weeks, especially from capital hill and the house. >> host: this is the issue for the front page of "the washington post" this morning. >> 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, that

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

for getting the debt and deficit under control? >> guest: well, i think that's the thrust of the people speaking to the newspapers story today. you are hearing voices from the white house who are saying it's not going to be just simply a battle over counterterrorism versus counterinsurgency, it's going to be the fact that we are running out of money. that's always been my view of these -- excuse me -- of these conflicts. is that basically they are very, very, very expensive. we are talking billions of dollars. the figure in the article 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 --

>> guest: yes, this is the reflection of the debate in congress again over fiscal conservatism, 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 about those being concerned you are not supporting the troops if you want to drawdown because of costs? >> guest: right, the arguments being made on both sides if you don't somehow want to continue funding the operations that you are somehow working against the military. again, it's all part of the political debate. it's very typical in washington. >> host: how about play on capitol hill legislatively? >> guest: it's going to be interesting. you have a republican-controlled house which is originating a lot of defense bills.

then, of course, you have a democratic-controlled senate. which for me is a formula that you won't see a lot of changes taking place. the way these things usually work, the house bill gets worked over in the senate and the real work gets down. when they get to conference and hash out all of the differences. it's going to be hard to predict how they will fair when the defense bill finally reaches the conference. >> host: we'll talk more about that. bill gertz referred to this, this is the "washington post" numberss --

>> host: talk about that figure. >> guest: well, the figures speak for themselves. in the internal debate, the real issue is do you want to cut and run? do you want to 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 we would do a troop surge of 30,000 and this would 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: donald up first. independent in dallas, texas. you are on the air with bill gertz. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to ask a question. and you can go find this on c-span's video library.

but on september 10th, 2001, donald rumsfeld announced $2.3 trillion lost by the pentagon. and it's never discussed since what happened the day after. why is it not discussed? how did they lose roughly 1/10 of the national debt at the time? just lose it? >> host: bill gertz? >> guest: well, i'm not familiar with that statement, even having covered rumsfeld back then. i think probably what he was referring to was a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in the pentagon. defense secretaries have been battling that for decades. the latest effort is an attempt to at efficiencies under the of current administration, they are 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