they're filed right. and over time, as the deficit and our debt problem has increased significantly, members have found it all more reluctant to eliminate this on a single stand-alone basis because of the impact it would have on our ballooning deficit. but under comprehensive tax reform, if we can put this together with a package of comprehensive reforms, we can do it in a revenue-neutral basis so it doesn't have an adverse impact on the economy. again, i want to commend senator wyden and senator gregg for putting together a package that does just that. i would ask my colleague if he wants to elaborate on that a bit. i thank him for the opportunity to come down and discuss for the first but not last time some of the egregious aspects of the tax code in this country that will, i think, dictate how we should

move forward and why we should move forward in enacting comprehensive tax reform, and i thank the senator. mr. wyden: i thank my friend. i think we're about to wrap up. the distinguished majority leader is here. i would certainly be happy to yield to him if he needs a few minutes to do the senate's business, and then senator coats and i would wrap up. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the senator is correct. mr. reid: i ask consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business from now until 6:30 this evening with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. that at 6:30 p.m., the majority leader be recognized and this work we're going to do for this next hour and a half be for debate only. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from oregon.

mr. wyden: madam president, just to wrap up, senator coats and i are going to come to the floor in the weeks ahead to outline some of the most outlandish examples of how broken our tax system is. we thought it was appropriate to start with the alternative minimum tax because it really is the poster child for how out of whack the tax system has become in america, and i think we have highlighted a number of our big concerns, but i just want senators to pick up on the last point that senator coats has made, and that is the country can't afford the status quo. the idea that you would just go out and pass what's called a patch, a kind of band-aid to try to make sure that some of the pain is minimized for middle-class folks, the most recent patch for just two years

costs $135 billion. the ten-year cost to make the current patch permanent is is $683 billion, according to the congressional budget office, and a patch does not protect everybody. it just limits the damage. and what we want to say as we start this debate about how to go forward with tax reform is the congress cannot continue to handle the a.m.t. with a patch. the country can't afford it. patching the a.m.t. costs way too much, especially given the discussions that we're having here, bipartisan discussions about how to deal with the federal debt. the only affordable way to fix the alternative minimum tax, as senator coats has outlined this afternoon, is to fix it once and for all and do it within the context of comprehensive tax

reform. to pick up, as was done in the 1980's when a republican president got together with democratic members of congress, cleaned out special interest loopholes, to hold down rates for everybody and give all americans the opportunity to get ahead while still having a progressive tax system. we would repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all, do it in a way that does not add to the federal deficit, and this is not senator coats and i plucking a figure out of the sky. the joint committee on taxation has analyzed our bill and under their analysis, senator coats and i eliminate the alternative minimum tax without adding to the federal deficit. that in my view, mr. president and colleagues, is a pretty good way to start tax reform, start it in a bipartisan way, and particularly by focusing on something that is so inequitable

for hard-working, middle-class people. so i thank my good friend from indiana and i'm prepared to yield the floor. if my colleague has anything else he wants to say. i just want to express my appreciation for the chance to work with him. you cannot deal with these big economic issues and the big economic challenges our country faces without going forward in a bipartisan way, and i'm very fortunate to have such an able partner, and i want to thank him. mr. coats: i thank the senator. mr. wyden: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to you today to visit on the floor of the senate because since last november, the president has been trying to convince the american people that he has a plan to restart our economy. he was in north carolina yesterday with his council to talk about issues. i will tell you to me, mr. president, the president's approach has left a lot to be

desired. if the white house created as many jobs as it creates speeches, things would be a lot better. i will tell you that the president's empty words are not filling the pockets of american citizens. now the president has been given a new chance, a new chance to show his commitment to economic growth. that is the chance he has recently had to nominate a secretary of commerce to the united states. when i think about the commerce department, it's a department whose job in terms of american businesses to make those businesses nor innovative at home, more competitive overseas. well, the mission, the mission of the commerce department states that it promotes job creation, economic growth, sustainable development and improves standards of living for all americans. so at a time of economic crisis like the one we have now, a nominee who can fulfill that

mission, that very mission of promoting job creation, economic growth, sustainable development and improve standards of living for all americans, that very mission is needed more than ever. so despite the administration's promise that their so-called stimulus bill would heap unemployment rates below 8%, we know unemployment went to 10% and it is still over 9%. our job growth last month was the slowest that it has been in almost a year. over 13 million americans are still out of work and nearly half of them have been unemployed for six months or more. this is the highest rate of chronic unemployment that we have had since the great depression. and these problems aren't just happening at home. our position -- america's position on the international stage -- is slipping as well.

america's ability to pay its debts has already been called into question by standards and poor's credit ratings, moody's is asking the same question and recently fitch credit ratings also warned us that the united states was playing with fire. gas prices are very high. i hear it every weekend at home in wyoming. families are spending $800 on average more for gasoline this year than they did last year. we spend $48 billion more on goods from other countries than we do on our own goods, and our economic situation is already bad. and the headlines sound worse every day. let me just give you a couple of examples. from gallup -- "u.s. investor optimism declines." from bloomberg -- "economic recovery is languishing as americans await signal of better times." even the chairman of the federal reserve said that the job market

was far from normal. wcialg the facts are clear. americans deserve the best leadership in the commerce department, the department that is responsible for trade, job creation, and economic growth. last week the president nominated john bryson to be his new commerce secretary. many may ask, who is this man? is he a job promoter? someone who can bring economic growth and improve the standard of living for all americans? well, john bryson's record clearly shows that he is not such a nominee. in fact, his resume is exhibit number one in proving that this administration is not serious about job growth. at best, it is unclear why john bryson is the president's nominee for this position. at worst, his nomination is proof that the president wants environmental activists running our economic development

strategy. when announcing mr. bryson's nomination, the president had praised mr. bryson's background p. according to the president, mr. bryson would be a good commerce secretary because -- quote -- "he's been a fierce proponent of alternative energy." well, if mr. bryson was being nominated to be energy secretary or administrator of the environmental protection agency or even interior secretary, that fact might be relevant. but mr. bryson is being nominated to be secretary of commerce. mr. bryson does have a background in the private sector. the problem is that his private-sector success has more to do with government help than with his own ability to create jobs or grow the economy. don't take my word for it. the wall street street journal has already written that mr. bryson believes wholeheartedly in a strategy of politicized investment. they also wrote that the companies that he has been associated with have generated

revenue through handouts from the federal government rather than by being profitable. we need a commerce secretary who knows how buses earn a profit and how to -- businesses earn a profit and how to create private-sector jobs. we need a commerce secretary who will make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs, not someone who will make it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs. we need a commerce secretary who can understand all sectors of the economy rather than someone who picks winners and losers. now, already to me mr. bryson fails the test. his support for politicizing the united states' investments is the most problematic of his resume. along with his private-sector experience, he is also the founder of a group called the national -- i'm so, the natural resources defense council, or the nrdc.

this organization is so radically antibusiness that even massachusetts democrat congressman barney frank and john tierney think it is troubling that mr. bryson is associated with it. these members of congress have described the nrdc as -- quote -- "one of those environmental organizations that has reflection civil attacked the fishing industry inaccurately and without any real environmental basis." and it is not just the fishing industry that the nrdc reflection civil attacks. members of the nrdc staff are on record saying -- quote -- "there is no such thing as clean coal." while gas prices soar and energy jobs are needed, a spokesman for the nrdc has said, "the novment rdc has been very proud and telecommunicationive in fighting flu coal plant proposals in the united states." they've stood in the way also of lifesaving sonar technology that would enhance america's national

security. why? well, out of fear that it might harm the whales. they've also filed thousands of lawsuits to stop the production of american energy, and american energy is critical hand a part of our american national -- and a part of our american national security. this antienergy agenda is so reflectionive that the nrdc has even filed lawsuits to further delay further energy exploration in the gulf of mexico. well, the delay has already stretched on so long that even former president bill clinton has called it ridiculous. john bryson's career has consistently shown that he agrees with his overzealous approach to his environmental policy. when mr. bryson first started at edison electric, the los angeles 250eu78s said that he had founded one of the nation's most aggressive environmental organizations. but when it comes to being

antibusiness, unpopular policies like cap and trade is one area we are has focused. he is one of its most aggressive supporters and the record shows it. more importantly, his own words show it. most americans recognize cap and trade as a job-killing energy tax. well, that's why the waxman-markey cap-and-trade bill couldn't pass the senate. however, when referring to this very bill, john bryson called it "moderate but acceptable." a moderate but acceptable, he said, piece of legislation. he even said the legislation was good preslice because it was a good way to hide a carbon tax. to hide a tax. mr. bryson has repeatedly called for a national cap-and-trade system, and he's even put his money where his mouth is. but when you say "a good way to hide a tax," is that what the role of the secretary of commerce is?

to hide taxes on american businesses to make them less competitive, to make it more expensive to do business? i think not, mr. president. well, according to the daily carol, mr. briesons own company spenlts over a million dollars -- spent is over a million dollars lobbying for cap and trade. so john bryson believes in politicizing american investment. he has found add radical environmental organization and has spent significant amounts of money lobbying for a policy that he openly acknowledges is a cover for a job-killing energy tax. mr. president, we need a commerce secretary. we need a commerce secretary who will work at making american businesses more innovative at home, more competitive abroad. we do not need a commerce secretary who is more interested in taking our hard-earned dollars than in creating jobs at home. the american people deserve a commerce secretary who is more interested in free trade than in

cap and trade. the president may believe that john bryson is the right man at the right time. i believe that john bryson is the wrong man at the worst possible time. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that kelsey maltrimaya and katherine currough be granted floor privileges during today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, rarely has washington been so completely out of touch with the priorities and anxieties of ordinary working americans. here on capitol hill policy-makers are obsessed --

obsessed -- with the budget deficit. but the rest of america is most concerned with a far more urgent deficit: the jobs deficit. our nation remains deeply mired in the most retracted period of joblessness since the great depression. officially, some 14 million americans are out of work, but real unemployment -- the real unemployment -- including those that are working part time but want to be working full time, those who are marginally atarchtiond those who have never worked in the first place because they never got a job -- you add that all up, we've got closer to 25 million americans unemployed. and millions of americans who are employed are increasingly anxious about holding on to their jobs or at their present income making ends meet. but many of our political

leaders here in washington are treating the jobs crisis as yesterday's news. they're putting this deficit reduction above all else. they're demanding extraordinary funding cuts, trillions of dollars in cuts, and the sooner the better with little concern as to its adverse impact on jobs. but this is exactly the wrong approach. it's the economic equivalent of applying leeches and draining blood from a sick patient, which we used to do, by the way. that's what they did to george washington as he lay dying. they applied leeches to him. well what did that do? it just makes you weaker and in case of president washington proved fatal. in the same way, trillions in budget cuts would massively drain demand from a still-weak economy. could destroy millions of jobs.

this is not just the wrong medicine for our economy, it will slow or stop economic growth, it'll make deficits itself worse in the future. as the federal chairman -- federal reserve chairman bernanke warned last week, quote, "a sharp fiscal sclation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still fragile economy." end quote. i strongly disagree with the slash-and-burn approach to the deficit reduction favored by some of our colleagues. we need to recognize that one of the very big reasons for the budget deficit is the jobs deficit. the best way to bring the budget under control is to help thesees 25 million americans that are unemployed get good-paying middle-class jobs. those hardworking americans would be delighted to be taxpayers once again.

obviously we are counting on the private sector to help drive job creation and make the economic recovery self-sustaining. now, such would be the case if we put more mean to infrastructure. -- more money into infrastructure. if we were to do our job in rebuilding our roads, highways, bridges, sewer and water systems, the rail system. the government doesn't do that it goes to private contractors, private companies. some of this is already happening but certainly not at the pace that we need. since march of 2010, the private sector has created about 2 million jobs. however, businesses remain reluctant to invest and hire for the simple reason there's not sufficient demand for their goods and services. all of those people that are unemployed and underemployed are spend the bare minimum, just trying to get from week to week.

meanwhile, the middle class is tapped out. with stagnant incomes -- stagnant incomes. for over 30 years the middle income has had stagnant real incomes. they have insecure jobs, high levels of mortgages, insufficient pension funds, and other consumer debt. that's why the federal government has to -- has had to play an aggressive role in helping to -- help us recover from this great recession. over the last two years we've repeatedly cut taxes. we've extended financial aid to the states. that helped prevent massive layoffs with teachers and first responders and other essential employees. we made major investments in research and education and infrastructure. all of stlees either preserved jobs or created new jobs. listen to this. we have gone from when president obama took place, we were losing

700,000 jobs a month. 700,000 jobs a month. that's just a couple years ago. now we're adding new jobs for the first time in -- we've had 16 now consecutive months of adding jobs. not enough. not enough. but at least moving in the right direction. the economic policy institute estimates that as of the fourth quarter of 2010, the recovery act had created or saved up to four million jobs and as many as five million full-time equivalent jobs. the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that through the end of 2010, the recovery act had raised the real inflation-adjusted gross domestic product by as much as 3.5%. so to those who said the recovery act didn't do anything, that's nonsense. that is absolute nonsense.

it did a lot. but here's the problem: the shot in the arm provided by the recovery act is now winding down. in the absence of further federal assistance, many states are making deep budget cuts and layoffs of public employees. listen to this: in texas, governor perry has proposed to cut education funding by a staggering $10 billion in texas. new york city, mayor bloomberg has proposed laying off 6,000 teachers. total state and local government layoffs since august of 2008 have been nearly 500,000. if the federal government follows suit with massive short-term spending cuts, the prospect of a a double-dip recession will be all too real. last week the federal reserve bank of new york published an article about what it called the

mistake of 1937, referring to premature fiscal and monetary pullbacks that cut short the fragile recovery and ended up prolonging the great depression. princeton economist paul krugman says in important ways we've already repeated the mistake of 1937. we've taken our eyes off of what should our number-one priority: creating jobs. we have pivoted just since, what, six months ago, since the last election we've pivoted to an obsession with deep short-term budget cuts which by their very nature will destroy jobs and weaken the economy. now everyone agrees that we must take aggressive action to reduce the deficit, but we have to do it right. we need to reduce long-term deficits. but in a way that absolutely minimizes immediate job losses. we need to reduce the deficit in

a balanced way. unfortunately, the extreme budget authored by congressman paul ryan, supported by almost every republican in the house and i would say also in the senate would make our fiscal and jobs problems far worse. that republican budget lavishes yet more tax cuts on 0 corporations and the wealthy as it slashes investments that undergird the middle class in this country. everything from education funding and medicare and medicaid. let me just state what i think is obvious. if working people and the middle class are going to take a hit in tough times, it shouldn't be to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. if the middle class is going to take a hit, let's use those taxes to put money in to rebuilding the infrastructure of

this country, put an end to better education, better schools, better teachers. so i've often said the key to renewing america and restoring our economy is to revitalize the middle class. that means investing in education, innovation, infrastructure, boosting american competitiveness in a highly competitive global marketplace. it means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation, fair taxation. it also means an empowered workforce, a strong ladder of opportunity to give every american access to the middle class. i believe that corporations and the wealthy can return to the levels of taxation they had in the 1990's when the economy boomed and incomes also skyrocketed. it's absurd to take the position that any dollar in tax increases

that result from having the wealthy pay their fair share or ending tax loopholes is bad and unacceptable. i think that's absurd to take that position. while at the same time you take the position that it's okay to slash funding for education, for infrastructure, for research. in both the 1980's, senator ronald reagan and 1990's, under clinton we achieved a sensible balance of revenue increases plus domestic and pentagon spending cuts in order to dramatically reduce deficits, while we protected the middle class. and we maintained safety net programs. i agree with the economists who believe that given the fragile economic recovery, we should not reduce fiscal support for job creation at this time. deficit-reduction efforts can start, but we should sequence the lion's share of spending

cuts so that they take place in the midterm and the long term, when the economy is recovered. but now we have to keep our priorities straight. deficit reduction, yes, is important, but it's not our most important economic challenge right now. our most urgent economic challenge is the fragile economy and the jobs crisis and the fact that the middle class in america is under siege. the middle class in fact is being dismantled as fast as big corporations can ship our manufacturing jobs overseas. people are losing their savings, their health care, their pensions. in many cases even their homes. with good reason, people feel that they're losing the american dream for themselves and their

kids. that's why we can't look at the deficit-reduction challenge in isolation. we can't just take draconian slash-and-burn approach to the budget. smart countries in tough economic times don't turn a chain saw on themselves. the extreme republican budget is far more focused on shrinking the size and role of government than it is really on cutting the deficit. instead of that budget, the republican budget which is being sold through fear and fatalism, we need a budget that reflects the hopes and the aspirations of the american people. we need a budget that allows us to continue investments, that boosts competitiveness, creates jobs, strengthens the middle class. there can be no real economic recovery, there can be no return to fiscal balance without the

recovery of the middle class in america. that's why our immediate number-one priority must be helping to create jobs, putting people back to work. that's how we'll start to restore more demand for goods and services, the key to healthy economic growth. and economic growth in turn will help generate the revenues that will help bring deficits back into balance, into rough balance. so this is our most important job in front of us. and yet, all we hear is the constant grumbling, cut the size of government, cut spending, slash and burn and cut everything that supports the middle class in america. ship our jobs overseas. more tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations. we need to be focused on rebuilding the infrastructure of

america because that is most necessary now and that is one of the fastest things we can do to put people back to work and to start stimulating the economy. we need to put more money into education, rebuilding our schools across america, hiring better teachers. mr. president, we need a longer school day, and we need a longer school year. i know some young people probably don't want to hear that. most young people in europe, asia and japan, they don't go to school nine months out of the year. they go to school 11 months out of the year. they don't go to school for five and a half, six hours a day. they go for eight hours a day. we wonder why they're getting ahead of us. but that costs money. if you're going to have a longer school year, that costs money. if you're going to have a longer school day, if you're going to have better technology in our schools, schools that are really, have the latest in technology so that our young people can learn on the latest

innovations, so they can be competitive in that global marketplace, that does cost money. and yet, to hear it around here, we can't do any of that. of course now there's one place we can spend money. we can continue our operations in iraq for god knows how many more centuries. we've already spent over $1 trillion in iraq. we've already spent close to $100 billion in afghanistan. but we can continue to do that with no end in sight. we can continue to buy more and more weapons that really don't do anything to protect us in the new global fight against terrorism. they might have been good back in the vietnam war, maybe in the cold war, but that's over with.

but, no, we've got to keep pouring money into weapons systems that really do nothing to protect our country. well, mr. president, two decades ago president clinton's team to find our nation's central challenge with a slogan -- i remember it well -- they said "it's the economy, stupid." today america's central challenge can be found with more precision. it's the middle class, stupid. it's what we do to encourage, promote, protect, invigorate the middle class in america to make sure that the middle class has good jobs, good pensions, good health care system, the ability to make sure their kids are well educated and that they don't go to college and get out with a mountain of debt on their head so they too can have a good start in life. this is all part of the

middle-class structure of america. this is what made america the greatest country in the history of the world. i'll close with this. you know, it seems that the republican budget that they have proffered, and so much that i hear of those who keep saying we've got to cut, cut, cut. we've got to cut spending, we've got to cut education, we've got to cut education; we've got to cut all that stuff. it almost seems like it's premised on the belief that we are poor, our country is poor and our country is broke, and we can't afford to do all those things. that's really what it is. they say we're broke. we can't afford to do all that stuff, so we've got to cut our spending. yet, we are the richest nation in the history of mankind. we are the richest country in the world. we have the highest per capita

income of any major country. i guess you have to ask the question, if we're so rich, why are we so broke? if we're the richest country in the history of the world or the richest country in the world today, we have the highest per capita income of any major economy, why are we so broke? well, my response is we're not broke and we're not poor. we are wealthy beyond all imagination as a nation. we're not broke, but the system is broken. that's what's broke. the system is broken. the system of who we tax and how we tax, how we raise revenues, the system of allowing corporations to take tax benefits and ship jobs overseas is broken. the system that allows companies

to just almost willy-nilly break up what has been one of the strengths of the middle class, and that's our labor unions. labor unions, they're breaking up labor unions because they know that the middle class working together in organized labor has been able to bargain more effectively for better jobs and better wages, better conditions of employment. you break them up, you can reduce their incomes and more of it can go to profits, more of it can go to higher c.e.o. salaries. that's the system that's broken. you can cut all the spending you want, you can cut the federal government to its bare bones; it's going to lead to another great recession, maybe even a depression. maybe even a depression. if you want to do that, that is a dead-end road. we need more stimulus now.

does that mean we've got to borrow more money and go further into debt? not necessarily. why don't we fix this unfair tax system that we have and generate more revenues that come in to the federal government? why don't we say those who made so much money in the last decade or so, maybe ought to pay a little bit more. and for big corporations, pay a little bit more. and for the federal government to put that money to use in rebuilding the infrastructure, educating our youth and having a health care system that is affordable and comprehensive. that's what we ought to be doing. that will support the middle class, and in supporting the middle class, you will then support economic recovery. i will close again with this. there will be no economic recovery in america of any

substance or lasting any length of time without a recovery of the middle class. it's the backbone of our country, the middle class, mr. president. it's time our political leaders showed some backbone in supporting the middle class. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask tact speak as

if in morning business for up to ten minutes. officer without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the senate has been debating for over a week the economic development revitalization act of 2011, which would reauthorize funding for existing programs of the commerce department's u.s. economic development administration through 12015. e.d.a. has traditionally been noncontroversial, traditionally been a bipartisan job-creation bill, supported by presidents of both parties, often supported in this body without dissent. it helps broker deals between the public and private sectors, which is critical to our economic recovery and growth. it's particularly important to economically distressed communities, particularly in tough economic times. every $1 in e.d.a. grant funding leverages nearly $7 worth much private investment. for every $10,000 of e.d.a. investment and business incubators or accelerators some call them, which help

entrepreneurs "star" start up companies, nearly 70 jobs are created. in ohio and i don't think -- in the presiding officer's state is much different -- we've seen some 40 e.d.a. grants where $36 million leveraged into $70 million . colleges and universities from bowling green in northwest ohio to ohio university in southeast ohio to miami university in southwest ohio have received e.d.a. funds. so, too, have port authorities in toledo, in the west, in ashtabula, in the far northeast, and in cleveland and apa lay chavment if we're going to strength -7b our competitiveness, we will need to equip businesses world trade center tools they need to thrievment that's what e.d.a. is designed to do. e.d.a. is the front door for communities facing sudden and severe economic distress. when economic disaster hits, communities turn to the

government and it's e.d.a. that does the job at low cost leveraging all kinds of private dollars is. it has helped develop the former g.m. plant in lorain and a -- the bill the senate is considering would strength -7b a proven job program. it would reduce regulatory burdens. it would encourage public-private partnerships that we've already seen make a difference in my state. the bill would better streamline e.d.a. cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies to better assist communities with local economic development. i plan to offer two amendments to further strengthen e.d.a. one would assist former communities where a plant closure or a downsizing causes economic distress, like wilmington or lorain. the amendment gives special prenches to auto communities. the other would make more

communities eligible to receive funds for business incubators. ohio is home to the national business incubator association in athens. and several model business incubators from toledo to shaker heights to youngtown. this amendment would allow more companies in ohio and more communities in ohio to support home-grown entrepreneurship. two weeks ago i visited, as i have in several places around the state, an incubator in shaker heights called the launch house. there were some -- there was an old car dealership t closed down several years ago. it was renovated with relatively political money. it is now the home to about 40 entrepreneurs, one- and two-person start-up operations with the average age of these young entrepreneurs under 30. most of the great majority of these 35 or 40 entrepreneurs were themselves under 30. and you can, you know, some of these start-ups won't economies in two years. some of them will have grown in two years. many of them will be hiring lots of people in theees ahead.

some will fail, some will succeed. as i pointed out earlier, only $10,000 of e.d.a. investment and a business incubator creates somewhere in the vicinity of 5, 60, or 70 jobs. we must better connect our entrepreneurs with the resources they need to turn ideas in labs into a product in the market. earlier this year i held and innovation round table in columbus with leading ohio entrepreneurs and business leaders where we discussed the need to strengthen workforce verntle promote business entrepreneurship and support city planning. e.d.a. assistance, they tell me, is critical to these goals. it's legislation we should move forward on. i'm sorry that my friends on the other side of the aisle, who have been so supportive e.d.a. in the past, as it's always been bipartisan, seem to be standing in the way of this.

it's more than to move forward. i ask for the senate's support. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

that that shall vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we be in a period

of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each to be for debate only until 7:30 today. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended and ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: it's my honor to come to the senate floor this evening to speak on the issue of the dream act and to have among those in attendance on the floor of the united states senate a group of senators from mexico who are part of the mexican-american interparliamentary union. they are here on the floor with the majority leader, harry reid, as well as senator tom udall who is coordinating their visit to the united states over the next several days. we are honored that they are here and that they are allowed to come on the floor and to witness our senate, at least in this proceeding where i will

make a brief statement. the issue that i'm going to raise in the course of this evening is one that is of importance to many people around the world, certainly in the united states and certainly in the nation of mexico. ten years ago, mr. president, i introduced a bill known as the dream act. the dream act was an effort to put into law an opportunity for people, young people who were brought to the united states and are undocumented to have a chance to become legal in the united states. the first person brought to my attention was a young woman in chicago, illinois, who was korean. she came to the united states at the age of 2. she was an accomplished musician. she had been accepted at the very best music schools in america, juilliard school of music, the manhattan school of music, and as she filled out her application form, she asked her mother about her nationality and citizenship.

her mother told her i'm sorry, i don't know the answer because we never filed any papers. we brought you here as a baby and you've lived here all your life but we don't know what your status is. she said what should we do? her mom said we should call durbin's office. so they called my office and we checked on the laws in america, and unfortunately the laws did not allow her to be treated as a person legal in the united states. in fact, the american law said she had to return to the country she came from, which coincidentally was brazil not korea. she had no way of knowing that. her family had gone from korea to brazil to the united states. there she was at the age of 18 with a great opportunity ahead of her and no country. she had lived for 16 years in the united states. she believed she was an american. she knew no other country. she got up every day in new zealand and said the pledge of allegiance, sang the national anthem, and yet she was a person without a country.

well, it was because of her that i introduced the dream act ten years ago. what it basically said was many young people who were brought to the united states as children should not be punished because their parents didn't file the necessary papers. the dream act would give these students a chance to become legal in america. they would have to first prove that they came here as a child, that they are long-term u.s. residents, they have good moral character, graduate from high school and be prepared to do one of two things -- either serve in the united states military or complete at least two years of college. and so i introduced this bill ten years ago, thinking it was a simple matter of justice that these young people would have their chance. i had no idea how many young people were affected or would be affected, and as i went around the city of chicago and state of illinois and spoke at gatherings about the dream act, it wasn't unusual for young people to be waiting for me outside afterwards, and they would say

very quietly i'm one of those dream act kids. i was brought here and i'm undocumented and i don't know what i will do with my life. they would be very quiet about it. i would say well, i will do my best to pass this law. well, as time passed and we tried to bring this to the floor many times, things changed some. we picked up support from a lot of different people. the defense secretary robert gates supports the dream act. he called me one day and said as former president of texas a&m, i know what it means to have students, college students who cannot attend an away game for any sports because they are undocumented, and if they were stopped and asked to produce identification, they could be deported. and he says as secretary of defense, i know what it would mean if we could bring these young people into the american military. there would be more diversity, we would be a stronger nation, so i support it. and general colin powell also has endorsed it.

he believes, as i do, that this is a fair thing to do, a just thing to do and would be good for our military. over the years, these young people started coming forward more and more and speaking about their lives, and perhaps more bravado than they should have, they were prepared to risk deportation to tell their stories. well, over the years, these dreamers have become an important part of this effort to pass the dream act. we have the support of so many groups across america, including religious groups and many others who believe that this is the right and fair thing to do. we invite young people across america, if they want to voluntarily do so, to tell us their stories, and i come to the floor of the senate tonight to tell two stories about two young dream act people and their lives. the first one is juan rios. this is a photograph of juan rios. brought to the united states when he was 10 years old.

he grew up in the state of arizona. in high school, juan discovered his calling, military service. he became a leader in the air force your honor rotc -- air force junior rotc. he became drill demander and captain and rose to the rank of lieutenant kernel. juan dreamed of one day attending the air force academy but he was unable to do so because he is undocumented. instead, juan enrolled in arizona state university. this is a photograph, more recent photograph of juan on his commencement day at arizona state university. juan graduated from arizona state university with a degree in aeronautical engineering. since graduation, juan has been waiting for his chance to either serve in our military or to use his degree. he can't enlist, obviously, because he is undocumented, and he can't work in his field, the aeronautics industry, because of the same legal obstacle.

he just sent me a letter, and this is what it said -- "the united states of america is the country i want to live my life in, where i want to flourish as a productive citizen, where i want to grow old among my lifelong friends, where i want to one day fall in love and raise a family." what we heard from juan you can hear from young people all across america. it's his american dream, a dream that won't come true unless we pass the dream act. this next young lady i would like to introduce you to is someone that i met just a few weeks ago. this is tolu olabumi. she was brought to the united states from nigeria when she was a child. she graduated from high school here in the united states at the top of her class. she won a full scholarship to a prestigious university in virginia, and in 2002 graduated with a degree in chemical engineering. it's been ten years since i first introduced the dream act in 2001 and almost ten years since she graduated from

college. the dream act has yet to become law and tolu has yet to work one day as a chemical engineer because she is undocumented. instead, tolu has dedicated her life to passing the dream act. for her benefit and the benefit of others. for years, she has worked as a full-time volunteer. recently, she wrote me a letter and this is what she said." i don't have a powerful organization behind me, a fancy job title or even a paycheck, but i'm committed to standing with you and fighting for as long as you ask me to." tolu is not standing alone. her commitment and the commitment of many other dreamers is what inspires me to continue this effort for the dream act. there are so many others like tolu who are living a life of uncertainty. they have amazing accomplishments in their lives, and yet they can't use the degrees that they have earned to make this a better nation and to have a full life of their own. so last month, i reintroduced the dream act. tolu joined me at that occasion with senator harry reid who has been a strong supporter, bob

menendez, our hispanic colleague here in the senate, and richard bloomen that will from the state of connecticut. here's what tolu said." passing the dream act is critically important to me and so many others. i don't believe i am entitled to anything more than what this great nation has taught me, that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." she is right. thousands of immigrant students were brought to the u.s. as children. it wasn't their decision to come, but they grew up here, they made it their home and they are prepared to make this a better nation. some of my colleagues who come to the floor of the senate criticize the dream act because people under the age of 35 are eligible. they say the dream act should only benefit children. they ignore the obvious. in order to qualify for the dream act, an individual must have come to the united states as a child, just like tolu. now she is 30 years old. she has been waiting patiently for ten years. to say that she is now ineligible because we have not acted i think would be fundamentally unfair. today we had an interesting

speech which i listened to on the floor. it was the first speech, so-called maiden speech of our colleague marco rubio, republican from florida. it was an flent speech and i complimented him afterwards. among the things he talked about was the contribution of immigrants to the united states. mr. president, i am a first-generation american. my mother was an immigrant to this country. 100 years ago in 1911, her mother brought her at the age of 2 into this country. my mother didn't become a citizen until her mid 20's after she was married and had already had two children. she was a very proud and hard-working woman, raised a good family, i think. i'm a little bit partial. and now her son is the united states senator from illinois. this is not just my story, it's not my family's story. this is the american story. this is who we are. immigrants who came to this country and risked everything to be part of america and only ask for a chance, a chance to make this a better nation and to create a better life for them and their families. the dream act will give

thousands of young people across america that chance to become part of america's future. it is the just and fair thing to do to make us a stronger nation and to keep our promise that we are going to be fair in the way we administer the laws. i urge my colleagues to take a look at the version of the dream act that has been introduced. i urge them as well to join me as cosponsors. we will work carefully with other countries and other nations to make sure that we demonstrate to them the sense of fairness that is part of america. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, june 15. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader

remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 2:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

it is a tribute to president ford that many of you at this luncheon today have personal recollections of his brief but historic presidency and his long public service. he has many loyal friends and associates which is a great deal about the kind of person that he was. we also send a special greetings today to the former first lady betty ford who we trust is viewing this event via c-span in california. reporters who knew president ford admired his dedication to a free and unfettered press.

even though the press was not always kind to him he covered many presidents was a distinguished member of our club said that ford was the only president he knew who genuinely like reporters. apparently the others just take it. [laughter] former secretary of state henry kissinger and member of the fourth presidential foundation board of trustees has known a few presidents over the years during his career. he once told us gerald ford was probably the most normal person to assume the office perhaps because he didn't seek that office in the first place. the awards being presented today were established for the president ford support for free press in the final roll call the plays in informing their citizenry and preserving our democracy. steven ford one of the president's sons and chairman of the four traditional will now make this year's award presentation assisted by mojo, executive director of the

condition. mr. ford. [applause] >> it is an honor to be here. i want to thank the national press club and the ford presidential foundation. we have some of our trustees here today, carl hill, jim tannin define group of trustees and i want to thank the panel of judges that selected the winners and i had a chance to read all the articles and we've got some great winners here today. general, i want to thank you. thanks for coming and being our speaker. i was a young kid, 18-years-old and used to go back and forth between the main residence in the oval office and i always told that we got pretty good government housing. [laughter] and i can remember going back that there was a lot of business going on in the corridors of the

white house, but one of the friendliest people to the kids, the members of the family, general scowcroft, you always stopped and talked and asked how were they was coming and we appreciate that as young people come and it was a long time ago now, wasn't it? [laughter] you know, we heard a little bit dad had a special relationship with the press, he left the press and he told all of us you shouldn't go into politics if you have a thin skin. he listened to what was written and said about him and he appreciated the job they performed. i can remember sitting at the dinner table and dad talking about why a good democracy works so well it's because it had an educated public, and the press played such a role in educating the citizens of the country to make the democracy work and he felt very strongly about that. i had to laugh because one of the articles written steve was

talking about the bubble of now with the presidency and obama today, and ours was back in 1974 and was a different world. there's no doubt about it, and when we got to the white house -- well, the relationship with the press was different. when dad was vice president, we used to go to colorado in the wintertime and mom and dad had bought a small condominium and we ski when he was a congressman and when he became vice president, dad still wanted to do that so we would go out and our first christmas in colorado after he became president, i mean vice president, there was a young photographer named david at that time who worked for "time" magazine. many of you in this room know david and he showed up in colorado for "time" magazine at christmas without a hotel reservation. [laughter] that's something david would do thinking there was a bright idea

he would find a hotel room and christmas in jail colorado and somehow data found out he didn't have a bed to sleep in and think about this, this is 1973. dad invited david to come stay with us. he slept on our coverage, literally in our condominium in colorado. i remember waking up and i said who's the guy on the couch? [laughter] that's a pulitzer prize-winning photographer who ended up becoming like a member of our family, but i don't think you would see that sort of thing happen today in the way the world is today. dad was -- we were talking at the reception -- i was saying that encouraged us kids, taught us kids to be readers coming and readers of newspapers. and i can tell you what our breakfast was like every morning going up like a kid in high school came down, very quiet. everybody grab a section of the newspaper, and you studied and read in the morning. you might grab sports and see a

debate that might. the breakfast was very quiet because you wanted to absorb your facts and figures so you'd have a good debate that night and defend your position so that is how dad looked at it and even up to before he passed away 93-years-old. walking over to his office he always had five, six, seven, eight newspapers under his arm she was going to read that day and he read five journals and always had "the new york times" and wall street journal and "washington post" and in the last paper he read every day i think spoke a great volumes about who he was. he read the grand rapids press. his local paper where he had been a congressman for 20 years. and he used to say to less steve, policy and laws are the federal level made in washington, but you have to read

your local paper to find out if they get down to the people and workable level and that was the importance he thought of the local press is he could find out whether the policies they worked on in the white house of executive branch for congress but to the locals will fall in grand rapids michigan and served the people some newspapers in the press were very important to him. we need to get on here and i want to just have the judging panel we have some of the judging panel today and i want to thank them for being judges. we have to categories of the presidency and defense and our defense panel we've got deborah, eric peterson, david all left, karen scowcroft, robbed and michael and if we can just give them in a round of applause. [applause]

for the presidency our fries and a trustee jim cannon was a great public servant himself, she chairs this committee and we have got to john f. mcconnell, professor nelson, professor mark and bruno who couldn't be with us today so given around the plaza to them. [applause] we're going to handle the awards in just a second. i'm reading the stories on the bubble and the presidency in the white house. again it reminds you how difficult it was when dad became president he had been vice president, we lived in a little house across the river in alexandria va. there was no vice presidents mansion or limiting like that, we lived in the suburbs, he was committed to the office every day and when you assume the presidency that day in august august 1974 the helicopter left when the economic summit he got sworn into the office, we took

the picture in the oval office, and we didn't get to move into the white house. i thought you got a chance to move into the white house and nixon left so quickly and unexpectedly when he resigned to the were not able to pack up all their belongings so it took six or seven days. so that night after he took the oath of office, we went back to our three-bedroom house in alexandria virginia, and i will never forget my mother standing over the stove that might cooking. [laughter] she said jerry, something is wrong here. [laughter] you just became president of the united states and i'm still cooking. [laughter] of double boiler and the president's life in '74 was different than it is today. let me handle these citations and awards and get on to the keynote speaker, general scowcroft. the first award is reporting on

the presidency. this is a gerald ford journalism prize to a distinguished reporting on the presidency in 2010. let me read the citation. the judges for the presidency selected steve of feed mcclatchy newspapers as the 24th annual gerald ford prize for distinguished reporting on the presidency. in his reporting, steve demonstrates a clear understanding that not the first year but the second year in office for a new president is more accurate measure of his leadership, his management of the complexity of the federal office on his exercise of constitutional power, his way of communicating to the american people and stand in the public mind. he not only met the important criteria of timeliness, clarity and presentation insight and concise writing but he also made excellent use of expert sources

to provide indiscreet to stand out among the competition to the american is clear based on the solid facts and with engaging inventiveness. in every respect, the judges found his reporting on the presidency in 2010 outstanding. we have a citation here that i would like to give you. and we also have a check. >> congratulations. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. steve ford and i were talking before the luncheon a little bit about how much things have changed as he noted i wrote extensively about the bubble that has gone up around the presidency and the white house, and some of the other things that changed and i want to take

a minute to talk about the particularly the changes in their relationship with the press. as he points out his father had a different relationship with the press corps and a lot of presidential politicians have had. what we see i think today is the white house increasingly come and this is not through this incumbent but everyone since is trying to bypass using all the technology at their disposal, digital media, their own video, there and photographers tried to tell their story directly to the people and bypass the press at the same time the technology is changing what we do. we see these very short bursts of information, a few characters just a quick internet hits. yet i seek the presidency is worth a lot more exploration of that and continues to be a vital and important thing to do. to tell what the insiders are doing and thinking but also to run that by outside experts, by the people who study the presidency, and then put through the critical eye of a journalist.

for that and on behalf of all of us to cover the white house i thank the ford foundation for honoring this kind of work, and especially me and my colleagues at mcclatchy thank you for honoring months of this year. thank you. [applause] >> the second award is the gerald ford journalism prize distinguished reporting on national defense in 2010. our winner is shane harris. the judges for the national defence selected shane harris of the washingtonian as the winner of the 24th annual gerald ford prize for distinguished reporting on the national defence. the judges felt that the body of work submitted by mr. harris showcased some of the most important crosscutting challenges of our times. often writing about issues with which the nation is still coming to grips triet historical law of war raise important questions but the standards of warfare in

the age of new technology. the judges noted that his article anticipated issues that are today being raised in a conflict in libya. in hacking the bad guys he highlighted the struggle to cope with a new type of warfare that will impact the nation's security as well as its economic competitiveness. his gripping tale of waste and deily highlighted the decade-long struggle to purchase a new generation of a fuel tanker. noting that today's tanker pilots are flying airplanes first flown by their grandfathers and the pilots who will fly the next generation haven't been born yet. his article on the national counterterrorism center described the nation's struggle to manage the information needed to prevent future terrorist attacks. the judges were particularly impressed by mr. harrison's ability to eliminate complex policy issues while maintaining

a fair and balanced approach on topics that are often highly polarized. we would like to present you with this award. and a check. >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you. this is truly in our profession one of the highest honors we can receive and it's a thrill to be standing up here to be included in such a terrific company. previous winners many of whom i have had the great pleasure to work with over the years. i didn't get to this point alone and wanted to take a moment to really thank the editors and publishers i had the benefit of working with for the past ten years. i have had the rare opportunity

this day and age to work at the magazines that continue to devote tremendous resources and support long form journalism to - investigative reporting to the kind stories that take weeks and sometimes months to bring to light and if it were not for that kind of support i would not have had the resources and the time to do this work and i wouldn't be standing here. at the national journal i want to thank david bradley, john sullivan, who i don't think could be here today, charlie greene and my former editor, charles, now that the "washington post" where he's doing terrific work. patrick really was sort of just a partner with me for five years in reporting so many of these stories and was a constant companion and advocate so thank you. now my new home at washingtonian and my very dear friend and now my boss who has charted an ambitious course for the publication and a year ago asked

me if i would like to come over and write a good magazine stories and have that be my full-time job and i said that's a great, i'm glad that job still exists. [laughter] so think you very much for setting a high standard for us to follow and for being there to support me. i share this with all of you. thank you very much. [applause] >> this is a new thing we're doing this year and our panel on defense asked that we do this and it's kind of an honorable mention for a group that really stood out, and this year we want to just recognize them and ask them to stand and they did such fine work. the gerald ford reporting on national defense in 2010 a special mention the judges for the national defence selected andrew tillman and brendan's

staff writers for the military times has special mention for the 24th annual gerald r. ford plans for distinguished reporting on the national defence and i know one of them is in the room here. i don't know if brandon is. if you could stand up we will give you a round of applause. [applause] thank you very much. >> thank you, steve, and congratulations to this year's winners. the guest speaker to be served president ford as national security adviser former lieutenant general in the air force has been a trusted advisor to the president stretching from richard nixon to barack obama. he's a graduate of west point and earned his ph.d. at columbia university. brent scowcroft is willing to publicly oppose presidential policies with which he strongly disagrees. although he served as the chairman of the foreign intelligence advisory board president george w. bush, he openly opposed the president's plans to invade iraq in 2003.

he predicted the u.s. would be seen as an occupying power in a hostile environment. he served as military assistant to president nixon, deputy assistant for national security affairs for president nixon and ford and national security adviser for ford and h. w. bush. during his long association with republican administrations he was also attacked by president obama to help select his national security team. the guest speaker keeps a close watch on international affairs and as an academic as well as an international business consultant. he served on numerous council's involving military and national security issues. we look forward to hearing his unique perspective and ability to provide us with timely overview of the difficult foreign policy challenges facing the nation today. ladies and gentlemen the national falcon to general brent scowcroft. [applause]

>> thank you very much. mark, steve, it's terrie nice to be with you today, and it's great to see this nice turnout. i'm a little surprised since i said everything i know last year. [laughter] but on the other hand, since my remarks were first listed as brent scowcroft to criticize obama foreign policy challenges at the national press club maybe that's why you are all here. [laughter] no red meat i hesitate to say. i would like to congratulate stephen and shane harris since my daughter was one of the judges for shane i'm well aware

how distinguished the writing really is. i want to follow -- despite with the press club -- i want to follow steve's comments with just a few about president ford before i talk about foreign policy challenges. a few of the things president ford felt strongly about, relative to our current situation, it's not being dramatic to say the current political debate especially here in washington as acrimonious. it's been acrimonious before as a matter of fact when president ford came to office he not only had around his neck a debate about the mom, but also the first resignation of the

president, so he really understood that sort of thing. but his personality was such that a little over two years later we have widely forgotten what he did for us in the short time he was president to heal the wounds of the country. but one other thing, president ford was i would call him an apostle of cooperation and compromise, and those two words i think some in washington now refused even to use as being denigrating for what you're supposed to do. president ford would have been shocked by that. he knew that those

characteristics, cooperation and compromise was what made this country work. indeed, what was based on. our constitution is not a model for efficient government. it's a model to protect the individual against a government that tries to overstep itself, and it does that by setting up checks and balances everywhere. so it's easy to keep something from happening. to make it happen, you have to compromise, you have to cooperate and work together. and gerald ford knew that. i used to watch him when confronted with a new and complex problem he would sit there and dissect the problem. what are the elements that are absolutely crucial to making it a success? what are the elements we can

offer others who have different perspectives so that we end up all moving forward maybe not 100%, but 60% or 70%? and the last element i would like to talk about is ford and his pride in the federal system service or federal bureaucracy and we've had a number of presidents in recent years throw rocks at -- rock said washington and the director see as a bunch of self-serving diplomats who couldn't get a job anywhere -- bureaucrats, couldn't get a job anywhere else. our government is only as good as the people who work there, and i think we ought to be cheering them rather than

pretending that they are people who couldn't get a job anywhere else. anyway, i think following on what steve said, president ford was somebody we could certainly use right now. now, let me turn to my assigned task -- let me say one other things in terms of compromise. the constitution itself is the basic taurus system, fundamentally compromise to. how could we deal with giant states like new york and virginia and states like rhode island and delaware? we set up the senate where each state, big, small, had two representatives we saw the house where each state had

representative proportion to the population. if that's not compromise, i don't know what it is. that's what we are built on the and that's where we should go. now, let me focus -- how am i doing? [laughter] for a few minutes on some of the security challenges we face. a few minutes can't possibly cover all the challenges we face and don't really want to. but let me begin with a sort of backdrop about what's going on in the world, a backdrop against which these challenges are being played out. we are sort of living through what i would call a discontinuity of history. a change in the historical patterns from one sort of system

to another. our eighth president -- the present system, the nation's system was formalized in the treaty of 1553 set up the nation's state as the independent sovereign unit of which the international community would be made. and that replaced the period there were some monarchies were some individuals power holders in religion all kind of different sovereignty was obscure. the system reached i think probably in the 20th century with the two world wars. now we are entering into a period, and for lack of a better

word, but recall what the era of globalization, and that is an overworked word in many respects, but it's true and it is happening, and what globalization is doing is reducing the freedom of action of the nation's state and eroding the borders of the nation state. because more and more of the problems we all have to deal with, whether it is a financial movements, whether it's health, climate change come information technology, all of these things require reaching across borders to cooperate in order to solve problems, and that is changing the nature of what our system is. i like to compare it with the period 250 years ago of industrialization, which really created the modern nation state because to harness these great corporations we are building of

this economic power, the nation state had to be more powerful. globalization is having the same effect in the opposite direction as industrialization and powered the nation state, globalization is eroding the power of the nation state, and two points about this. the financial crisis of 2008 certainly demonstrated we have a single world economy. their reaction to the crisis also demonstrated we don't have a single way to solve the problem. we fell back on the nation state system and sort of half-hearted g20 to try to deal with it. the other thing which illustrates it which gets me into the current situation is what we call the arab spurring.

this is an explosion of people, popular sentiment, which sprang really from the self immolation of a fruit peddler in tunisia who was humiliated by the police now this is something new and it goes to the heart of globalization because for most of mankind's existence the average person didn't know much about anything going on beyond his village or maybe the next village. he lived like his father did. he expected his father to live like -- history was on timeless, seamless continuity. ..

>> because to organize, you had to go around and get people and tell them this and that and what to do. so you are a target for the police. not anymore. you push a button on twitter,

push a button on whatever the others are. [laughter] >> and a million people immediately hear you say, you know, turn out into the square at 10:00 in the morning. it's easy. it's automatic. i think that's what we're seeing this presents enormous complication for policymaking. first of all, it is a challenge. since it covers a whole region of the world acutely. between what i would call our interests and our values. our interests are in what value we have in a relationship that helps the united states in its problems. the our values are our innate

sympathy for democracy and modernization, and those kinds of things. fundamentally, democracy. and those are under challenged. and how do you decide which ones we would -- should pursue? we've done a little bit of both. and it makes it very, very difficult not that foreign policy always has to be consistent, but it creates problems for us, almost whatever we do. and in addition, each one of the countries affected by the arab spring has it's own individual set of problems. they are not all the same. and some of what we call semirepressive dictatorships in the region are what they are partly to suppress the kind of internal struggles and divisions that otherwise would tear the country apart. so it has been a very difficult

time for us. and the president has been criticizeed from both sides about doing too much, about doing too little. and the outcome is not yet in sight. but i think we should be cautious about interpreting what's going on in these countries as the upsurge of an innate instinct for democracy. i think the urge is more basically as it was for the fruit peddler for dignity than for democracy as we know it. democracy represents -- a government is a very complicated notion. and to feel that that filled 100,000 people's breaths into

tahrir square and cairo, it's unfair. it's fair to say the difficult job is really ahead of us. how do you take what has happened and model it so it moves in a productive rather a destructive direction? we've taken first steps in what i would call a cornerstone country of the middle east. that is egypt. the most populous country and certainly at the epicenter of what happened. and that is we are now pushing hard for an economic program for egypt. because if we cannot rescue egypt for the chaos in which it's fallen, tourism is nonexistence in egypt. remittances from egypt's working aboard are down to virtually

zero. foreign, direct investment has just about zeroed out. egypt is in desperate economic shape. what do you think will happen if the economy collapses to any hope for a system which will broaden participation? different countries have different problems. libya is a case of really almost entirely our values. what interests do we have in libya? million and a half barrels of oil a day? easily compensated for. gadhafi is the guy that everybody loves to hate. and there's certainly is a split in libya. it's not a new split. east libya and west libya have a history of tribal antagonism. take another extreme: syria.

syria is a very complicated country. where our interest are intense, not only syria and it's relationship to israel, syria and it's relationship to lebanon, syria and it's relationship to iran on the one hand, hezbollah, hamas, intense interest. what about syria? syria is run by an allied a tiny minority of the shiite forum of islam. but syria as a whole is a majority sunni country. it also has a tradition over the last 40 or so years of secularism being run by the baathist party. if bashar gets overthrown who replaces him? a step forward or backward? it's hard to stay.

yemen is a very different case. yemen is a very tribal society. before president saleh managed to consolidate, there was a north and south lebanon. at one time, the soviet union supported south lebanon -- i mean yemen. we supported north yemen. so each one of these situations is different and complicated. let me move on just very quickly. i've already talked 15 minutes. just for a little bit about afghanistan and pakistan. and i think you cannot discuss them separately. we have a huge dilemma with growing pressure now. osama bin laden is dead. we have terrible budget pressures on defense and so on. it's time to cut our losses.

well, it maybe. but we should also worry about cutting our gains. it has been a difficult struggle in afghanistan. we have changed strategies at least once. we now are in a telling year where the surge in troops is beginning to show. we are beginning to reach out to afghanistan's neighbors, the chinese, the russians, you are -- ukrainians. we don't need an afghanistan. this is a highly centralized efficient state. we simply need an afghanistan that is not a breeding ground

for attacks on outside civilization. it is a very difficult issue for the president who i think very skillfully maneuvered his first declaration, we're going to start drawing down in july of this year to pushing it gradually off to 2014. so i'm mildly optimistic there. the other things that i would have talked about, if i were not to be dragged off of the stage would be a little bit about china, north korea, russia, iran, but i understand we have a few moments for questions and i'll be happy to deal with any of those you -- the questioners are interested in. thank you very much for your attention. [applause]

[applause] >> if you'd let me scoot up. >> yup. absolutely. >> thank you. people are eager to tap your vast intellectual resources and give you a chance to hydrid. >> i like it. >> we're glad to have that opportunity. there are several on the topic you were talking about. on the issue of the nation state where we should be in the business of helping to build that. one person ask can the u.s. continue to proclaim support for democracy while also backing oppressive regimes like that in saudi arabia? >> well, that's been one the president's real problems. there are few countries where our interests -- few countries in the region where our interests are stronger than in saudi arabia. and yet saudi arabia is -- is

it's own -- has it's own uniqueness. it is an alliance between the saudi family and the tribal wars of the arab peninsula there with the wahabbi religious branch of islam that the wahabbi religious would bless the saudis to be the governance of the region in return for which the monarchy would support wahabbism. that's how they got started today. when king abdallah was crowned prince, he had a reputation of being a modernizer. he started a consultative counsel which could easily have been the birthplace of a

legislature. he also made changes in succession from being the prerogative of the monoarch to the royal family sort of counsel. that has not gone very far recently. but what do we do about saudi arabia? or the other monarchies. they did not suffer so much in the arab spring. partly because of their wealth. there's not economic deprivation which added to some of the others like in libya or in tunisia and egypt in particular by so these are the kinds of problems that we need to deal with. it's not just saudi arabia. it's bahrain. bahrain is run by a sunni

monarchy where the strong majority of shiites for their citizenship. each one of these countries has it's own particular problems. we need to say, you know, there's not necessarily one size fits all and we're not trying to impose an american solution. what we want is to help all of these countries to the extent that we can work their way through their problems to the benefit of everyone. >> questioner asked: what do you think about the expanded use of predator drones to attack respective terrorists and what restrictions should apply to those? >> well, i've mentioned strategy changes in afghanistan. we've had a debate between of a strategy of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. and the counterterrorism strategy is you find a bag guy, you take him out. if you happen to kill some

civilians, it's too bad, but it's collateral damage. and in counterinsurgency, you say, no, you have to build confidence in your security mission and in the local security around you so that you have -- so that you develop stability. so if you see the bad guy, and he's surrounded by civilians, you don't take him out. you do more damage to the strategy by taking out the civilians than you get in the strategy. we've gone back and forth a little bit on that. some people say we've gone too far in one direction or another. i think right now we have it about right. but it's a judgment. >> that's what we're here for. how would you define victory in afghanistan and how sharp do you think the drawdown of troops

should be? >> well, if you look back at the house in days of afghanistan, if there ever were any, they had a king and the king sort of presided and everybody nodded to the king and then they went about and did their own business. tribal, groups, ethnic groups and so on and so forth. that's the kind of afghanistan we could be very comfortable with. and so could most of afghan's neighbors. it is the punitive change of afghanistan into the training place for al qaeda to attack the trade towers which transformed the whole thing. so we don't need to recreate afghanistan. all we need is some assurance that the old, very informal

structure can sustain itself. >> you said you'd like to talk about china. here's a question. you reference china's concern about the arab uprising, what is the risk facing beijing and by extension the u.s. relationship with it? >> well, i think -- i would venture to say the most wonderful american foreign policy in the last 50 years or so has been a china policy. because starting with richard nixon from a position of total hostility between the two powers, we've gone through eight presidents, some of them starting out with harsh views about china. they have all come to the conclusion that broadening and deepening our relationship with china is in the national interest of the united states. and we have made enormous progress. now there have been some rough

spots. recently and i think for understandable reasons. the chinese have always -- especially in economic matters, international finance have tended to defer to the united states as being the world experts. well, who was it screwed up in 19 -- 2008? it was the united states. so the chinese think we don't have to pay attention to you anymore. there was a certain am of hubris that went with that. they began to make some changes which were at the very least, irritating. i think what we have to remember is that we in the chinese are about as different as any two people could be. in terms of our history, our culture, our religions, everything. we, for example, back in my remarks live in the world of the

nation state system. the chinese still mentally live in the world of the central kingdom. we think anybody can be an american. anybody. the chinese -- if you are not chinese, you cannot become chinese. the central kingdom is not just one sovereign state, it's the center of everything. so until 200 years ago when the nation state system came in and raped china in the eyes of the chinese. so we have very different outlooks. but there isn't anything that i see that fates us to become enemies. we will have differences of opinion, we have different perspectives. and the chinese are gapping with an economic system which has been very, very successful and a political system which has not

evolved very significantly. so they have a lot of problems. we need to help them to the extent that we can solve them. >> wil bring it back home for the next question. the last serious question perhaps. that is two questions getting to the fact that it seems as if a presidential campaign season is already upon us given the fact that debates are now being held. so the questioners ask and i'll sort of lump these together. what are your thoughts on the state of the republican party? any predictions on the nomination so far out? and the other questioner says with the current roster of republican candidates having relatively little national security experience, how do you see the state of national security should one of them be elected? >> i'm not politically sophisticated, but i'm not stupid. >> i guess the folks here were

hoping that you might take the bait, nonetheless. which u.s. president best anticipated his foreign or rather than best articulated his best foreign policy to the american people? >> oo. that's a tough one. that's a tough one. i don't know. our presidents have done pretty well. but it gets harder as our reasons for some of the things that we do get more complex and obscure. you know, harry truman had a pretty easy job with the korean war, because it was pretty obvious. but, of course, so did bush 43 in going into iraq.

which was in retrospect, not so obvious. i think that we in this country have sometimes a tendency to get frustrated with the complexities of diplomacy and think why don't we just cut through all of this drizzle with a little force and we'll clean everything up. one the problems with that is that when you use force, it inevitably changes the whole context of the world in which you use it. and it creates it's own imperative when you use force, you are not longer facing the world where you thought force was the thing to use. i think we need to be more aware of that. you know, if we were not in afghanistan right now, we certainly wouldn't be talking about going in. so these are the kinds of things

that we need to be more thoughtful about. >> general, we're almost out of time. before we ask the last question, a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i'd like to remind you about some of the upcoming luncheon speakers. sheila bear will reflect on her time. june 30th, gary senese will announce his charity for raising funds supporting the military. on the first of july, nasa administrator charles boldin will speak a week before the final scheduled space shuttle launch. secondly, but not least important, we'd like to of present you with a token of appreciation. that is the traditional npc coffee mug. >> thank you. [applause] >> now i'd like to ask the last question.

typically i like -- if you'd just stay up here for a moment, general. >> i tried. >> yup. [laughter] >> typically, i like to end on something of a brain teaser, something like that. but given the fact that we are here to celebrate the legacy of president ford, i just wonder if you could close with perhaps one of your favorite stories, one of your most cherished memories about him that you might be able to share with our audience, whether it's a humorous moment or something that you found quite enduring about president ford. >> well, one the things that i had most fun with, but most difficulty coping with was his golf swing. [laughter] >> and he was -- first of all, president ford was a really good athlete. he had the reputation of stumbling, every time i saw him

stumble, it was in front of a press camera. he was a big man, he was a strong man. and he had a powerful golf swing. but he had no idea where the ball was going to go. every time he was out playing golf, there would be people lining the fairway to watch the president play golf. boy, he hit a lot of people. [laughter] >> how about a round of applause for a speaker today? [applause] [applause] >> that's one thing they don't have to worry about the coming week with the congressional country club with the u.s. open. thank you all for coming today. i'd like to thank our national press club staff, including the library for organizing the event today, finally a reminder to find more information on the web site. please check out that out www.press.org. thank you and we're adjourned. [gavel] [applause]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible[inaudible conversati] [inaudible conversations] >> next on c-span, a senate hearing on wild fire management with testimony from tom tidwell. 2011 is one the worst fire seasons and arizona wallow fire is the largest in states history. after that, nuclear regulatory commission chairman is investigated for misleading and wilt holding information from other commissioners. a house energy and commerce subcommittee looks at the nrc inspector general report, which

criticizes gregory's management. then globalization in the middle east and north africa. he said borders are eroding and political demonstrations complicate u.s. policy. all of this next on c-span. >> the thing, henry, to me it's unquenchable, you put it out. because it involves secure information, a lot of other things. what kind of people would do such things? >> 40 years ago this week, "the new york times" published the first installments of the pentagon paper. today at the c-span video library, watch the historians and people that made history. search, clip, watch, share, watch what you want, when you want. >> the supreme court is now available as a standard and enhanced ebook and tells the story of the court through the justices themselves.

with current and retired justices. it includes an interview with the newest supreme court justice, elena kagan, and add by watching multimedia clips from all of the justices. c-span "supreme court" available now whether ebooks are sold. >> next month on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span2, a discussion about balancing a federal budget. former national security advisory brett scowcroft

discusss foreign policy. >> with negotiations continuing over the budget, the committee for the federal budget and new america foundation hosts the conference on the u.s. economy and federal ceiling. speakers included ben bernanke, mike crapo, and this is three hours and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]