the efficacy of portugal's decriminalization effort, but they invested a lot of money to get ready for folks coming in to see themselves for treatment. and are we prepared, you know, to have higher taxes to pay for those folks that are going to present themselves for treatment. i personally -- yes, i would pay any amount of money to help fix somebody and that's one of the issues i have. drug courts need to be well financed and the federal government needs to get behind them, make sure that they're comprehensive in all the states. that's the best decriminalization we have in the united states. >> let me say -- first of all, i agree with tony portugal is a model. 10 years ago portugal decriminalized all drug possession, right. and people who get stopped for drugs are sent to a health

board. there's no drug testing. people get an opportunity to deal with their drug problems without the coercion of the criminal justice system. the result has been that drug use is more or less stable but the negative consequences in terms of aid and criminality has all gone down. if you want to read more go to the cato institute website and -- but i also want to say drug courts are not the answer. drug courts there's some wonderful drug courts are doing wonderful work but with addiction and illness that we need the criminal justice coercion -- you know, go to our website and drug courts are not the angeles and what you'll see is that when you look hard at drug courts you see they're not producing the results that are claimed for them. there's no reason -- when you're dealing with drug addiction and when you know that one of the nature of addiction is that people relapse, people fall off the wagon, whatever it might be, the notion that those people then have to be incarcerated to get clean, whereas, if you're dealing with something else, you

don't deal with it that way, heroin addicts routinely say the toughest drug to quit is cigarettes. 50% of all smokers now have quit cigarettes and they did it without the criminal justice system being involved. they did it without being coerced into massive treatment programs. they did it because of taxation and regulation and education and peer pressure. those are the things we need to rely on when it comes to drug education and also drug treatment. we don't need the criminal justice system front and center unless people are actively hurting other people. [applause] >> a high percentage of people in drug courts are there for burglary, theft, forgery and whatever and they're referred to the drug courts because they have a drug problem that the system is trying to deal with. >> and you and i don't disagree, the extent those people would otherwise be sent to prison for a burglary or theft and we don't have much of a disagreement. when you see many drug courts overwhelmingly taking people not for those activities but overwhelming taking people whose

only offense is possession of a small amount of drugs for their own use and that's true of many drugs -- if not drug courts around the country, that's not an appropriate use of drug courts. it's not an appropriate way of doing drug treatment. it's not the appropriate policy. >> for people that are in drug courts are not people that have gotten caught with -- [inaudible] >> for anything. they're people that have serious problems, that have major crimes behind them. >> tony, you're wrong. the evidence is out there. >> i've been working for drug courts for years and that is -- >> tony, what do you want to bet on this one? [laughter] >> well, speaking of bets, and what's wrong, i told you i've been on these panels for a long time and it's almost humorous to me that the legalization proponents that used to cite great britain what a wonderful situation and then they talked about switzerland and then they talked about holland.

now we're to portugal. folks, there's a lot of counter-information out there. there's -- >> i'll talk about all three of those if you'd like because they're all much better than what we have here >> but they have all had increases of drug use as a result of increased drug uses. >> they could be increases in honesty that they suffered from. >> and they may have less drug addiction and people with hiv and criminality of drugs and all those places are doing much better than we are. >> every single drug category abuse in portugal has risen. >> overdose is down. hiv and hepatitis c down, people arrested in predatory crime rates is down. so you can see drug use levels are stable and -- but also all the negative consequences of drug use are down. >> cato institute took a snapshot in 2007 based on a three-week visit to the country. >> then look at the british criminal of journal and there's

much more academic professional effort in late 2010 and you'll see the evidence without the cato -- >> there's a lot of information on both sides. >> gentlemen, i appreciate the passion but i want to ask another question. >> sure. >> i want to ask the question that could be asked actually in one of two ways. i'm going to ask it in an affirmative way and it could also be asked in a negative way and it's more directed toward attorney general suthers and mr. coulson. that is the question -- one of production of the individual or protection of society. and if it's a question of protection of society, why do we not have stronger drunk driving laws? >> it is both. and we do have very strong drunk driving laws. and, you know, a lot of people think that the law doesn't have a deterrent effect, beginning with the public pressure -- and i lived through this, folks. i started out as a prosecutor when the penalty of drunk driving was a $150 fine and i saw when the public pressure to

increase the consequences and involved jail time we reduced in a very short period of time our fatal accidents due to alcohol in colorado in half. the law can be a very significant deterrent. and that's one of the things that these folks never like to acknowledge, the extent -- the number of americans who will say in survey, and particularly young americans who will say that the legal status of a substance is important to them. and if it's illegal they're not inclined to use it. >> it's illegal for them to drink but it doesn't stop young people to drinking. >> for tons of them it does. >> it's a big problem. >> shortly after president obama's inauguration, attorney general eric holder directed federal prosecutors to back away from the pursuing the cases against medical marijuana patients. however, the united states attorney including john walsh of

the district of colorado have sent letters to various governors, states attorneys general suggesting a potential change in policy. the question is, is there, in fact, a change in policy. if there's not, what's behind this? and if so, what prompt it? >> well, i would say it's a subtle shift in policy. that the memorandum what's called the ogden memorandum, which is if something operates under state law we're not going to get involved and that was a message and when they put on a memorandum that it had gone a little too far. the city of oakland proposed setting up a huge grow facility and basically the obama administration said that's just too much. so i think the obama administration was firing shots across the battles which is don't take this things too far. it depends on the local political situation. in colorado you guys are really at the forefront when it comes to responsible legislation and

it's important for people in the marijuana industry to continue to act responsibly, understand that you're actually providing leadership for the country. you look in montana there's been a brutal effort on the part of u.s. attorneys to do stuff there. you look in new jersey, where governor christie, the republican darling had been existing implementing the medical marijuana law and then last month he announces i'm implementing it and, in fact, i'm going to interpret the justice department memo in such a way that allows me and then governor chaffee in rhode island will legalize medical marijuana. and if depends on the good faith and the good will of the intelligence of the people involved to the law enforcement, the doctors and the patients. >> i want to observe that this this was more than a shot across the bough. the letter from john walsh

within colorado basically said that public officials could also be prosecuted for supporting medical marijuana. >> i really do have a bird eye's view on this and eric, you're pretty close -- steve, you're pretty close to what happened here. >> the initial memo came about, frankly, as a lot of discussion in the campaign. >> uh-huh. >> and the president agreed that if people are strictly complying with state medical marijuana laws, it shouldn't be a federal enforcement priority. the problem was, most of the medical marijuana laws at that time were kind of the -- what we had in colorado, the grow your own caretaker sort of thing. we did not have the dispensary on every corner model. we moved to that, other states are -- have moved to it or are contemplating moving to it and i'll tell you what's going on in ombcp. they're nervous at heck of that handout. the rate of teenage use of

marijuana and the only thing that's changed in the market is the medical marijuana phenomenon. the teenage use of marijuana is increasing significantly. and i know for a fact they don't want to be responsible for returns to 1979 levels of marijuana use in this country. that's what's going and the justice department said, hey, wait a minute, and is retrenching a little bit and what they're trying to do is discourage other states, whether it would be successful or not, i doubt it, from implementing dispensary model like colorado has. >> in the vermont the governor says i'm going to implement the law in good faith. in washington state you have the governor who went to law school or kindergarten or something with the u.s. attorney kind of orchestrating this whole thing. in arizona, you have a governor who's making one state-based argument with respect to illegal immigration and something entirely the opposite logic with respect to medical marijuana being an entire hypocrite on this issue so it really is a lot

depending on the local situation. my sense is that the justice department is not going to be going at it aggressively in those places where local authorities are regulating and operating in good faith. >> i think it's more of a political discussion than a legal discussion. and, again, i don't see that there would be the political will for any type of mass enforcement action. more on the capability by the way. there's neither the ability or the political will for a mass enforcement action. >> having gone to both kindergarten and law school, i understand the confusion. [laughter] >> i want to pick up on something that mr. coulson wrote about in his commentary today. and that is, it is sort of an accepted that the war on drugs which has been going on for -- in the range of 40 years now has been a failure. and the question is -- and it was an interesting question that

you raised in your commentary, has it failed because we haven't yet done enough? >> yes. we haven't committed as a society to changing, one, drug use, substance abuse from a law enforcement issue to a public health issue. that is a big issue. that issue is about investing in giving the message hardening, making our children resilient to drug use, to providing those who fall into the addiction cycle a place to go. for those who are incarcerated and looking for treatment, an avenue of treatment. if someone wants help, they need to have help. that's what in terms of a drug war we haven't had a comprehensive -- and i know president nixon coined that phrase. i know as a drug enforcement agent, i could never understand

the term "drug war" 'cause we never really went to war against drugs. we struggled bringing domains together. bringing law enforcement together with prevention treatment, working hand-in-hand to help a community heal. and sometimes helping a community heal means putting somebody in jail. >> if you hurt other people, yes. >> who's a drug trafficker so that community has time to heal. but we've never invested in fixing people. and now we've gone through two wars and we have returning veterans who aren't getting the assistance that they need. we have people who need help who aren't getting it. unfortunately, the people that need help is in our communities that are most impacted by crime, which is drug-related. you know, if we invest hopefully

in a generation or so, there won't be a need for a drug enforcement agent. and that is the ideal situation. dr. nadelmann has pointed out that we'll always have drugs here. i can never subscribe to that because it just means that there's no hope. >> it may not make for good theater but i'm going to ask a question that isn't often asked at debate and we have about 5 minutes left in this segment. i'm going to ask to go around the circle here or the line or horseshoe and ask what each of you can agree on, in about a minute each. >> i agree with the attorney general that legalization makes more sense than the medicalization. i think it's an odd association to convey the theoretical and limited medicinal impact to somehow say that marijuana is good for you because it's clearly not. not again that it doesn't help perhaps for some chronic pain or side effects from chemotherapy or certain conditions but by and

large marijuana is very bad for you. and it's not something that should be thought of as something that's helpful or medical, although it might have in this role. i hope that given the choice that the ballot box might be between medical and legal i hope the attorney general will evolve on that i'd rather have it illegal but given these two choices but i'm going to go for the nonmedical so i agree with him on that. i also agree i think with a couple people have mentioned treatment and health. that's got to be there. in fact, one of the things i think we can do in an era of declining resources is again have dedicated tax revenue that goes to help and treatment and education and . and i agree with it all. >> i agree with congressman polis and dr. nadelmann that law enforcement is not the answer.

we have to get better in prevention and treatment and invest in it. our differences, i think, is very significant is whether there should be any deterrent role for law enforcement and i think there should be one. but it is a health issue. i just also think it's also a social problem that implicates our crime problems and all those sorts of things and needs involvement of our law enforcement, but it is not a problem that will be solved by law enforcement. >> and i would say i think what jared said about -- when you said legalization, in the netherlands where anybody over the eighteen of 18 can get marijuana they have a medical marijuana distribution system. it's produced in a very sanitary environment and where it's covered by national health insurance by those people who are really regarded to medical marijuana treatments. i think we can agree that drug

courts may be an appropriate place for people against predatory crimes for others. i don't think they're appropriate for people with the only offense is drug possession. i can agree with tony was saying we need a more comprehensive public health approach and he will relying interdiction at the borders given the inevitable porousness and the amount of legal trafficking across those borders is ultimately probably a futile strategy so -- >> we've heard it all -- we agree on all these topics. i would like us to agree on the fact that we need more independent studies not funded by either the prolegalization or the promedical marijuana side or government but more independent studies, such like, dr. haney's columbia university's work that she is doing. we need more data. we need more information. before we pull down the fence,

we have to understand why the fence was put up to begin with. and we just don't of that information. and i can't see selling a next generation of kids down the street because we think it's the right thing to do. >> let's open this up to the audience. this is going to be more like kindergarten than law school. those with the hands politely up will get called on first. let's start over here with this gentleman in the center here. and the microphone's over here. >> officer coulson, first of all, i'm hispanic. i'm from mexico. i was very offended that comment you made of the heritage. last month we had over 2 million mexicans peacefully protesting the atrocities that are happening in mexico over the drug war. the cartels did not get stronger because they inherited whatever you said that -- that spain

treated us badly and, therefore, we're violent. the cartels got strong for two reasons. one is because the united states stopped immigration and started enforcing harder places -- so the cartels like the sinaloa got rich charging people to be coyotes and forcing those people to come across the river. so that's the reason they got trunk and that tree you showed isn't of the united states and if you really want to stop those rates please allow for comprehensive immigration reform that allows those people to be treated justly. second of all, the weapons that are killing people in mexico came from the united states. came from atf agents. the officer that just sadfully died who died in mexico a couple months ago was killed by a weapon supplied by the u.s. government to the cartels. so please do not blame my country for the u.s. using of the drugs 'cause your appetite for drugs is killing my country.

please legalize it so that the deaths of my country stop. [applause] >> as a response, i mean no disrespect but i'm glad that you're offended by my remarks because you need to stand up and speak up. more people in this country need to stand up. they're being victimized but i'm not saying that this was inherited from the colonial masters. this came from one of your major politicians in your country. governor edwardo bores stated that in a public forum seminar in phoenix, arizona. he's one of the wealthy 200 families. he was a president -- candidate for the presidency of mexico and he said that. that's his statement that he made. i want you to stand up. i'm waiting for the people of mexico to be tired of what's

going on. because when it happens, we're going to have a different dynamic in this drug situation. >> i'm spending a lot of time with mexican prosecutors and let me explain how that comes about. the conference of western attorney generals 15 western states have a usaid grant over five years to train prosecutors and investigators in mexico because to their credit they're trying to move to an adversary system of justice from the current system which, frankly, is grossly corrupt. and so i'm spending a lot of time with mexican prosecutors. they are incredibly frustrated at the number of guns coming across from the united states. i personally believe this particular atf program which i understand they were trying to get to higher levels. i think it was not a well thoughtout program but i've asked all the state attorneys and the federal attorney general whether they think legalization of marijuana or even other drugs

would bring a significant end to the violence in mexico. they don't think so. they think that it is so ingrained at this point they're very flexible. when the drug market dries up, they kidnap people. when they get the level of corruption -- until we get some meaningful change in the criminal justice system, it's kind of a nonplayer down there, and they're in charge of the country, they will do whatever they need to do to make money regardless of what happens in the united states. >> i'll say two quick points the first time if you legalize drugs the gangsters will go to other gangs they are doing that anyway. the number 1 thing you need to go into other businesses is capital. the number 1 source of capital for the mexican gangs is the illegal drug business. legalizing marijuana reduces -- remove a major source of capital

for them and will undermine their capacity to expand into other areas. when it comes to mexican political leadership, you know, the former president fox has now said legalization is the only way to go. his predecessor ernesto medillo and with the other presidents of brazil, switzerland all saying the same thing essentially what i've been saying that we need a new way and legalization at least of marijuana needs to be on the table so prosecutors, i rarely met a prosecutor in office who will agree with us but those who may do so privately and those who are retired and no longer worrying about their peers oftentimes you'll hear a different story. >> let's take another question. excuse me, the gentleman with the white hat up here. can we ask you to come down here, please.

>> this is for the enforcement officers here. >> i'm retired by the way. >> well, the retired enforcement officer, my apologies. let me give you a little personal information about me. my name is jerry. and i'm 39. and when i was 18 i had my entire colin removed and i became a diabetic because it destroyed my pancreas and they discovered a liver disease that would require a transplant when i was older. that was in 1990, i think, i smoked marijuana the first time in 19, like, 87, when i was like 13. only did it a couple times

between then and '90 and then after 1990, it was a chronic use. because i didn't like the pills that they gave me for the intestine diseases that i had and the pain and the nausea and all of that and i had my liver transplant when i was 25. that was my first liver transplant. and by then i had learned that these pills that are making me deathly sick if i consume them. whereas, the marijuana actually motivated me to get out of bed and get down the hall and exercise and ride my bicycle. i had my -- >> we'll leave the discussion at this point. you can see the rest of it on the c-span video library. now live to the white house briefing today. president obama is requesting a joint session of congress to discuss jobs. we expect that will be the topic of many questions today in the white house briefing.

>> i don't want to speak for the leaders of congress, but i know you all did learn that the president requested of the leaders that he speak to a joint session of congress next week on september 7th at 8:00 pm. beyond that i don't have any announcements so i'll start with your questions. >> hi. can you talk a little bit about why he's going to do the speech before a joint session of congress as opposed to some other venue? >> sure. the president feels that we are at a moment when we need to take significant action to spur economic growth and to create jobs, to accelerate hiring and that action can be -- there's significant things we can do if we work together in washington. and that requires working in congress. and he believes that if members of congress -- while they've been on their recess have been

hearing the same things from regular americans that he heard when he was on his bus tour and then they will come back with a sense of urgency and a focus and determination to do kinds of bipartisan things that we can do right now to increase growth and increase job creation. so he believes that the -- the venue is appropriate because of the actions that need to be taken. >> the timing of this speech is also a republican debate made in california that the white house typically choose the -- >> no, of course not, there were a lot of considerations -- once you decide you want to do a speech to congress and you have to deal with congressional schedules and others -- there are other -- there are many other factors here. and, obviously, one debate of many that's on one channel of many was not enough reason not to have the speech at the time that we decided to have it.

>> can you check with -- [inaudible] >> we made consultations, obviously, with networks all the time about the timing of presidential speeches. >> thank you. >> can i follow up real quick, i'm sorry. >> the gentleman from reuters. >> any concern -- as you know it's at the reagan facility. any concern of potentially upsetting nancy reagan by stepping on this? >> well, i think that the -- you know, the sponsors of the debate control the timing of it. they can make a decision based on how they want to handle this. there are many opportunities for the public to hear the president speak, to watch this debate and one of many. and we'll let -- we'll let that sort itself out.

yes. >> thank you very much >> two questions on the speech. the president said yesterday in a radio interview the government could take steps that could spur growth up to 1.5 percentage points and spur jobs -- >> no. i think if you look at the full quotation, the full context of that comment by the president, he was speaking generally about economic models that -- economic analysis and models that say, you know, every -- roughly, i'm not an economist but every 1% of growth equals -- generally equals a tk number of jobs or 100,000 jobs so that was not a reference to his proposal. i'll leave the details and the projections of added growth and job creation to the speech itself and to the analysis afterwards. that was more a reference to general economic analysis that says if you take measures to increase economic growth, it will -- by this percentage, it

will result in this many jobs. >> okay. and then secondly, is it a jobs speech or is it a jobs and deficit speech? because the president has a reference in bringing down the deficit. is it going to include proposals -- >> the president made clear his commitment to present to the so-called super-committee, special committee, joint committee in congress that will deal with further deficit and debt reduction. his own specific and detailed proposals. he will do that. this speech next week -- he will certainly put the need for jobs, job creation and economic growth within the context of an overall long-term plan for dealing with growing our economy and getting our fiscal house in order but the speech next week will focus on the immediate need to create jobs and spur economic growth. it will contain -- there will be many elements of it. i don't want to overpreview it here. but the commitment to present a

detailed proposal on deficit reduction remains and that as you know, i believe the committee meets for the first time the following week. next week, he will focus on jobs and growth. >> so he will not lay out a goal -- >> again, i'm not going to get into the specifics. it will be a significant speech with many elements to it. but i don't want -- i want to be clear that we are -- that the president is focused very much on steps we can take together congress and the administration to grow the economy and create jobs at this important time in the american economy. >> on housing, jay, is the white house working on a new proposal at this point? >> the -- as you know, restoring the health of the housing market through his dramatic collapse is an important goal and it's not an easy task.

we have been committed since the day this president was sworn into office to taking measures -- taking steps that will help us to do that and we continue to look at new ideas for how to do that. there's many measures that we have taken that have resulted in many, many families being able to stay in their homes, to restructure their mortgages and to allow themselves to stay in their homes and we think that's very important and we'll continue to look at measures most recently over the summer, as you know the president put forward an initiative of expanded forbearance for unemployed homeowners to allow them to stay in their homes and he began the process of dealing with the excess of foreclosed properties to help stabilize communities and home values. and we continue to look at new idea ideas. >> and they are incrementally and involved millions of fewer people than the administration initially said they would.

how imperative is it with the president's perspective to help those people, millions of people who are under water on their home loans to refinance? >> the president, as i said, continues to be focused on this issue. it's not an easy task. i would note that over 760,000 homeowners have obtained permanent remodifications -- modifications, rather, to their mortgages under the h.a.m.p. program and 20,000 to 30,000 more homeowners are obtaining permanent modifications each month and when you combine that with the assistance through hud and through the private sector the private sector has taken another 5 million families that have been offered modifications from 2009 to 2010 and we have looked at measures and to take steps that can improve the prospects for homeowners and to allow them to stay in their homes and including -- evidence of the fact that we're constantly looking for new ideas on this issue is the two measures that i just referenced.

>> it sounds very decoupled from jobs on the deficit reduction. it's something maybe that's a lesser priority than those other things? >> i think these are all priorities. and the housing challenge that we continue to face is part of the economic challenge that we face. there's no question. and he's focused on that as part of his overall highest priority which is the economy and jobs. ..

i think overall, we continue to be intensely focused on taking the fight to al qaeda and the terrorists who threaten the united states and protecting the homeland and the record record this administration has in those tasks is one worth reviewing, which doesn't mean we don't cop standly look for ways to improve. >> some of these are not technical. intelligence share and coordination not the intelligence integration we review. this is not technical stuff. >> i think that is a broad statement about the dni and other things and some has to do the structure and would

require congressional actions to change as i understand it. what's your broader question? can we constantly take measures to improve? there is no doubt that's true. >> no question but as you approach this anniversary, just the critical issues were ones that were critical 10 years ago. we had a sample of communication between first-responders in the earthquake with cell phone lines being inundated. the question how did we end up in this point 10 years later? what is the president doing to address those, correct those in a quicker time frame than they clearly been addressed as the report card shows? there is disappointment here in the report card. >> again i think you need to ask a more specific question about whether or not communications work for first responders? there are no doubt many things we need to continue to work to improve on, there's no question. i believe again if you look at the report, and the number of recommendations that the commission put

forward, that have been met, is substantial, the percentage is very high and still issues need to be addressed. you have to look at it also within the context of the overall purpose of those recommendations which was to, enhance our ability to protect our homeland, and enhance our ability to deal with those who threaten the united states and american citizens. and you can, certainly look at the things that, this administration has done as well as the previous administration, to address those issues, and if you do, you can certainly note some successes. yeah? >> leader reid and speaker boehner accepted the president's request to address the joint session? >> i have not, obviously we just submitted this letter. i have not heard from them yet personally. >> the president is requesting this time to address the joint session of congress. at the same time, republicans are holding a debate. would you describe that timing as coincidental?

>> i was already asked this first question by darlene and i think i answered it. it is coincidental. the president committed to speaking next week after the labor day holiday and, immediately upon congress's return. there are a lot of factors that go into scheduling a speech before congress, a joint session. speech. and again you can't, you can never find a perfect time. there are major events that occur on television. there are, other issues that you have to deal withs, as well as congressional scheduling and the president's scheduling. as i just noted there are many channels, many opportunities for people to watch the president and obviously an opportunity for people to watch the debate. i leave the network involved here can decide how it wants to deal. >> you mentioned congressional scheduling. there was something leader reid or speaker boehner had with that date? >> congress in session is

not back on monday for example, or on friday. it's not, there are other issues that have to go into any of these kind of scheduling decisions. >> the, president has a lot of things he has talked about ways to jump-start the economy. some of the proposals would cost tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars like the payroll tax cut. is the president planning to propose something would be deficit neutral? in other words paid for? >> the president already made clear that precisely because we need to take measures to enhance growth, accelerate hiring, he will call on the committee dealing with, the need for fiscal soundness to overshoot its goals, to, to pass a program, his program will call for greater deficit reduction, greater savings, than the target set by the legislation that created the supercommittee.

>> i'm trying to decouple these two things one is the jobs. >> answer they will be paid for. >> the jobs will be paid for? >> yes. >> jay, given the scheduling, other things in the air on the speech, is there an added bonus for the white house to step --, i mean for you to say -- >> look, they could, again, there is one president. there is 20 some odd debates. there's, this is a, a an important moment for our economy. congress is just coming back. he is addressing an issue that is of great significance to the american people as well as to the congress. and there are many opportunities for the american people. there is the choice they can make to watch the president, to watch a debate. debate could be, they, again the network could make a decision to alter of timing of the debate by an hour if it so decided or sponsors of the debate. again it can't, you know how

this works because you work in television. there is no perfect time. there has not been a time in my short period of time of this job where i called the networks and said, how about now for, does this time work for the president to speak? there is always, well, works for two of us but not the other three of news also understand but working in political world not like this white house doesn't know the republicans are trying to trump the president that night. so there's, that didn't play a factor at all? >> it did not. i can honestly tell you, we, the president, this is not, this is about the president addressing the american economy, the need to grow the economy, the need to create jobs. this is the, the right time to do it. the right day to do it. given all other considerations. so, that's why we asked for it. >> and on the economy and jobs you say in the speech you want to talk about bipartisan proposals seems like republicans could support. seems like he started ball rolling today with the highway jobs. we heard the same talk with the president january 2009.

shovel-ready projects. would create a lot of jobs. they didn't pan out. what is really knew? why would the american people be confident that the jobs will be greater? >> well, and i know you know the history better than that. that every independent economist attest to the fact that the recovery act added what, three million jobs, i believe to the economy. created or saved -- >> i'm not saying it did not create jobs. it didn't creates a many as you said. >> this is political issue, you know, some folks are arguing that it didn't do enough. obviously others on the other side it should have been bigger and could have done more. what is an indisputable fact, whole created by the recession, that this president took office during, was eight million jobs large. that is a fact. that the recession that was in full bloom and if you will when the president took office, ended up costing the american economy eight

million jobs. eight million americans lost their jobs because of that recession. and that is the economic environment in which this president took office and began to take measures to address that problem. and the measures he has taken have, working with congress has resulted in, again, over two million private sector jobs being created. economic growth as opposed to economic contraction. recovery is not happening fast enough. job creation is not happening fast enough. that is why he will address american people and the congress next week to talk about measures we can take measures to do right now to enhance growth and job creation. >> i'm guess referring less, i know republicans have been saying even before the stimulus passed they didn't think it would do enough. they made that argument over and over again. the president himself said shovel-ready didn't turn out to be shovel-ready, the president himself acknowledging -- >> you're confusing two things.

when the president spoke today with the coo of chamber of commerce and the head of the afl-cio by his side, as well as many others, he was referring to a clean extension of the surface transportation bill, the highway bill, if you will that has had broad bipartisan support for years. that has been extended without issue seven-times in the last two years. and that the failure to do that would, could potentially jeopardize up to a million american jobs. that is separate from the jobs and growth proposals he will put forward next week. it has nothing to do whether or not projects are ready to build. this is a program that has been in place for years, that has been supported by democratic and republican presidents. democratic and republican congresses. the reason why the president came out today to talk about it, is that unfortunately we to not live in the kind of political environment that we used to where you can not

take for granted the things that had bipartisan support will have it going forward. and you can not take for granted after we went through the debt ceiling debate, where many so members of congress seemed willing to threaten the american economy and the global economy to make a political point. you can't take anything for granted. the president went out to say look, congress has to do this. we should not create anymore self-inflicted wounds. we certainly have to take action to grow the economy and create jobs. and we absolutely must not take action that will result in the loss of jobs. we saw this in the faa thing. it was a wholly unnecessary self-inflicted wound that resulted for a time period in people losing their jobs and not getting a paycheck. >> that brings up a question. fema funding, highway bill, faa, normally things that are popular in congress, or relatively noncontroversial anyway, the president told tom joyner yesterday he is going to communicate with the american people and, the

next election will be referendum on republican congress -- [inaudible] i assume. is this an effort to venue probably most conspicuous of all venues in prime time to sort of go big and put republicans in a, very public box on this? >> as i said, i believe the other day, and again yesterday, on air force one when we were flying to minneapolis, the president's goal is for congress to act and act quickly to pass the proposal he will put forward next week. and there again, if we, in normal times, the proposals he put forward, puts forward next week would gain substantial broad, bipartisan support. especially in an economic situation like we face now. he is hopeful that members of congress of both parties

will, during their recess, have heard from their constituents the same things that the president heard from americans in minnesota, illinois and iowa when he was on his bus trip a few weeks ago, and the week before that when he was in michigan. the american people, republicans, democrats, independents are fed up with the kind of political posturing and games manship that used to just result in gridlock and what was perceived to be you know, incompetent but proved itself during the debt ceiling debate to be dangerous. they did harm to the american economy and therefore did harm to average americans. we can't have that. we can't afford it. and the president believes that, members of congress will come back, having heard from their constituents, and

will understand the need to take action, sensible action, to grow the economy and create jobs. >> since i jumped line, yield to the "wall street journal". >> well the president cleared an estimate of how many jobs this plan will create or what sort of growth might produce when he relays those proposals? >> we'll see. >> is that something that you think is important -- >> the president will, i can just say generally without getting into the specifics of the speech, that will not be delivered for another week, that, that, the president is confident that outside economic analysts will judge his proposals to be beneficial to the economy and beneficial to job creation. and they will make those measurements. as far as, what projections we make, that remains to be seen. but we're absolutely confident the kinds of

proposals the president will make will be judged by reputable, non-partisan, independent economic analysts to be, pro-growth, pro-job creation. >> during the week the housing market, -- any new proposals for -- >> i, i was just, asked this question and i again, we, the president believes that, and understands that the challenges facing the housing market after its collapse are, remain and that we will continue to take steps as we've taken since the beginning of this administration to try to alleviate that. to help homeowners stay in their homes. and we are constantly evaluating and new ideas and taking action as he has just this summer with the two programs i mentioned. then, by constantly, just not in the past but going forward. >> one more thing on the speech. would the president prefer, would he like that organizers --

so that it doesn't coincide with the speech? >> we'll not get into the scheduling for sponsors of debates or television. we, given the options we had, the fact that we believe that it is the right venue, and the right time to speak for this kind of a speech, you know, we asked for the time that we asked for. >> i know but the reason why i ask is because -- >> we would be perfectly happy to -- >> importance to the american people and we could -- >> this is important piece of that puzzle. >> sure. >> so i'm just wondering if you're at all concerned by him delivering the speech at the same time at the debate that -- [inaudible] [both talking at once] >> whatever the competing opportunities on television are, whether it is the, you know the wildlife channel or the cooking channel or but, but i wish that i could say -- >> are you comparing

republicans to -- >> maybe wildlife channel. [laughter] >> what i mean is, that, would it were so i could be sure simply by having the president of the united states speak at a certain hour that every american who is watching tv would be watching him. i wish that would be the case. certainly a substantial number of americans were. personally and i'm sure the president feels the same way, welcome, if the sponsors so chose, and the candidates so chose to, to adjust the timing of their debate so that it didn't con flick that would be completely find with us in the spirit of democracy and that. but, again, i think that we live in such a world of choices in terms of getting information and watching media, that there will be ample opportunity for americans to hear and see the president. ample opportunity for americans to hear and see candidates for office and so we'll just carry forward with our plan. >> jay, just a quick

follow-up -- >> jay --, jay you and the president and others keep using the term, bipartisan to describe the ideas he is going to announce. >> by any historical measure yes. >> okay. by any historical measure the republicans, especially in the house have rejected almost every idea that he has proposed up until now. what makes you think that -- >> it is an excellent point that you make. even when the president put forward ideas historically affiliated with the republican party suddenly they have been unappealing. >> why do you think they will see this as bipartisan? >> because they will have heard from their constituents. they will have heard, vast majority of americans, whether they voted democratic or republican, whether they're registered democrats or republicans or independents, just want their elected representatives to get to work and to get things done. they do not care who wins the idealogical debate. they do not care who scores

the most political points. in fact they're infuriated when they see that take precedence over the need to do the things that, need to be done to help them, to help the american economy grow, to help the private sector, grow and create jobs. and, look, i think, it is entirely likely that most representatives of congress will have heard that message from their constituents during the recess. i can't predict behavior but the president certainly hopes that, having heard that, lawmakers will, will, return to washington with a expense of purpose and seriousness that will enable us to do things in bipartisan way to grow the economy and create jobs. if that is not the case, we will continue to push the president will continue to push to get it done but he certainly hopes that it will be the case because again as i said, in answer to mike's question, it used to be that political gridlock and

partisanship when it reared its head, made washington dysfunction, oh, my god it is so incompetent it is frustrating. now they were treated to the speckel of washington, spectacle, washington politics to the direct and immediate harm to the lively hoods and american economy that is not acceptable. >> what extent will this speech be the follow-up to the message that we heard on the bus tour asking people to enlist, enlist people in a fight if republicans continue to reject? >> i think what the president was doing then and will continue to do is to call on the american people to insist that washington, congress, their representatives, respond to their desire, that, action be taken. and, it is not, it is not about, you know, winning a fight or a political battle. it is about insisting that, things that have broad bipartisan support, things

that make eminent sense, to assist the economy, to create jobs, get passed and signed into law, for the sake of all the american people. yeah? >> do you have any further schedule updates to give us? >> no. >> nothing this weekend? no plan on looking at hurricane damage or tropical storm damage? >> i don't have anything for you on that now, yeah, thanks. >> jay, i'm just a little confused between the disconnection between the deficit part of this which you say he is going to give his ideas to the supercommittee at some other time and this jobs speech. i mean -- >> let me just, i didn't mean that in a literal sense. i simply meant that the president made an explicit commitment, to provide the joint committee that will be, that is tacked tasked finding further ways to reduce the deficit and reduce our long-term debt, a specific proposal.

he will do that i was asked will that be part of the speech next week, again without getting into details i want to make clear the reason he is going forward to congress, the american people necessary next week to talk about actions we can take to create jobs and grow the economy. now, within, there is the broader context, without question, that we need to, congress, if it behaves in, rationly, we can do things not just to grow the economy and create jobs but as was demonstrated by the process of over the debt ceiling debate that we, there is ample bipartisan, could be ample bipartisan consensus for guesting our long time, long-term fiscal house in order. >> could you make the argument that -- >> these are, related. there is no question they're related but the immediate task here is to spur growth

and accelerate hiring. >> right because the republican argument the best way for growth to cut government immediately and not spend anymore money he has to answer that argument on wednesday night, doesn't he? >> again i don't want to get into the specifics. there is no question within the context of this he, as he has in the past, talk about how we can take actions now to enhance growth and accelerate hiring within the context of doing the things that we need to do for the long term to get our deficits under control, our debt under control and to create the kind of economic environment we need to dominate the 21st century the same way we did the 20th. that includes in investments, infrastructure clean energy and the like. >> when you said to nora, yes, this will be paid for, i'm assuming you're saying it will be paid for over the long term? these are short-term immediate investments to spur job creations. pay fors are long term. >> i'm not going to get into specifics about the line

items within the proposals and how they -- >> [inaudible] >> how the, the president is committed as he made clear, to, more deficit reduction than mandated by congress. one of the reasons to do that is, to pay for the measures that need to be taken to grow the economy and create jobs now. >> he will discuss that on wednesday? >> i think i, i think the answer is, yes, but again i want the, to be understood that the focus here is on jobs and economic growth. which is not the to say, the, all of these are of a piece. what the, what needs to be done now is congress needs to come back, having heard from their constituents, and do the things that are, that the president will put forward, that, should have bipartisan support, that will be judged by economists and independent analysts to be pro-growth and pro-job

creation. and to take action quickly so those things can have an effect. he will also, the congress mandated as part of the agreement that was reefed to raise the debt ceiling this supercommittee take action shortly before thanksgiving that would further reduce the deficit and reduce the debt. the president will be very engaged with a specific and detailed proposal how he believes we should do that in a balanced way. in a way that will actually enhance growth, enhance confidence and not balance the back, balance the budget rather on the bags of individual sectors of society so that some sectors can continue to get, you know, broad tax cuts or, enjoy loopholes in the tax code or subsidies. so that will be all part of the package. yeah? >> three of the republican candidates for president are sitting house members. where would the white house expect them to be next wednesday night? >> i, white house has no expectations. we'll leave that to

individual choice. >> foreign affairs, syria, -- >> foreign affairs? >> yeah. sir you called syrian president assad to step down weeks ago and some of the western countries also did that. >> yes. >> but looks like the crackdown is going on. noing has changed. my question is, what is the next step? >> as you probably know, as recently as yesterday, we, identified other individuals that members of the syrian regime for targeted sanctions, including the foreign minister. we continue to ratchet up the pressure on the syrian regime. as you noted we recently called for president assad to step down. his opportunity to lead a transition has ended. he squandered it. he lost his legitimacy. we will continue to work with our international

partners to take actions that will increase pressure on syria. to allow the syrian people, the syrian regime to allow the syrian future to determine their own future. . .

>> to examine the scope and the breath of change that's taken place in this region. and it is important to recognize, with regard to libya that libyan, libyans marched into tripled and took back their government. not foreign forces. libyans did it. and that has brought significance to the region and broad significance for the potential for positive development for libya going forward. so when i get questions but nothing has changed, everything has changed. things have changed dramatically every day in syria, and libya, and the whole region. and so i understand patience, and certainly every day that the syrian people suffer at the hands of the assad regime is a day too many.

i get that. but we are working with our international partners to ratchet up pressure. on the regime. we have called for a assad to step down. we will continue to take actio actions. >> no-fly zone speeders i don't want to speculate about what other -- personal i think we have address military action. >> the 9/11 recommendations included a civil liberties oversight board, which i understand the president has not appointed three of the five members nor a chairperson. do you know why? >> i will have to take that question. as i said, i have spent a lot of time on the. i was focused on his speech the president is giving next week. >> just a more generally, the 9/11 commission, if they had to give a great for the implementation of the recommendations, they would get a failing grade. and i just wonder if the

president feels that most of the recommendations have been carried through as far as a responsibly can, and are we now -- >> i think this is not a finite process. that we will, i mean, when every recommendation, let's, every recommendation should be and is so dated -- facilitated, this administration or any administration in our place would not stop in and think that everything we could do to prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11 has been done because the work will continue. they need to improve our intelligence gathering, our ordination will continue. they need to enhance our capacity to go after al qaeda or its successors will continue. they need to remain hypervigilant will continue, and we will always take steps because there will always be room for improvement. so i confess i haven't had a conversation with the president

about this report so i don't want to put words in his mouth, but i don't think that it's a finite process. >> jay, two questions. the media sponsors for the debate are big boys and they can sort of take care of themselves. but it's also sponsored by the reagan library and miss in reagan is a much involved. >> i was asked already -- >> could you give any consideration? did anyone in the administration reach out, officials at the library or mrs. reagan's office? >> i don't want to prescribe an answer but i think we're talking about 8 p.m. peace coast time, 5 p.m. west coast time. it doesn't seem terribly complicated, you know, we could all -- republicans might enjoy the prospect. of responding to the president. again, but it's not for us to decide how that plays itself out. and everyone will decide

according to their own best interest i'm sure. >> on the speech itself, we spent a fair amount of time on that bus tour talking about bipartisanship. >> you know you enjoy that. >> it was wonderful. you guys talked a lot about bipartisanship. the republicans are always accusing the president of being professor obama standing up at a lectern telling them what to do. how does this particularly move this process along and actually getting -- >> he will put forward specific proposals that can be acted on by congress. congress legislate, right? they take legislation. they debate it. they work on it. they pass it and it gets on and into law. -- it gets signed into law. >> but we've also had presidents have negotiated more directly and had a better working relationship with members of congress. [inaudible] house the president spent any

time over the summer. has a president reached out to any of the leadership? is any attempt to sort of build these private bridges as opposed of these large public events at? >> glenn, as you know, and as you exhaustively covered and everyone here, and as the american people witnessed and probably grew exceedingly tired of, the president spent an inordinate amount of time with leaders of congress earlier this summer. telephone conversations, private meetings and meetings that you all were brought into at the top of our bottom up. i don't think the american people, or for that matter members of congress are looking for more quality time with the president or anyone else. they want things done. the president will put forward a proposal that should and in a normal world have broad support. and he hopes that they will want to push them forward next week and congress will act because the american people want

washington to work. they are fed up with washington not working. and when it becomes a question of harm as opposed to incompetence, even more frustrating. >> jay, how's the present consider the options to the jobs initiative that the fighters have gone over within? can you describe how he is way to what jobs -- i think in terms of what he learned from the shovel-ready jobs. he wants them now. >> i think it's clear he wants action to be taken soon because the actions will have a direct and quick effect on economic growth in job creation. you know, the slowing of our recovery, the slowing of job creation needs to be addressed now so yes, we are entered -- interest in measures that would have quick effect. >> but he implied that when he was weighing them, right? >> i think his whole economic

team was, led by the president, has been examining proposals, listen to ideas from outside, people the president has met with and spoken with as well as members of his team, that are effective, that again, judged by independent outside economists and analysts will be judged programs and approach of creation. and will take effect quickly. because they need is now. but, you know, the context of his overall vision that is discussed briefly about the need to make wise come even as we get our fiscal house in order, one of the reasons why you need to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction is so that the burden of it is fairly shared, but also to allow for the kind of investments in innovation, infrastructure and education that will ensure that we grow economically, not just next year, or the year after, but

into, you know, into the next decade and beyond. so that's part of his overall vision because we need, that's what we need to dominate the industry or the future, the innovative industry of the future. that's why we need to educate, to take measures to educate. education is directly -- the chinese, germans, no one else is waiting around to win this competition. so we have to move quickly in concert with congress to do the things necessary to ensure that america remains the most powerful economy in the world. [inaudible] could he credibly make the case that americans can see job before the end of the year? >> again, obviously depends on how quickly congress acts, what the specifics of the legislative proposal are and how to get implemented. but i do say yes to your question, which is, was the

focus here on proposals that would take effect quickly, yes. wait, john. >> just to clarify on glenn's question. i realize what happened earlier in the summer. are you saying that there has not been private consultation with republican leaders over the most recent recess on the president expectation, or what will happen after congress gets back? and do you envision a timeline for congress to respond to the president, the same one of the special committee is working on, that goes through thanksgiving and then action in december? >> that's on his desk. >> do you see -- >> congress, on measures that can be taken, it should have bipartisan support. congress could and should act quickly, and should not wait until thanksgiving or christmas spent what you think is the realistic window for congress to either act or not a?

>> i will leave that to you to decide or analyze. again, i think goes back to questions at the beginning. it depends on the disposition of lawmakers as they return from their recess, and what they heard from their constituents and the kind of imperative they're operating under when they get back and what their priorities are. [inaudible] no additional private consultation? >> well, you call the private consultation so if i talk about them they would be private, right? the president is in conversation with leaders in congress frequently, and has been, broadly speaking over last week's and months. i'm not going to get into specific conversations he's had about this, these proposals he is putting together. except to say that as i did the other day, he consulted with folks outside of the administration as well obviously with his economic team. [inaudible] >> i think it was just called to a conclusion here. thanks.

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ahead of congress return to session next week, white house spokesman jake carney answering reporters questions this afternoon. mostly focus on president obama's request to house speaker john boehner to convene a joint session of congress next week to talk about jobs. and here's a portion of the letter that the president sent to the speaker. as i've traveled across our country this summer spoke with our fellow americans, i very consistent message. washington needs to put aside politics, start making decisions based on what's best for our country and not what's best for each of the parties in order to create jobs. therefore respectfully request the opportunity to address a joint session of congress on september 7, 2011, at 8 p.m. it's my intention to let this is a bipartisan proposals that the

cars can take to continue to rebuild the american economy. we have a link by the way to the letter on our website, c-span.org. so far we have not yet heard a reaction from speaker boehner. of course, if the president does address a joint session next wednesday, we will have live coverage on the c-span networks. jobs and the economy continue to appear to be the top concern of americans. we created a poll on our facebook page to hear from you about your situation where asking if you're likely to spend more money, less money for about the same over the next six months. i doubt it is looking like more of you planning to spend less. go to facebook.com/cspan. you can offer comment and we'll look at the results throughout the day. >> watch more the other candidates, see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012, easy to use. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter

feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns. candidate bios and the latest polling data, plus links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, all at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> it might not surprise you that we think of things coming to? >> life coach of the house. >> live coverage of us in on c-span2. >> live events online at c-span.org. >> or see them whenever you want at the c-span video library. >> c-span2 has nonfiction books every weekend on booktv. >> weekend on c-span3 explore american history keeping. >> listen to us on your iphone. >> or your blackberry. >> followers on twitter spent join us on facebook. >> its washington your way with c-span. >> created by cable and provided for a public service.

>> the atlantic council resort said libyan weapons including shoulder-fired missiles are showing up in somalia and other parts of africa. he spoke at a panel discussion on the future of libya and the nato allies. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> welcome back to panel to. the atlantic council international security program soon to be the brent scowcroft said on international security as you heard at the outset has always made trans-atlantic security matters a core focus of our activities here, and this conflict certainly is given as a lot of opportunities for analysis and that will continue over the next several weeks. the fall of gadhafi is not only a monumental moment in the air of awakening and his of north africa, but also a very significant event for nato at a particular time in nato's history and certain for the trans-atlantic partnership more broadly. some have said that nato hadn't

really produce any tangible successes since the kosovo war more than 10 years ago, and the libya operation stands today at least, stands in some contrast to the challenges that nato has encountered in afghanistan. by constituting a pretty clear success for the alliance. and professor i thought in the first session made it quite start when he said if the result would've been crushed rather quickly, were it not for western intervention. an important point to keep in mind. certainly though there are others on the other side of the debate, and as you see the light council website there's an active debate on both sides of this issue which is a healthy thing. secretary of defense who gave a speech just prior to his departure that said behind the optimism lies some very, very worrisome trends that cast a darker cloud over the future of a military alliance, that when you recall that was born in the cold war to meet a very, very

different set of strategic threats to our security. so here to debate these questions and others facing the transit that partnership and aftermath of gadhafi saw with a very distinguished and trans-atlantic panel of expert voices who have helped shape the debate on libya and whole host of other matters facing the united states and the nato alliance. so without further ado let me introduce each of them. damon wilson on the far right of the panel, not necessary for far right of the view of the panel, is the executive vice president of the atlantic council here and before that was director of the international security program. before joining the council he served as special assistant to president george w. bush on the national security council and senior director for european affairs. is previous government positions included chief of staff and executive secretary of the nested embassy in baghdad, as well as from 2001-2040 served as deputy director of the private office of nato secretary-general

robertson. on the left of the panel facing from my direction, also not the left necessary of the view, we have frank miller it was a principal of the scowcroft group and before that he served as a special assistant to president george w. bush on the nsc staff covering defense policy and arms control. mr. miller served for 31 years in the u.s., including 22 years serving under seven secretaries of defense, and this is a progressively senior positions. he also is in my view the world's foremost expert on nuclear weapons policy. and we have annette heuser who is executive director of the washington, d.c., office of the bertelsmann foundation, a private nonpartisan operational foundation that promotes and strengthens trans-atlantic cooperation. before launching the foundations first u.s. office, and answered in the corporate sector as vice president of international relations at the germany-based bertelsmann foundation, europe's

largest media company. she established the foundations brussels office, served as its director. she's a member of the world economic forum's global council on the future of the european union, the atlantic council strategic advisory group, and the european council on foreign relations. she also serves as vice chair of the council on foundations global philanthropy committee. as you can to assure provides a lot of council. and we will no doubt be interested in her views on these set of issues. i will turn right now to damon and ask a couple of questions. will do that with each panelist and then open it up to the floor. so for damon, nato's leading role in forcing u.n. security council resolution 1973 in libya has sparked if you're trans-atlantic debate about whether the nation's apparent success is a reason for optimism in the alliance, or exposes series concerns about nader. just months ago secretary of defense robert gates warned that some allies were not participating in the mission because they lack the capability

to do so. and he criticized nato for its dependence on the nested for important military capabilities, even in operations very close to nato's borders. but at the same time others have argued that this mission in fact demonstrates nato's enormous utility as the only multinational organization capable of quickly and effectively organizing military action and integrating non-member nations such as gutter and others in this operation. at a time of great need. the key question i think is what you can do in this debate and what do you think nato's performance and operation unified tells us about the state of the world's most capable allies? >> thank you. thank you for the question that i think it's at the core a lot of issues we've been grappling with the council taking a balanced future of nato, the future of atlantic alliance, particularly headed into a nato summit here in the united states. in chicago next may. my first point is that this is a

success. this is a success for the alliance, it bodes well for the allies. but it doesn't mean that there are important lessons learned to be drawn. and i think that's a critical exercise that makes sense to be going to. let me begin my comments with a little bit of a caveat, that i do think this is a success but i served in baghdad. i worked in nato headquarters on afghanistan. i understand the complexity of what comes next. and i don't think anyone in libya or in international community is out there declaring mission accomplished that i think is a pretty responsible sober view on what we are today, recognizing the significance of gadhafi's size. recognizing this is a long-term process as we heard from the first panelist. i think that already is a healthy if i'm in which to think about the future of libya and to think about what this means for the alliance. but if you step back and think about what just happened in lead and what the alliance role can help deliver, preventative major humanitarian disaster, beginning

with the likely civilian that would've taken place in benghazi at the start of this. ended up driving gadhafi from power even though he has not yet captured. has led to the crumbling of his regime and has put libyans in control of their own destiny. and it's done so without the alliance losing a single casualty. it's done so with europeans carrying the weight, the bulk of the weight in this operation. and it's done so in the context of one of europe's greatest crises ever. i think that's a pretty remarkable outcome, and it's a pretty a plausible outcome. we have to deal with the reality we are in, not the perfect environment. and i think that comes back to some of the things that i take away from this. the lessons as i think about the libya operation to the alliance, clearly need to be that you can never under estimate surprises.

at the lisbon summit in of them are 2010 when a new strategic concept was being enacted and nato was struggling with the mission in afghanistan, this was nowhere on the radar screen and yet as the alliance which was soul-searching wondered whether he could manage wind down afghanistan, without inflicting too much damage on the alliance, here find itself in a military operation which was just inconceivable at the time of lisbon i would say. second, this session is our european allies are not wimps despite much of the public rhetoric after. they can act when there is political will to do so. the corollary to that, the action here in libya was very clearly driven by national leadership, by national leaders, not the e.u., not europe as such. prime minister cameron of u.k. their political capital leadership helped galvanize this at the start. third, nato's is relevant. at the beginning of this it wasn't apparent that nato would

be the organization to take this on to it had its hands full in afghanistan after all as was just mention. yet the e.u. wasn't in any position to do it. there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm between a coalition led by france, for example, that it turned out that nato was available and the fact was that it took 10 days. it was messy at the beginning but it took 10 days to get a decision out to the alliance to take over command and to lead not just the arms embargo, no-fly zone, but also the right to protect the nation. a little messy but not so bad. the other thing i think, i think witnesses how important nato's partnership policy has been over the years. and the critical days of the beginning of this conflict i think it was a lot of thinking that this would have to be maybe a french-led operation. there was a lot of concern that nato would be seen as a western imperialist invasion of yet another arab country, the middle east. there was a lot of that rhetoric

after and it was an nato allies that check themselves. it was the sweet, qatar, uae come stepped forward and said wait a second, we've been working with allies. we've have cooperation with the alliance. we know how to work with new. we don't really know how to plug into efficiently into a national coalition our french led coalition. i think that helped swing the argument and underscore the value of the partnership policy. today when nader sits around the table to discuss what's happening in libya it sits around that table with qatar, uae, morocco, jordan. i think that's incredibly significant. another lesson i take out of this is as much as we are concerned about the role of many of our small allies in europe, many of the small à la stepped up to the plate and demonstrated their utility. if you look at what the market, norway, even belgium, the danes in the regions were conducting 25% strike sorties in libya. 25%, that's pretty remarkable from these two small allies of ours.

so it's been a healthy reminder that our small allies can when push comes to shove and they're willing to put some elbow greece into it, have an impact. the other thing, someone inside the government who worked very hard on the french normalization of its relationship with the alliance, the other significant thing i think has happened is this is the first time when france has been able to achieve its national objective working directly through the alliance. and i think that's more your way to think what would happen but i think it's strategically significant for the normalization of france's relationship with the alliance. the old thinking in paris that it had to pursue its national glory of national interests outside of the alliance, this helps despite initial hesitancy to turn that on its head. i do think at the same time you've got to be sober about what we have seen. clearly this is underscored and just magnify the capability, the concerns that secretary gates

farewell speech in brussels underlined. there were problems. there were problems of particular? does not be able to be met without united states involved. and i think it's become very clear that the europeans today in terms of the trajectory that they're on in terms of their defense spending wouldn't be able to conduct libya two years now, actually less than a too much now but i hope that serves as a wakeup call, that's an incredible he significant take away that i hope helps shed some of the debate about europeans since the. i think also underscores the role of the united states. this was a very significant nato operation that the united states was not at the forefront. but it did underscore the degree nato had to be, the united states had to be involved, had to be involved in this operation. there is no handing off to nato, the united states is part of the alliance. and i think this operation probably could've gone more efficiently, more effectively if

the united states have been a full partner throughout the operation, yet even what he did underscore that probably could have been pulled off without the united states being there in the role it played. so yes, there was a thin consensus over the operation. they were muddled objectives and strategies, particularly at the beginning. there was ambivalent u.s. role going into a noted operation i think is a difficult and dangerous thing. and there have been some particular strong divisions injured, particularly with germany's extension of you into the council. i think there are implications to that. they key take away for the alliance is that gates message, libya didn't disprove gates minsiter i think libya underscored the importance of gates' message. thank god the alliance was in a position to respond to some unique circumstances of the arab league calling together, calling for an intervention in libya, for the u.n. security council able to muster a vote for the resolution 1973. these are unique circumstances.

thank of the alliance was able to respond and play the role that they play. the current path as secretary gates outlined to the current path the alliance is on the alliance would be to do so in the near term. libya was custom-made for the alliance operation because the proximity to europe, the geography. this isn't even an option for europeans when thinking about it. again, or three. so i do think that there is a serious soul-searching going forward within the alliance. with that said, this was a success, has been successful so far for the alliance, and largely because of leadership from our european allies and i think as americans we need to recognize that. >> thanks very much, damon. a lot of fodder for follow on questions. i will turn to frank miller. frank, i'd like to bring into this discussion to get your thoughts about what this mission means for nato's future. i'd also like to get your opinion on the role of the united states in this conflict and what it might mean for u.s.

leadership in the alliance. and then particularly at the united states faces the prospect of very significant defense budget cuts. living in the near future, as many of our nato allies and i think there are big questions the grand strategy level, that i would love your views on in terms of how might this operation affect how the united states thinks about its own role in the world, and lastly, how might it affect the way our nato allies think about america's role in the alliance. and i know after the secretary gates' speech in june, my discussion with senior nato ambassadors led me to believe that they are very concerned that the united states is abandoning europe. so would love you to address those minor questions. >> thanks, barry. let me start by using a classic trick. i'm going to pocket everything that damon said. agree with it and pocket it. but i want to talk about a different aspect. with respect to libya, in all

candor thinking from the national security, national security point of view, the united states and for the alliance, i would not have gone there in the first place. we've toppled a dictator but there are worst dictators in the world. and with respect we really don't know who will succeed him. we don't know what that looks and policies the new regime will have. we can hope, hope, that those policies will be constructive. we have no real assurances. a second point is that after the experiences of iraq and afghanistan, i hope that we have a plan to assure that a transitional government will emerge without a descent into chaos that will bring calls for nato boots on the ground. although richard posner soared after calling for nato's boots on the ground. if any boots on the ground should be necessary, they should not be american and they should not be european. but i doubt we have a plan to

prevent a descent into chaos. i hope that the transitional government is able to manage that. and third i worry that the lesson that this operation has taught the world, a lesson which is particularly ironic given one of the flagship policies of this administration is don't give up your wmd. give up your dubya indeed, the and nato can attack you. that i worry about that. i worry about that a lot. that's not the question you asked. let me try to get to the question you asked me. from an american standpoint, i believe the administration made two major leadership mistakes, which are honking it now, even if it's not particularly recognized in the administration, and will haunt it in the future. having decided that nato should

intervene militarily, we should not have held back ourselves. i don't know whether any of you remember the movie that was made about 10, 15 years ago about the battle of gettysburg. of course, all of it is, there is a particular scene on the second day where lisa is too long street, i don't want you to close to the front, joe. i can't afford to lose you. and long street looks at generally and says i can't lead from behind. long street had it right. you can't lead from behind. that's what this of ministrations and with respect to this conflict. my own experience with the alliance, which spans three decades of work, is that nato functions best when the united states leads, when the united

states is fully involved. and in my judgment, my judgment doesn't count, but the judgment of others, do count, the administration broke this golden rule. our standing among our allies has fallen as a result. and allied confidence in the united states has been reduced. the second major and fundamental mistake which i believe the administration made refers to the use of our american combat forces. there are many in this room who have shared with me the burden of 10 long years of coalition warfare, in which we decried the caveats which allies placed on the use of their forces. and here we go into libya, and we put caveats on the use of u.s. forces. and this reinforces a practice which our military knows is

harmful. and which sets a precedent for allies in the future to say, you did it, too, and i think that's enormously damaging. i've read kurt volker's piece in foreign policy, i'm sure many of you have as well. kurt also points out that the alliance went in with a confused mission, and for the first time in its history nato adopted the u.n. mission, not its own mission, and that u.n. mission, sympathy protection for the prevention of civilian deaths resulted in extremely long campaign. kurt also points to the problem of solidarity within the alliance. i think there is a difference between the alliance being involved, online spammers being involved in a war which is a coalition of the willing, the alliance being involved as the

alliance. and with the alliance goes in, again, i think it's all in, i'll come back to that. and this campaign did underscore, as damon has said, the stocks of highly advanced weapons in the arsenals our allies come and thank goodness we have sufficient stocks that we were able to help them out. there were a number of positive things, and i think damon has hit those. on the one hand, the inclusion of non-nato members in a nato operation, inclusion of sweden and uae and qatar, issued a huge success. and as damon pointed out, nato's role in managing this campaign proved once again that there is

no substitute for nato as a military capability. in the euro atlantic sphere. nothing comes close. the e.u. does not come close. nato again was proved essential. and, finally, i would just tip my hat to the belgians and the norwegians, even to the u.k. which, having made the decision to get rid of its carriers just months before, had to stretch the capabilities of its tornado force, which did so in a way, which contributed meaningfully to the comp out operations. i think today and in the future, nato is more important than ever. and i think he was leadership in nato is more important than ever. we have some fairly significant strains within the most

successful alliance in history. and i would go so far as to say that these strains and divisions are confronted, and resolve, then the alliance is in jeopardy. we really must fix the fact that not all nations who are alliance members understand that it is a one for all, offer want a life. we've seen the emergence of policies in a nato context are not in anorak context, in a nato context where nations are opting out, both in a military sense and diplomatic outreach to other countries. and attention, i hate to use the rumsfeld, i will without credit again, the difference a difference between outlook of the original members of the

alliance and those who are not on the periphery and feeling more threatened. there is concerned from the newer members with the older members really understand article five. and i think that was exacerbated in this campaign. so i think, i think you vastly triggered by the question and i don't think i can answer. i think the jury is out. i think the answer depends on whether we in washington were wise enough to reassert our leadership role, and whether we can work with other allied leaders in major countries to get them to remember what the alliance was all about. and actually, to get them to understand what the strategic concept they signed up to only 10 months ago really means. i will stop there. >> thank you very much, frank. a number of questions i'm sure

the audience want to address. but first i wanted to address a net with a few questions. it strikes us that living intervention has some implications for european leadership within the alliance also. and so would like you to address that and what do these events mean for the idea of the european common foreign and security policy? secondary, germany played a significant role in the run up to this operation if it received a lot of attention for its extension of the united nations on resolution 1973, and certainly the absence of poland and other central european nations in the actual operation in libya also is significant as frank raised. in thinking about alliance solidarity and european leadership. so a question would be to you foresee germany adopted a more

assertive role in assisting a post about the libya? in part as a result of its lack of participation the mission itself and an extension, and might that enable the e.u. to take on a larger role and using it's a fight assets which are very capable relatively in helping libya build a functional state post gadhafi as the first panel addressed in some detail? >> thank you very much. may i start with a positive assessment first. but let me, allow me a general remark. i think this is not the first panel. we're all sitting on since the last 10 years where we are addressing the future of nato and nato -- what i think what the libya case issuing us that it serves as a catalyst right now to address the shortcomings within the transatlantic alliance, as well as within the european union as frank and damon rightly addressed. so we should take it as that, as

a learning experience. right now to move on from that. and from my point of view it makes no sense right now to take a step back and say what went wrong, and if we should have gone in there in the first place. we should be deposited at the moment and said it was a successful operation of nato's so far. nato again proved that they have no alternative on the horizon for it, and it also asserted its members as well as everybody else in the world that is still capable to execute such a mission, period, nothing else to be said on this and right now. when it comes to the european union, i think it has become clear that germany left leadership vacuum in the last four years when it comes to foreign and security policy issues, and right at the moment we have the europeans were forced together with the americans to take a position on libya. france stepped into this leadership vacuum immediately,

rightly so. everybody else would've taken the same thing if they would have been the french president sarkozy. so we see right now in europe is a kind of we adjustment of the powers who really can pull the trigger when it comes to foreign and security policy issues, france and great britain first and foremost. and the other lessons that we have learned, that we've seen regard the european union is that the european union is far away from being replacing nato. this has not been the attention, intention of the european union and the european security policy at the first place. the intention is more to support nato in its efforts and we saw that over the last couple of weeks with the assistance that the european union has provided to the transitional council in benghazi. they have already provided around 200 million u.s. dollars

for the transitional council for infrastructure measures that need to be taken in the next months to come. so first and foremost european union would always stay on the civilian side, and not enter the fort and security arena where nato has its place. that's a given right now. and when it comes to germany's role, unfortunately i have bad news after the speech that the german minister of defense gave this morning at the security academy in berlin, where he was acknowledging that germany together with some of its european allies made some mistakes in assessing the situation in libya, but at the same time he also indicated that germany is drawn against any boots on the ground in libya in the next months to come. germany is in favor of a kind of solution probably in the direction as indicated on the

first panel to have new u.n. security resolution that will provide the crown for u.n. peace corps in libya. that might be a solution. but he also said, and this was one of the finer senses of his speech, that he hopes that nobody will ask for german troops engaged in libya. and i think that is a perfect indication where german politics going right now. i'm not sure if you have followed the german news this week year it was a perfect coincidence that the former german chancellor helmut kohl came out this week with a remarkable interview, where he was criticizing for the first time very openly the european union leadership, but first and foremost the leadership of his own party, the christian democratic party, saying that germany has lost its foreign and security compost in the european union, as well as in the atlantic alliance. and i think helmut kohl is

expressing the frustration within his own party, really party, the question, democrats as well as also was part of the german public were saying you can't have, have it all. with size and with economic success comes responsibility. and this is even more so the case for germany. i mean, we are not an upgraded switzerland. we are part of the european union. we are part of nato. and this means you have to pay tribute to the responsibilities that come with such membership. and even if the majority of the german government have been against the u.n. resolution 1973, they would have been no damage, no danger at all to vote with our allies in the u.n. security council. and the damage that this has caused german politics will haunt does not own for the next months, but for the years to

come. and we better correct this. that given the statement that the german defense minister made today in berlin, i'm really skeptical that the german foreign politics is willing and able to change its course in the next months to come. we will probably provide more assistance when it comes to the civil reconstruction, the infrastructure. we have around 10.5 million u.s. dollars of assets of libya frozen in germany. to release that to support the european union, but that will be it. and i would say that's not enough for germany as the biggest member state of the european union, and we have to align soon or later with france and with u.k. and efforts. my foundation, the bertelsmann

foundation has put on the table and you proposal for the european union, how to structure the efforts in the arab region. we call this a transformation partnership where we are saying of course every transformational country in the region is different, but our proposal is to get three countries from the european union her country in the arab world, get them to form a kind of advisory body count devise a country like libya, for instance, to france, u.k. and italy advising the transformation council, also maybe to set up a kind of monetary body that can monitor the flow of the financial facilities that we're putting in the country in order to provide for the first panel discussed clear transparency when it comes to the money distribution in the country. so we are discussing this right now in berlin as well as on the level of the european union at the moment. >> great.

thank you very much for those comments. again, a lot of issues for us to discuss. so for now we will turn to the audience. in the first row. >> thanks for a really, really good panel. i'd like to ask two related questions on the basis that it had always been at a crossroads and nato is always done. but it seems to me that what has been lacking so far is the over arching ghost at this particular table, which is the dire economic situation. and it seems to me that even if libya were to disintegrate into chaos, which it probably will, the economic realities are going to be much, much more powerful. i wonder, first, if the panel might just speculate on the ground of those economic realities and what implications they will have for nato. including even further reductions in defense spending in europe are two major germany which is going through an

extraordinary reform program which is going to be far, far less. my second question is to fight. talks about we are going to revitalize nato. who are the we? this administration i think is bypassing the summit next year, looking to downplay it. you know very well that there's a tendency to look much further to the east. and so if we are, and i agree with you, i think the nato alliance have been exposed rather dramatically in terms of contradiction that libya has made worse, much, much worse. but who is the path is going to be i'd be revitalizing? i don't see any there? so those two questions, please. >> first question of a very, very dramatically reduce resources and data goes forward. on that issue and the second, who's going to lead in this environment. any comments from the panel? >> sure, i can start. i first want to start by saying i think a net remarks underscored what i think i

identify the german chancellor that i want -- but in germany. that was fantastic, and it. we would be so lucky to have your views and resonating throughout europe right now. i made a quick reference to it but i want to underscore it again. it is a stand that france and u.k. and europe mustered the political will and resources to undertake this operation and the context of such an egregious, such a serious crisis they are facing right now in terms of sovereign wealth, sovereign debt crisis and the future of the euro. i think that's the premise that ashley makes me get a pat on the back to some of the political will and leadership we've seen coming out of europe to do this, despite the very dire circumstances before them. said, this is a very scary circumstances. this is what's happening to europe, european budgets, has the potential to truly get the alliance. and i think secretary-general

rasmussen has been trying to respond to this, which put an emphasis on greater multinational cooperation, greater integration and cooperation, particularly between small villages, the french, british treaty, defense treaty is one key example of how european allies are trying to navigate the shoals of his resourcing. yet very few european governments, first most are failing to borrow tremendous and today, you can point to a stony which is doing quite well above 2% of gdp spent but if they don't carry the weight of the alliance in this regard, the brits at least have made an effort in thinking about their defense cuts to imagine a future in doubt is what the trajectory comes back up in terms of spending to reinvest back and do this. most of the cut now european allies have not done that. they have a downward trajectory that remains either downward or

static. that's a recipe for neutering the alliance, assuring that not only will we need to withdraw from afghanistan, perhaps a bit more rapidly than anticipated, as we have already seen from some decisions in paris, but certainly takes off the table the ability to do something like libya in the near term again. and and that point, if libya doesn't become a catalyst as a wakeup call to reconsider some of these decisions, particularly in the near term out years, we are headed for even more serious crises within the alliance and not because of international events, but because of national decision-making. >> thank you for putting the question on the table. i think it's important to realize that we often have the tendency in the foreign policy arena to discuss issues in an isolated way. and i would argue very strongly when it comes to any foreign and security engagement, particularly be right now as a test case, the defining pair

meters provided by the economic and financial situation in europe and the u.s. right now, every single cent and every single dollar that we are spending, europeans and americans, somewhere abroad is under the lens of the unappointed rate in europe and the u.s. if you take a country like spain right now, you've seen young people marching on the streets recently. the unemployment rate between 40-45%. it's ridiculous. it's amazing. and this is defying the foreign policy arena for the leaders in europe, and the foreign policy arena is narrowing by the fact that we are going through these hard economic times. and the times will be tougher in the next months and years to come. so having said that, i expect

even more defense cuts on the side of the european union. if you take on an average since the end of the cold war until now, all the european countries have cut on their defense budget and average like 20%. germany is modernizing its army but it will be not enough. in order to get ready for the security challenges of the 21st century. but over all i would say what concerns us here in the u.s. as well as in europe is the war fatigue right now. where we see our political leaders unable to make the argument in front of their constituency anymore why we still need to get engaged in places like iraq, afghanistan, or libya right now. so when ever the next case comes up, and it will probably be

syria or another place in the world, i think there is no political capital left in europe or in the u.s. to make the case for any kind of military intervention anymore. and that should really concern us. >> let me start by insourcing damon's endorsement of future chancellor. [laughter] because i think that an s. analysis of german politics is spot on. and let me jump off a that point to say, while the economic situation is indeed serious, i don't think it's the root cause of the problem we face. we've always gone through the decade of here. we've all been there. but i think this is a particularly serious time, and i think it's a particularly series time because i think there are some governments that are willing to openly break with the

alliance, and which are willing to pursue almost 19th century beggar thy neighbor politics, to advance narrow into domestic political goals at the expense of alliance solidarity. the decision of the cdu and fcp to seek to evict nuclear weapons from germany and to bring the dutch and belgian's along with them had nothing to do with economics. it had nothing to do with the security fears of the new members. it had nothing to do with, with really the moral obligation to allow the rest of the alliance in the 21st the 21st century to the same type of protection that was extended to germany during the cold -- had nothing

to do with economics. the decision to pull german naval forces out of the mediterranean had nothing to do with economics. so i think we are facing with the question of do people believe in what nato is all about. do people -- the decision to block nader contingency planning, to conduct defense of allies on the periphery had nothing to do with economics. it has everything to do with deeply with what nato is supposed to be about. the first of the three tasks and a strategic concept signed in november was to defend the territorial of other states. so i think it's a political crisis. i think you're right that the economic crisis worsens. the economic crises could present, could present actually opportunity. one of my mentors, as many of you know, often says that

nations act as if the treaty must fail you, mandates that every nationstate has to have an army, navy and air force and marine corps. clearly it's not true. including in a time of heightened budget, i never thought i would say this, okay, dan, don't hit me, i think it's time for nato army or nato armed force. and the danes for example, getting a submarine force have said and an excellent example in that regard, what does nato have to do to have territorial defense, and then what does nato have to do to have expeditionary capabilities, 10, 15 years ago it was out of business. i think that's flipped back around. and the sales say of some number of f-16s to a native state is really a waste of money because they don't add significantly to the fight. because the states without nato

is not going to make a difference. there's an opportunity there. or the opportunities grasped, i just don't know. but it comes back your last question. who is the we? i don't know who the we is. i hope, i can help, spring is a total but it's not a strategy, i hope one of the lessons that is drawn from this libyan operation is that we really need to get more involved in leading this alliance and in working with our partners, leadership is not telling people what to do. that never worked. but it's listen to people, form a common goals and objectives, and moving in that direction. and i can only hope that in the councils of government today, that the people are taking a serious look at what we've done and what we have created here. but you're spot on the. that is the question. >> if i could just add my own 2 cents without repeating, i think this is, nato has been that many crossroads. this is very different.

than the previous so-called crisis of leadership. and i think it will unfortunately lead to situation very soon where, when questions of military contingent fees come up, there will be a lack of u.s. will, war fatigue and a very significant lack of european capability. to do anything. and that will create a real crisis. >> next question. james joyner. [inaudible] [inaudible] the u.s. has lots of defense spending, but not really new. are we going to get these in concert? i don't think we'll get the spending done.

>> i just don't think i agree with your characterization policies. >> any other thoughts? yes? >> how do you respond to that question, when nato chapter was created, defend nations which -- [inaudible] other countries and now we are involving other wars. because there are other questions on the. why we involving libya. >> any thoughts on interests of the libyan operation and how that's relevant to the nato charter? >> i will take it for a shot at it.

the treaty, the treaty of washington, the nato treaty defines, defines the core mission, which was to protect the territorial integrity of the alliance. fine, that's true. but the alliance is a living breathing entity with new interest that adjust to the times which it exists. ..

>> so it's very much in what nato said it would do in november without anticipating there was an insurrection and rebellion in libya. it's clear, public, and agreed to. >> yeah, i also add you have the u.n. known for the responsibility to protect which is not law, but a norm, and i think this also applies to nato and nato members who are members of the united nations, but on a broader level i'd say when you take a case like libya, it was, in a way, necessary for europe and the u.s. to take a step back and to think what we are standing for right now because what hammad said about politics is in a way true for the alliance that over the last years with all these wars, we lost a little bit of what we stand for, and even if the concept of democracy was burned

under the bush administration, it's the case, i'd say, that the atlantic alliance stands for democracy and free market economy around the world. when there's forces in the world that want to gain towards that and have been undermind in the efforts to do so. we, as the west, have the responsibility to support them in a diplomatic way and if necessary, as a last resort, in a military way. >> yes, ambassador? >> hi. dan freed, department of state and former colleague of two of the panels. >> [inaudible] >> i called him my boss. >> this conversation is much too gloomy for my tastes. you would think that nato just failed in libya, all right? the problems -- i'll do to frank's arguments and the

gloomy's argument what he did to damon -- accept them followed by a "but," by which i mean i'm going to try to undercut them. [laughter] >> i said it's the oldest bureaucratic trick in the book. >> yeah. [laughter] >> look, there's a serious problem of an inward looking tendency on both sides of the atlantic. we see it in isolationism within certain elements of the republican party, fatigue, certain parts of the democrats and in europe, across the board, and in german policy in particular, and that's been well outlined. that's a real problem, but nato just succeeded in libya. it did not fail, and it succeeded despite all of the problems which were actually well outlined by frank and damon, okay? those problems existed, and they're serious.

well, my conclusion is if nato can do this and succeed given all of these handicaps, just think how much better off it and we all would be if we fixed only a third of those problems. now, then the question -- and i do think in policy terms is where do we go from here and what do we do? the obvious answer is the nato summit in chicago in may is a point at which we can draw the right lessons from libya and avoid the wrong ones. i'll finish with a historical analogy of nato's first military operation which was kosovo, also not with a classic article five minute mission. every day that that operation went on, somebody on panels like this said nato is failing.

this operation is failing. it's a cay tas to fee. that went on every day until nato succeeded. nato's success did not civil the kosovo problem. that was left to the next administration, and those problems are still there. it succeeded as much as any policy ever succeeds in the real world, so let's not make the mistake now looking ahead after the libya's success of pardon me, the incoming bush administration looking at the problems of nato and problems of kosovo, instead of fixing them, turned their back for the first initial period, a costly mistake and took that administration several years to work out.

i'll fix the problem, not cause it, but you see my point, let's not draw the wrong conclusions and get in the familiar, you know, panel cycle of dispair. after a few days after nato has just succeeded. >> who wants the happy response to that? [laughter] >> you pulled a second bureaucratic trick which was to recharacterize what i said. i don't think anybody said it was a failure. i think we said it was a success. my concerns had nothing to do with the operation. my concerns have to do with the structural integrity of the alliance. with the future of an alliance where significant governments have diverging views of the core mission, and with the failure of the american government once we

decided that nato should engage in nato military operations, to engage fully, and you exem my the leadership, the leadership that the united states has to perform in the alliance, and thing for this operation we advocated that. it's not gloom and doom, but, you know, we ought to learn from it. we shouldn't do it again. if we do it again, i'll start the doom and gloom song, but i didn't today. >> i want to add two points, tribute to my former boss. dan, you're spot on. i worked for lord robinson in the wake of kosovo and defense minister, defense u.k. minister played a role in kosovo. spent term as secretary general trying to beat back the myth of kosovo as a failure. kosovo was war by committee, and therefore nato was broken,

inefficient, and couldn't work. the reality is kosovo was nato's first military operation. there was confusion on how to do targeting, was political involvement, and it was fixed on the third day of a 78 operation. we also in thinking about libya today, we went through kosovo with an italian government falling, a greek government almost falling. we have not had any of that kind of drama in terms of handling the libya operation, and yet the wrong lessons from kosovo held a shadow over the alliance for years i'd say -- war by committee -- that we fixed and it's not really right. part of the key thing, you're absolutely right, the opportunity chicago provides is two things. one, to draw the right lessons from libya and help factor that back into the policy for alliance, but second, chicago is convenient and that the united states is the host and whether we like it or not, we're owning

the nato summit. it compels u.s. leadership as the host for the chicago summit, and you can't just waltz in without a vision or a degree of leadership. i think that bureaucratic reality hopefully bodes well for reassessment or rethink of the type of leadership role the united states is going to play within the alliance and the lessons we'll draw out of libya. >> i have a three-point response. one, the world has messier and uncertain threats all over the world, and this demands the united states' attention and some cases, military forces. two, the u.s. defense department is about to suffer through anywhere between a 10%-33% reduction in the defense budget, and that leads me to three -- nato should conduct another review and scale back strategy because it won't have the resources to accomplish them, a broader strategy that focuses

out of area when it has very limited capabilities to do operations of significant scale even within its own neighborhood. >> yes? >> jeff from the atlantic counsel. a question about the political side of the transatlantic relationship from the military side about what lessons we learn about engaging with erroneous dictatorships. gadhafi was win of the most bizarre dictators you'll find. he met conditions 2342003-2007, and if you are tony blair, maybe to an embarrassing extent, and we help bomb him out of power. back to the 2008 debates where here in the united states, the presidential debates, should we isolate dictatorships? form partnerships with them on certain issues 1234 # any lessons to learn from libya or maybe other arab countries about

how we can move forward as democracies with either engaging or not engaging dictatorships? >> very good question. i'll answer from the european side. i think the latest events in the arab world shown us first that every country is, of course, different. second, that military intervention should always be the last resort, and thirdly, yes, there are cases where you need to engage with a brutal dictator for a certain time, and we are facing syria right now. it's unthinkable to me we can come to further development in syria without also having indirect channels to work the advisers right now and talk with him. this is always the case. you also need to communicate that to a certain extent to your public in order to avoid misinterpretations on this said, i would say.

>> jeff, i think you ask a compelling and tough question. you know, when annettet answered the questions what the interests are in the first place, when you look at the structure of nato, what's the atlantic's purpose here? we are a community because we share the values and interests of free market democracies that bind us together, and i think if you think about how that applies in our international relations and engagement, there are times when we're going to have to do deals and do business with odious folks in the world. the reality we're accepting and the transformation in the middle east is helping us to underscore it is that it's also expedient. our long term interests are therefore served by seeing norming of democracy, free market, the universeatlity of norms taking role so when they

play a supporting role to promote that, that's a good long-term way to think about things. it doesn't mean we don't have to face the reality of dealing with a certain government from a certain regime and issues that face the reality of how we have to manage things, but i think the reliance we've had on stability in the middle east taught us it wasn't a very good national security policy for security, and i think that's one of the critical things if we can try to pull back the layer of politics that we've had here in american discourse about democracy promotion and the role in the arab world, i think that's one of the most important things for the atlantic community to take away because i do think what we're facing right now in the middle east and north africa is truly historic challenge to the atlantic community, and the question facing our unit in the context of the economic crisis as pointed out, do we have the

resources and capabilities to support the change that serves our values and interests over time. >> yeah, quickly on what damon said right now -- i think it's also important to realize that we should manage expectations here when it comes to our engagement in the arab world. you know, we discuss cases like one-day revolution, and the other day democracy. it's not working out like that. these are long-term transformation processes, and also each of us a good role model now that indicates the people who are in government have not been peace activists of the first hour, so we are always dealing with people who have a certain history which is probably questionable to say the least, that we need to deal with in these kinds of transformation processes, and i think you do not need to be a profit to realize that what's happened in the arab world in the last month will continue, and that this entire region will be an area of

extreme instability, and probably civil wars outbreaks throughout the next years, and that means for us the nato partners, first and foremost, we have to come forward with a concept who takes care of these little, you know, fires we'll see over the next couple months and years to come in the region. what is the european role first and foremost because it was rightly said on the first panel -- this is our direct neighborhood. 24 is our playground of strategic interest, so we need to have a strategic plan how we engage with the region and who will be the opposition forces in the different countries. i think the chicago meeting of nato will be the perfect opportunity to address these questions with our american allies because this will be our problem area for the years to come.

this can be our next afghanistan i'd say on a broader scale for europeans and also for americans. >> i agree completely with what damon and annette have said. you have to ask other questions. are we going to engage with dictators? dictators, a lot of them, the fundmental question you're asking is are we prepared to use coercive diplomacy and assert force over regimes that are kick tore yal. i say to that you requires a national debate, you know, whether it's the jefer -- jeffersonian. with the economic structures

placed on us and the war weariness over ten years, i dawg a national disability -- i doubt a national debate says we're prepared except in extraordinary cases 20 use american military force or ask the alliance to use military force, to overturn evil regimes or even totalitarian ones. >> i'd like to add i agree with all of those points, but would add we should have a more coherent policy in the atlantic community with a broad range of instruments to use in a much more strategic fashion to make it clear to those who share our values and live in a region that presents the greatest source of terrorist threats to the transatlantic community that we are on their side and not as hypocritical as some make us out to be. we have time for one last brief question. did i see a hand?

yes. >> hi. i wanted to go back to annette's point on political will. i don't think there's a case for another intervention. times you cannot make the case for intervention until you have to intervene, and that refers to syria. talking about libya making the case and used responsibility to protect argument to get in. if syria gets ugly, how do you avoid double standards? do you think we can do it? if we go into syria, but decide not to, then we have a bigger problem there. it's like we can use the capacity, we're not going to do it in this case. how do you explain that? or we just cannot go into syria, and then we put it out of the table, but i think the political will is a tricky argument because sometimes i would say after afghanistan, i wouldn't

have seen nato going into libya at all until we had to. what's going to happen if syria gets ugly? >> yeah, you're absolutely right. i mean, in a way you can also say there's no difference between libya and syria because in a sense people have been already killed on the streets of syria, children have been slaughtered on the streets, so you can actually make a case for military intervention here, but we also know that syria is not libya when it comes to the capacity of the west to intervene militarily. i think at the moment we have to speed up in whatever way we can right now first and foremost with partners like turkey who have what i heard so far, the best channels. germany as well. we have kept away, open channels to the opposition forces over the years to see if there's any kind of diplomatic solution possible right now. this is the only possibility that i can think of at the

moment. i think nobody is thinking that a military intervention is feasible and possible when it comes to the political will of europe and the u.s.. >> well, i just wanted to thank all of my panelists for a very interesting, very provocative, and very important discussion we hope will catalog a debate that i think is just beginning here and in other capitols around the world on these critical issues of libya itself as well as the future of our military alliance, so thank you very much. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> well, jobs and the economy continue to be top concerns of the administration and the american people. the president plans to talk about jobs next week in a joint session of congress. we created a poll in the facebook page to hear from you and your financial situation. are you likely to spend more money, less money, or about the same over the next six months, and we checked the poll throughout the day, and more of you are planning to spend less. you can go to facebook.com/c-span to vote and offer your comments, your thoughts.

we'll look at the results, continue to look at them throughout the day and report back to you.

>> he's a partisan guy who wants to unit people. i mean, all of the problems of the era, you can get from this guy, and why we couldn't and why we couldn't legislate him is the same reason we went to war. >> he had the misfortune of

running against the great military hero, dwightize eisenhower, so i don't think there's any way adlaia stevenson could have won. >> when you think of herbert hoover, but paveed the way for franklin roosevelt. >> there's 14 people in the series, many of whom i few many have never heard of and all of whom i can guarantee they'll find interesting, fascinating, and certainly surprising. >> history professor, gene baker, karl cannon, and richard norton smith talk about the 14 men who ran for president and lost, friday, 8 p.m. eastern and pacific, a preview for the

contenders, a 14-week series on c-span beginning september 9th. >> a discussion now on financial assistance to foreign countries from this morning's "washington journal." >> host: we're back with dan glickman, a familiar face whom i'm sure to many of you. chairman of the global leadership commission, former agriculture secretary, discussing today foreign aid. as the deficit reduction committee begins work, we learned the republicans met yesterday, democrats having a conference call today, foreign aid could be on the chopping block. let's begin first by what do you mean by foreign aid? what does that constitute? >> guest: well, foreign assistance is generally referred in two basic areas. one is the non-military foreign assistance, food, aid, humanitarian stance, helps countries become self-sufficient. we are providing food to the horn of africa and somalia.

then you have more districtly aid related to war, the reconstruction of afghanistan and pakistan. the total foreign aid budget is about 1% of the total budget of the united states. >> host: right, but how much in billions of dollars? >> guest: roughly $50 billion, and when you count military side, it's close to $55 billion, but a lot of folks when asked, well, we spent too much money on foreign aid. how much did we spend in people said 25% of the budget, 15% of the budget, 10% of the budget. truth is, it's 1% of the budget covering all this assistance, food assistance, development assistance, humanitarian assistance. it's actually a very, very small part of the total budget of the united states. >> host: when people hear $50 billion, that sounds like a lot of money, it is a lot of money, and so in these economic times when folks don't have jobs and they are struggling here, why should we be spending even that

amount on foreign aid? >> guest: well, first of all, consider this whole package. we spend probably 20 times that amount in the defense picture to defend america's national security. in effect, a lot of foreign aid is part of the national security function. by providing country with development of assistance, they become politically secure so they don't revolt. we saw in north africa, tunisia, libya to some extent, clearly in egypt, the insurrection that occurred because of economic problems -- food prices, that kind of thing, so providing this assistance can keep the countries stable and could provide long-term economic development that becomes a market for the united states and allows jobs to flourish here, but a big part of the foreign assistance is in humanitarian assistance. it's for people who are hungry, who are starving, who need medical assistance, who need immunizations, and that's where the united states has been a leader throughout the world. while we recognize that no area can be totally exempt and immune

from budget cuts, this is a very important part of the u.s. projection of power and influence around the world, and in many respects, it's just as important as the defense dollars that we spend every day. >> host: so why is the u.s. global leadership coalition part of this? i mean, where are you advocating to keep foreign aid as it is or advocating for more money? and what's the worst case se scenario this deficit committee gets rid of half of foreign aid or more? >> guest: well, you know, look, he was a congressman for many years and ran a federal agency. i know no area is immune from looking at the budget process, and you can't say, well, cut everywhere else but not here. the question is one of degree, and the fact is we're not making giant cuts in our defense budget because we know that that's necessary for the national security of the united states. these dollars go in many respects to augment our national security budget by providing

economic assistance that builds stable societies as well as humanitarian assistance -- food aid, vaccinations, medical assistance. we cut the rate of polio in africa in half largely because of our foreign assistance. it's a complement to the national security budget, and if we cut it dramatically, it would have grave humanitarian consequences around the world. we're sighing now one of the -- we're seeing now one the largest famines in africa in history. food issues, climate issues, we're going to see a lot more of these problems involving food insufficient my around the world. if we disengage as americans, it will be extremely harmful to the national security interests. let me tell you what else happens -- other countries, the chinese and indians move up the slack. they are moving strongly in africa and asia as well. no longer will the united states be the strongest dominant force

in these parts of the world. >> host: well, answer the question, too, about u.s. global leadership question before we move on. >> guest: sorry. >> host: that's all right. >> guest: it's some of the largest corporations of the world, some of the largest non-government organizations like care and other humanitarian organizations and an asourcement of groups and national security leaders. we have lots of former flag officers, generals, admirals and others pushing what is called smart power which means for the united states to maintain leadership in the world for us to build the relationships that we need around the world that will give us economic relationships and political relationships and humanitarian relationships, these organizations have came together behind the global leadership coalition as a kind of group of assorted interests that are fighting to maintain foreign assistance, adequate foreign assistance funding, and it's interesting to find veterans,

leaders, former generals, admirals, flag officers joining are humanitarian leaders sneering america maintains leadership in the issues because there's national security consequences, economic consequences because when you build stable societies, they buy more american products equallying jobs in the guy as well. it's a coalition of the willing, i guess you say, some call it right, lefts, and liberals to working to the to exert this power the united states had for years. >> host: this is put together by the economic cooperation and development. they put foreign assistance by country this 2010 by the united states at about $30 billion. united kingdom, $13 billion. france, $13 billion, japan, $11 billion. why are we more than double than

the other countries, and what if we scale back to their level? >> guest: first of all in previous years, we were seven times greater. our budget has not gone up in real terms for many, many years when you consider all the economic and humanitarian side of the picture. if we were to cut back significantly, my prediction is the other countries wouldn't go up. who might go up is china, the chinese, maybe the indians, but the chinese are active, and they have political reasons, i think, for engaging the area. i think food assistance is in great jeopardy as it is in the house budget looking at these issues, there was a 30% cut in food assistance for humanitarian purposes. i think a lot of people would go hungry. i think there's be economic disarray around the world. it's not in our interest to see that happen. you know, the united states -- our power and influence in large part due not only to the military power, but the economic power, and our power of values

and our power to help people who are struggling, and, again, this is 1% of the budget of the united states. it's over 25%, then i think some of the concerns would be justified, but it's not. >> host: we'll get to phone calls here in a minute. talking with dan glickman about the u.s. global leadership coalition. he's the chairman of the bipartisan group advocating for foreign aid. let's talk to ray who is an independent in alaska. ray, you're on the air with dan glickman. god. good morning, ray. >> caller: yes, he low? >> caller: yes, hi, good morning. >> caller: this is ray, i'm in alaska, and i just feel the economic value in our country is not as rich as what it's put up -- made out to be, and i feel like that we should put more -- more focus to our country and

not to the other countries, and i do believe that america was a power in the past, but with our recent credit rating dropping and with our economy, i think that we should spend more money taking care of our own country. >> guest: i understand that, and, you know, by and large i kind of agree with that. i mean, the heart of what our country ought to be is to take care of ourselves. i hope the president has a good jobs package next week, but, again, i point out a couple things. this is 1% of the budget, not 15% or 25%. it's just 1%. we spend far more than that in defense figures to do the same thing to protect america's national security interests. the second point is most of the jobs in the future for american workers will be basedded upon exports around the world. that's where 90% of the population is.

to export commodities around the world, it means countries and governments have to be stable, strong, have to have the appropriate economic development so they can buy our stuff and therefore they can then employee workers, buy our airplanes, farm equipment, and all those kinds of things. the market opportunities are great, but greater where the countries around the world a stable and there's assistance to build roads, sewers, and help people from starving to death and be immunized from serious disease. i understand what ray says, but i also believe the long-term economic future of the united states is tied to the development of the rest of the world as well. >> host: you mentioned china and india stepping in if u.s. withdrawals foreign assistance. does china and india attach strings to the money they give, and if so, do we do the same? >> guest: by and large, we attach less strings than they do. the chinese have been active in

africa, and they come in and the quid pro quo for them is extracting minerals or other precious resources needed. by and large, the u.s. foreign assistance program whether administered through the agency of international development or through non-profit organizations is geared towards kind of rebuilding the national infrastructure, health, agriculture, feeding, building, you know, basically the foundations of a modern society, so, you know, i would say that over the years, the heart of our assistance has been much more humanitarian and much less strings related than other parts of the world. >> host: should we put strings on this money? what about loans and countries pay us back when they reach a certain level? >> guest: of course, loans and that's done through the world bank and financial institutions and not direct aid, and, of course, we want to make sure the countries who receive our aid

have relatively democratic principles because we see all over north africa, people are throwing out totalitarian leaders, but i point out the big chunk of our stansz has been in -- assistance has been in food aid, health aid, immunization, and trying -- sanitation, sewers, all those things to build basic societies so they can flourish, they can become economic partners, and in many respects, they can buy our stuff. >> host: top agencies providing u.s. foreign aid. u.s.-aid about $11 billion. state department $9 billion. agriculture department, 2.5 billion, and treasury department, $1.7 billion. good morning, mike. >> caller: i'm sorry i'm nervous here, but i'm confused on this -- when i'm listening to this, the tape going back and forth, delays reaction --

anyways, can you hear me, shall i turn the tv off? >> host: yeah, mike, that's the problem. you got to turn the volume down. >> caller: mr. glikeman, you're living in a la-la land to be frank with you. this country here in the united states, basically, if you look out there, it's falling apart. it's just not from foreign aid. i mean, you talk about stabilizing other countries. look at our own country. it's a mess. you talk about feeding children in other countries, and i think it's one out of four kids in the united states -- something along those lines -- are going to bed hundred ri. you talk about a global economy. we don't need a global economy. you're exactly on the wrong path. >> host: all right. >> guest: all right, first of all, mike, we need a global economy. if you work for boeing company,

60% of the airplanes and 60% of the workers are for sales overseaings, not in the united states. we need people to buy the planes, john deere, people have to buy those tractors. we sell almost everything we make outside the united states more than we sell inside the united states, and we need to sell more of that than we do now. without a global economy, we are dead as a nation. we will not survive. now, i agree with the fact that there has not been enough attention focused over the last 50 years own rebuilding the american infrastructure, the american workplace, the american economy, and that's got to be the heart and the focus of what we're doing, but for the 1% of the budget, i repeat this -- for the 1% of the budget that goes to foreign assistance, we can do two or three things to help us with the economy. we can help build infrastructure of companies and countries that will then grow and buy things from the united states, and that

is beginning to happen all over africa and south asia where the countries have become in many respects much stronger, and they are buying airplanes and farm equipment. second of all, from a humanitarian point of view, america is a leader in helping the rest of the world survive and cope with disease and hunger, and we are kind of the moral force of the world. now, that doesn't mean we have to take on the total responsibility ourselves. we don't have the money to do that anymore. that's why -- i'm not arguing for 5% of the budget or 10% of the budge. i'm saying current levels, 1% of the budget, this augments american power and our ability to influence the world so that we can continue to be strong and continue to provide jobs for americans as well, and that's why the secretary of defense, bob gates, that's why military leaders all over the country, general petraeus and others have said this part of our budget is

critical to america's national security. i don't argue the base premise, but argue with the fact that we should just drop all our assistance to the rest of the world. i don't think that helps america at all or help american workers. >> host: margaret a republican from georgia. >> caller: hello. >> guest: hi. >> caller: the one thing that concerns me is the foreign aid -- we have everybody -- >> host: we're listening. >> caller: the one thing like haiti, adult men waiting for us to come over there and do something for them. i think we need to do -- help people that help themselves. >> host: all right. >> guest: i agree with you totally, margaret. for years, i think, in some respects, we created a culture of dependency in parts of the world, but under the leadership of u.s. aid, the primary agency

providing stance, under all the assistance provided by the department of agriculture, defense, and others, the idea is to help people help themselves, help people feed themselves, help people grow their own economies through the kind of assistance that we provide, and so i think you are spot on there. >> host: a tweet from linda saying why are we giving foreign aid to our creditor nations like china? why should that not be credited to our debt instead? >> guest: i'm not aware of foreign assistance going to china anymore, and, you know, i think we had certainly over the years a lot of assistance going to india, and that is waning as the indians become much more economically powerful, but the chinese are big competitors of ours. the chinese are in africa, they are all over east africa building roads, sewers, water system, an think then get access to pressure terribles and min

-- precious min trails that help them. we have to compete with chinas in other countries who are all over the world developing relationships, building these societies so that they can then ship the assets back and produce more jobs at home. we need to be competing directly with that as well. >> host: u.s.-aid is part of the state department, so they do their own foreign staps work, and then you have the state department because we showed the numbers before, and there they are again. the state department is at $9 billion. >> guest: the state department is in war-related development like in afghanistan, pakistan, and other things. the heart of u.s. foreign assistance is run through the u.s. agency for international development, and in the area of food assistance where traditionally we're leaders in the world -- united states historically supplied over half of the food assistance to hungry people around the world, and 245*s in great jeopardy right

now as people are hungry and weather makes it difficult for farmers all over the world, and it's something we have to have a top focus on in the future. >> host: jodi has this comment on twitter. the united states is 5% of the population who uses 25% of the resources of the world. you do the math. >> guest: well, i think she's making my point in a sense that -- >> host: the reason for going into these countries? >> guest: well, i think that the reason for going into the countries is two-fold as i mentioned before. i mean, we're historically the richest country in the world. i still think we're the richest country in the world, but some extent that's jeopardized for 5 lot of different reasons. we have not invested enough at home over the past, and i agree with some of the caller ons that, but that's no reason to withdrawal and be, you know, unilateral. it's interesting -- years and years ago, roy rogers made the comment that america has two great friend in the world. you know who they are.

he said they are the atlantic and pacific oceans. we always had a little bit of an isolation streak in the country, and i think i understand it because we have not dealt with foreign governments because they are separated. we just have canada and mexico basically, and we've been allies over the years, but the fact of the matter is we are in a global economy, a world economy, and the majority of american jobs are dependent upon exports around the world, and in order for us to compete with the chinese and others, we have to develop markets all over the world which means the developing world has to be in a position with the adequate amount of sewers and roads and people who eat and people who are not hungry and people who are not destabilized so they grow and buy our products. >> host: barney, indidn't in columbus, ohio. >> caller: hello, sir. this is another global corporate plot that sends our money overseas after they sent our jobs overseas. also, we use money to israel and

egypt, both of which caused more problems in the area and because israel won't make peace, we continue to spend billions of dollars in wars in the middle east which are unnecessary. >> host: all right. >> guest: okay, first of all, i take issue -- i don't think it's a global plot. you may disagree with the policy. a couple statistics, thanks to american assistance, the number of children dying before their 5th birthday in the world is cut in half. polio cases 234 africa reduced by over 90% in 20 years. more than three quarters of african youngsters are enrolled in primary school. thanks to president bush and president clinton and president obama's aids relief plan, over 2.5 million people received life saving anti-retroviral drugs, and we made significant progress

in the fight against aids all over the world. hundreds of millions people helped with food assistance, natural disaster assistance, and many of the u.s.-aid recipients of small finance projects around the world have become self-sustaining business owners, and many are now importing products in the united states, so, yeah, i mean, i understand the concern there, and i'm not necessarily saying that i agree with all u.s. policies over the years in terms of the allocation of resources between big corporations and smaller business, but most of this development assistance go to help people who are hurting around the world, and that's always been in the united states' interest. >> host: that's the definition of foreign aid versus military aid. >> guest: that's right. military aid is to israel, egypt, pakistan, and the united states found that that's in its political and military interests to deal with those issues, but

largely what i talking about today is development assistance. >> host: who received foreign aid in 2009? afghanistan topping the list at $3 billion followed by iraq at 2.2 billion, pakistan at 1.3 billion, and west bank gaza at $1 billion. >> guest: that's by and large economic numbers, not the military assistance numbers that the gentleman talked about. >> host: right. tyson, republican from washington. go ahead. >> caller: thank you, dan, a great guest with great points which is making this an eye-opening segment. i really think the mid left and the right hand out leeches in the country should clearly take a step back and realize what they have and what this country offers all of us. i honestly, dan, felt weeks ago

that, yeah, maybe we shouldn't be giving so much money away and should be focusing more on the homeland, but listening to your segment here, sir, and how intelligently you're speaking when coming across, you make complete sense. we -- a majority of this world is hurting. okay. let's think about maybe pakistan, some other countries that might funnel some of this capital into a different way, but like you took a quote from will rogers, it's ironic because i have one too. he said we are one of the richest and most blessed countries in the world to where we drive our vehicles to the food line. i mean, it's -- he was right on there. we are blessed, and we are lucky in this country. i think everybody should basically listen to what you have to say and be very grateful

for the country we live in. god bless the u.s.. >> host: all right. >> guest: that was not my brother who called. wanted you to know that. [laughter] one comment is foreign assistance, economic development assistance has been bipartisan for many, many years, basically since the time of the post second world war, it was president herbert hoover who president roosevelt deputized to do a massive effort to feed the world. it's the mar shall plan under truman that eisenhower expanded. it's the food for peace program developed by president kennedy and president nixon continued on strongly. i was in africa in march and went to tanzania and met people who thought america had three great leaders, and it was interesting. who are they? it was president george bush for the efforts on aids malaria. it was president bill clinton

who they saw largely there the efforts of the clinton global initiative, and president obama. i'm thinking here i am in africa, and i find the three heros of the african continent of american leadership are a republican president bush and two democratic presidents, clinton and obama. by the way, we are very popular in that region of the world. we're not popular in a lot of places, but we are in africa, and so almost a third of the country's in the u.n. general assembly are from africa. there's great political benefit for us to do the right thing as well. >> host: a tweet about africa, why are they so rich in natural resources and negligent in caring for health needs of its people? not our problem. >> guest: it is our problem if you think they are citizens of the world to contribute and grow and buying our products and maybe providing help in america's national security. you just can't neglect a

continent, and they have great natural resources. some countries do better than ours. they have not had adequate legal systems and certainly not much infrastructure with roads, sewer, and systems, but there's promise and movement happening around the world, and especially in the developing world, and when you look at the future of the world, the growth is likely to take, the growth is likely to take place in the developing world, like africa and asia. that is where the economic power is going to be bid i predict 20 or 30 years for now, you are going to see great economic development at great economic power in the places of the world where you have not seen it over the last 30 or 40 years. the united states needs to be engaged in that part of the world or we are going to lose. we are going to lose the ese, s and a lot of other folks who will become economically superior to us. that's not in our national interest. >> host: a democratic from

florida. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to ask a couple questions, but first of all, i want to know since we're the richest country in the world like it's been said, why is that we never say anything about australia? >> host: i'm sorry, about what? >> guest: australia. >> caller: australia. i contemplate the man for a little bit because australia is the only continent that is really surrounded by water, and no one asked to australia unless they cry -- they also have here in this country gas stations. they have several other several types of businesses that are taking out of here, but what do we get from australia? >> host: leaving it there. >> guest: australia is a fine country, but a very small country, and the population is on the coast because australia

is primarily a big giant desert country without a lot of agriculture -- although they produce a lot of wheat. they are a strong agriculture country, but it's very small population, and it doesn't have anywhere near the economic power of the united states. >> host: another tweet from cay. why are women and children starving in somalia if we give billions in aid eluding to the waste and the corruption and the fraud. >> guest: well, first of all, for the last several years, a lot of the aid has not reached somalia because there's been war lords and al -- alal-qaeda organizations keeping it out. just recently, we got some humanitarian aid into somalia. >> host: how do you prevent that? >> guest: you know, it's a very, very difficult problem. we actually had impact in other parts of use africa, ethiopia and kenya and jabudi, another

country in the area. there's been less problems than there would have been because there's been greater economic growth and better agriculture practices, but somalia is a country run by war lords, no legal system, and it basically is a chaotic, almost uncivilized country, so it's been extremely difficult to establish any economic systems, and in a place like somalia opposed to other places in africa are a big challenge to feed people and keep them from dying as they both die in somalia and move into refugee camps and other parts of africa. >> host: indianapolis on the independent line. >> caller: this is ted britain from indianapolis. >> guest: yes, sir. >> caller: just a minute -- i have two comments for you. i am aarage 70. i had a master's degree, and i disagree with you much on the

five stages of economic growth. of economic growth. i agree with you that roads and sewers and economic infrastructure are required. but my statement to you is, i don't think we can afford it anymore. i think that the nation has too much in debt, and maybe we cannot afford -- i believe in foreign aid, but the problem is, it is very inefficient. the state department had an interview the other day and said that they only get 20% to the people who need it when they ship food to somalia because there is no infrastructure and the warlords steal it. host: all right, we were just talking about that, but -- guest: somalia is different because of the warlords and al qaeda-related operations to other parts of the world, people get virtually all the aid sent to them. as a farm manager, you know

that producing agriculture, you need a lot of things, roads, sewers, ways to get crops to market, you need to understand farming practices, marketing. all these things are part of what is now happening in that part of the world, sub-saharan africa and south asia. within the next 20 or 30 years, these people could become great producers of food, which means they are the great fires of american products, seed, farm equipment. it is already beginning to happen. when i was in tanzania, i saw a number of a john deere tractors. it is complicated. i am not saying it is an easy thing to do. for less than 1% of our budget, we basically provide this kind of assistance to the rest of the world. host: carlisle, pennsylvania, republican line. anastasia? caller: i was actually calling in at a reference to the tweet from earlier with a comment that we use 25% of the resources.

my comment is that even though we use 25% of the resources, we also ship out so much aid and help to these other countries that a lot of the resources we use to get spread around the world. also, with food shortage going on at round the world, why are we paying our farmers to keep their fields fallow? is that the search for the all- american dollar, which actually isn't all that great right now? or is it, you know, or some other purpose, because i get really confused whenever i read reports and see the news on that. guest: that is a good question. by and large, we do not pay our farmers to keep their fields fallow anymore. we did that in the 1980's and 1990's. the only place we do that is the conservation program, the conservation reserve program where we basically a people to keep highly erobale land out of

-- erodable land out of production to preserve it. we are looking to see if we have too much of that land in conservation fields. we are ending the period up surpluses in farm supplies. for years we had excess supplies of wheat and soybeans. those days are over. the big problem in the venture is going to be can we produce enough food for the world -- the big problem in the future is going to be can we produce enough food for the world? when we have lots of surplus of food available, it was easier to feed the world. now it is going to be a lot trickier, because the equilibrium between supply and demand in food is going to be tighter than a was before.

guest: i think that is a goo qution. if you talk to the folks at the agency for international development, they are in the period of changing the methodology of foreign assistance to invest and to help countries grow themselves and to become more self-sufficient. there is a program called "feed the future," geared to helping farmers become self-sufficient so that they don't have to rely on food aid and grants. the ford foundation, gates, clinton, rockefeller and others are all over the developing world trying to encourage self- sufficiency, not reliance, but self-sufficiency. that is fairly new. a friend of mine is howard buffett, warren buffett's son, heavily involved in efforts in

eastern and sub-saharan africa. the focus over the last five years has changed from pouring gifts in it to one that encourages self sufficiency and economic development. host: ohio, it democratic line. caller: good morning. i just want to say, the midwest is full of evidence that free trade has not worked. no, it is not worker wages, not our standard of living, not our unions. it is a classic economic policy that has done this to us. secondly, the times of the last 50 years has been to pocket the difference between our way of life and the ways of four world countries. -- third world countries politicians and economists have used import rates to increase demand in this country, increasing employment and all the things that i encourage

industry in this country. guest: first of all, i cannot go into detail about how our industrial policy over the last 30 years has it worked or not worked. in a sense i agree with the caller that we have made serious mistakes. the country is benefiting from a significant increase in farm exports overseas and we have some of the harvest farm prices in history, and a lot of that has been caused by the growth in demand are around the world. regardless of what the gentleman says, and he may be right in terms of industrial policy, in terms of our ability to keep involved in the rest of the world and growing economies so they can buy our stuff, i think that is very important for the future of workers in this country. we will not produce a work force without some and a dependency and the rest of the world. now, we have to make sure it is fair, we have to make sure that trade laws are properly being enforced. i don't want to blame everything on this idea that we have

relationships with the rest of the world. second, on the humanitarian side, we have saved tens of millions of people from dying. the united states of america, in the last 30 to 40 years, has saved tens of millions of people from dying, from starvation and from disease. you know, i think that is one of the things that is part of our value system in america. maybe the rest of the world doesn't share that, but i think that is a damn good thing for our country to begin. host: anchorage, alaska. caller: is an absolute necessity, and i agree that we should always have -- help foreign countries and so on, but i don't understand why we are minimizing -- only 1% of our budget goes into foreign trade, up 1% of our budget is trillions of dollars. for instance, we have foreign trade money to two point-some billion dollars goes to turkey, we also have a .

defense budget of billions of dollars on the pakistan border to defend our country and the train -- to train soldiers from other countries. the long and short of what i am saying is that we are minimizing it 1% of our budget -- it is a lot of money. guest: is a lot of money, but it is not trillion dollars. i need to make that clear. when i was in congress, i would go to town hall meetings, and i would get numbers wrong, but my constituents would get numbers wrong. 1% of the budget in this case is roughly $50 billion going into international development and assistance. it is a lot of money, i don't want to minimize it.

>> be sure to join us tomorrow at "washington journal" continues a series of weather issues. a focus today was climatology and will resume tomorrow at 9:15. the focus will be on the role of noaa. the series will wrap up on friday with a discussion on the role of the national weather service. you can see "washington journal" live every day starting at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> and today on the "washington journal" we asked viewers about their spending habits for the next year. we post a question you plan to spend more in the next year, less, or about the same? we heard from over 400 of you who weighed in, and 48 saying that you will spend more. 260 are saying that you will spend less. about 90 of you are spending about the same over the next six months. we will keep the poll open all day on our facebook page and welcome your participation. you can find the poll and offer your views at facebook.com/csp

facebook.com/cspan. we will continue to update you with results throughout his day. >> watch more video of the candidates and see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, candidate buyers and the latest polling data plus links to c-span many partners in the early primary and caucus stage. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> colorado christian university's centenary institute held its annual western conservative summit at the end of july. one of the king of speakers with democratic pollster and fox's contributor pat caddell. former adviser to democratic candidates including jimmy carter, joe biden, gary hart and jerry brown. spoke to the crowd in denver. this is about 45 minutes.

>> you might be upset. first of all, let me say how glad i am to be here. everyone has been quite wonderful here. some people wonder why i am here. i thought to myself, a scene in the "wizard of oz" when dorothy turned to total, a character that identify often with -- [laughter] saying we are not in kansas anymore. i guess that's less she went to the denver international airport. [laughter] john, don't get me started. john andrews said, i liked earlier, he said i'd like to know about democrats and republicans and i promised to do so both, so some of you may not like -- sometimes i did and some people don't like it. i said the other night, we're having a reprieves apparently monday night. so for those of you who want to see more of that, you can.

let me just say, start off by saying a little bit about my journey quickly. when i left politics i swore one thing to myself when i got out of being a lyrical hack -- a political hack, which is what i was. and i would never once again not speak in my own voice, or say what i believe. and i don't often, i always at least, you know, i think if you see monkey do when i comment, i try to say what i believe. and i find, i refuse to do the talking points for anyone. now, and so if you have seen the on fox. i have a show. we're working on hopefully will be broadcast. we do it every month for those of you real political junkies. doug schon and john and i online for fox live on the stream live

on mondays at 11 for those of you who are interested. we have some wild things to say on that show. but anyway let me say about my journey, i left politics because i started when i was very young. presidential campaign when i was 21. teddy white said at the time was the youngest person ever to be a major advisor for a presidential campaign in the american history. i spent 20 years in politics, and they can be very disillusioned with it. and decided to lead. and, of course, did what almost no one does. i went and got to hollywood. it was like going on methadone. but when i left it i was very bitter. i never really want to deal with it again. i thought it'd become i helped make it that way, a profession i was not proud of, particularly among what can happen to political consultants. but then something happened. my daughter gave me three grandchildren.

one right after another. lazy, after travis, my namesake, and jamie was three. and i moved from l.a. back from charleston tough your website to your website to be down the street from them. and suddenly i found myself facing a question about what i would do, how could i stay out of politics, and a speak to that in a second, what i've been working on a book and it's called america is too young to die. the thesis of it is rather simple. every generation in our history faces a test. a test of whether it will earn the right to call itself americans. before the was the united states to us and america. and the right, and in that america the moral, the ultimate moral commandment was simple. you give your children better than you had. u.k. the more opportunity, greater freedom, it was the test of honor. and for each generation that had

to face that test whether they meet their destiny, or whether they portray -- betray the responsibility of we are now part of the first generation in history that stands at the precipice after 21 generations of successfully handed the soul, we can stand to be the first generation to fail that test. and it's not something, i watched the politician in washington talk about our children. they threw it away like it's a line somewhere between potholes that they will fill and taxes they're going to give you back. it is not. it is a moral issue that defines each and every one of us. in our own lives. [applause] let me tell you something. it we fail our children, if we fail to pass them on a better america, and the issue is in severe doubt, america will die. there was to be the united states by the way. they will still be an entity called the united states but there will be an american

anymore. let me tell you if that moment happens it is something history will not forget, and god will not forgive. [applause] >> and when i faced the question of having to suddenly realize i needed to get back into the political sphere, it came to me one day because i realized when my three grandchildren, who call me on top, who was irish for grandfather. i thought to myself, if unfortunate, god allows me to live another 20 years, or 15 or 20 years and see my children, grandchildren grow up into young men and women, what am i going to say them when you look at me and say, dada, how did you let all of this happen to us? this is a question that everyone of you, everyone in this country should be asking themselves. not where their next paycheck is coming from, not whether next donation is going, but how are they going to answer that

question. [applause] let me tell you something. and i say this to all audiences i speak to. let me ask you something. if your children or grandchildren were in back sleeping one night and an intruder start to break into the house, into the window, to do them bodily harm, what is it you would not do to protect your children and grandchildren? is there anything you would not do? well, that is the equivalent of what's happening right now. they are being robbed. their future, their rightful heritage and future and, which they are owed in which we owe them because he was honorably past two was, is being taken away. and it is happening now. what's going on in washington, this unbelievable exercise, politicians out for themselves, always worried about the politics. i don't care, they are all that way right now.

the president, the republican leadership, the democratic leadership. what they're doing is bankrupting this country, talking about cutting, get down in 10 years. we know what they need which is never stop spending. that's what they do. they spend money. the republicans are only a little worse than the democrats. and the fact is they never, they never cut spending. they raise taxes and waste money. they never stop the waste and they never take responsibility. all you have to do is remember you forget last spring, when they passed, remember john boehner and said we will pass this $50 billion in cuts, we'll cut the budget and it turned out to be 300 million. because they think we're all idiots. the economy and this country is in the worst shape of my life type it and it's getting worse by the minute. the president hasn't a clue what to do. no one in washington -- washington has the highest real

estate values in america. it is awash in corrupt money, and these people don't give a whit what really happens. nobody cares. and i was out last week and i was here in denver, one of the three cities, tampa, columbus, talking to americans and focus groups about what they were doing. and i'll tell you the resilience of the american people is unbelievable. their willingness to face up to the number of jobs, how hard they're trying to make it. they have no faith in government. they have no control. but they know what they have to do in their own lives and i'm thinking, and you hear the stories. they don't tell it about themselves, they tell it about their families and friends and what prices are being paid, people losing their homes because we have an economy that was looted and the people who did it are walking around free. instead of being in prison, including the president's chief of staff and national security adviser for fannie mae. [applause] which a subject i will talk about in a moment.

and all of us continues to go on, and foreign policy you heard today from frank gaffney who i have great respect for and friendship with, you heard discussion. you discussion. you see what's happening with the chinese. i don't know how you think you're an independent country when you're on your knees to your baker and your banker is the communist. who all presses his own people. today, yesterday in "the wall street journal" an article about how they are all pressing charges. the churches are trying to fight back. christian churches which are trying to bring god to people and have now been termed to be enemies of the state and we businesspeople in this country can't wait to do business. they don't care what the moral applications are. iran, we see what iran's administration promised. they get nuclear weapons, does anyone doubt they will use them, give them to tears or use them against israel? we're in business ago she with the muslim brotherhood? in egypt, where the president

who seems to be impervious to understand our responsibility to the state additional, and is tonight, it is nighttime in israel as i speak now. israel is in great danger and with the united states. and no one speaks out. the chinese military is building up, we've given up space to the russians, the chinese, all of this has happened. but i have an urgent safety and the american people and it comes from my experience, i have never -- the american people as i've often said before, i've had my heart broken but i've never lost confidence in the judgment in wanting to do the right thing. there is a great majority in this country, and it does not identify itself by parties so much as it does a simple definition of the americans. i personally belong to a party of memory, democratic party as you've heard being described. and you've heard this morning,

by the way, david foster -- i couldn't believe he was in as good a shape as after the 19 i had last night. [laughter] truman and jfk, jfk, the end of his inaugural address saying that on earth god's work is truly our own. and fdr, if you ever have heard, actually hear or read his speech, his prayer on d-day to the nation. i use it for different friends, democrats claim we should have religion and politics. i pretend it's george bush giving the speech and watch them go crazy. [laughter] president carter who was a man of great faith, and i was privileged and honored to work with. and ronald reagan by the way when you saw the demonstration on the display, by frank when he took on communists when he was a

union president. remember, he was a democrat. we have two parties in america. we have the corrupt party and the stupid party. [laughter] they have a lot in common with each other. but they tend to be, that tends to distinguish them over and over. i'm not going today which is which because you know. you know, i started, i have been a democrat all my life to my father was a democrat. my grandfather before him and my great grandfather but the democratic party that i belong to is not what they have done a this turn the democratic party into. and i have to tell you i am taking a stand, i'm not leaving my party. i just think, i used to, i just to dismiss ronald reagan when he used the line i didn't leave my party, my party left me. in reason years i began to really appreciate that idea more. but i want to tell you where i stand.

chuck schumer he was my classmate at harvard, a couple weeks ago in the hamptons, was at a party and went up to -- we write together -- went up to him and doug wrote a piece in which, in front of a number of people, senator schumer explained that doug and i couldn't describe herself as democrats because we didn't use the democratic points. and he said you are required to use those talking points even if you don't believe in them. my reaction to that was woodrow wilson said in 1916, in nebraska. he said i love the democratic party but i love america and much, much more. the democratic party becomes, the democratic party becomes an into itself, i rise in dissent. i rise in distant.

[applause] the party which once was the party of the common voice, of the common man, has been taken over by george soros and an elite bunch of over educated people. [applause] decided that their job is to be dictator to the people, to the common man. to tell them what to must believe and what they must do, even by the way when they are not living up to themselves. i know a lot of these people. i've said before, i've seen the cause cause a reaction. i said i remember when we receive when i was young and in politics we never let these people in the room. while we were not paying attention, they went and took over our education systems and our foundation. and they are now taking over this government. and if you knew them the way i knew them, he wouldn't sleep at nights. we also have what i call, i want to say something about president obama. when he announced i start in politics not an antiwar movement but in civil rights, i was a southern, young white southern boy in jacksonville, florida.

my family was from south carolina. i was involved in civil rights in the '60s and early '70s. i was responsible for helping elect all the first wave of black mayors in america. when barack obama, today announced, isa limit grounder trade in my arms who had just been born, and i was, tears running down my eyes to see a black man announcing a serious black candidate running as a candidate for president. not as a black man but as an american and was democrat. and then, of course, however, by the spring it was clear to me that what he represented most of all, and as president, is a certain kind of the chicago way of life, the politics. and as i said, he is still in his administration with crooks and near crooks. he has been basically protected by a press, and i will do with this more, that protects and. on the outside we have the stupid party.

and i want to give equal time because they certainly deserve it. anyone who watches what they did with obamacare, you know, they won the house of representatives on the issue, republicans did, two-thirds, were elected because of their opposition to the country's opposition to obamacare. i described obamacare, a crime against democracy. it was 2000 pages of trickery and lies and deals. told the people, never in history of this country have we ever passed a major piece of entitlement whether social security, medicare, that did not have at least 80, 85% of both parties. it was passed by doing deals with the drug industry so they would be exempt from it. and with lobbyists in the aarp and others.

it was shameful. and, finally, they had to buy senators in full view of the country. and then the 2000 pages, nobody read when they voted on it. and now we find out about the waivers. we fight everyday about the higher costs, and actually get up with a straight face and try to say it will make health care less. i mean, i don't know who they think they are talking to. on the day it passed there has not been a week, where a, every week but one, a majority has favored the repeal of obamacare. by the republicans, justice tucker said this morning, they were giving all the tea party people basically throwing a bone. they are not interested in a. when they found out about the illegal funding, or at least elicit funding secret buried in that bill, what did they do? they refused to make it an issue. there are republicans who have come and spoke to you who in fact went and told major donors not to worry, it wasn't

important. one major part of the republican leadership went and told members hey, except for some individual mandates we basically like a lot of what's in this bill. .. people coming in. you know, when i watch it i will tell you another story and i will get back to the other

things, but about the sharia law that franklin talked about and about the problem of muslims and grover norquist by the way -- i don't need to get much into that except what he has done on the tax fund is outrageous. can someone explain to me why republicans should not say to the president do you want to attack somebody? they made $40 billion. they paid no taxes. the head of it is your pro-s. buddy who is in fact, what is he doing sending jobs overseas? not creating them here and making all these sweetheart deals from government money. i would tax them. i would tax the hedge fund people who are paying 15% taxes to chuck schumer personally defended and protected from having to pay taxes that you pay, because they went and gave him campaign money. you want to talk about hypocrites of the first order. molly norris you have never heard of, she was a woman in the

paper in seattle. she was a cartoonist when the whole thing about drawing mohammed was -- became a crime to be punished by death around the world. she was so outraged in the name of freedom of speech that she suggested they have a cartoonist they. mr. al-awlaki who is the head of al qaeda issued a fatwa to have her killed. the fbi came to her in seattle and told her it was a serious threat and she should go into hiding but the fbi would not protect her. she would have, so she had to change her name and give up her job and go into hiding because on american soil the fbi run by eric holder would not protect her the same eric holder by the way he became attorney general with the support of many republican senators. i mean he was just an outrage and nobody ever calls for his resignation but do you know what he has done? a muslim woman in chicago, the first year teacher decided she wanted to have a leave of

absence so she could go to mecca and she wanted to be paid while she was doing it. the school board said you are out of your mind. we never give leaves of absences for anything. she filed suit, the united states government united states government entered on her behalf. you will pay millions of dollars for her argument that she should have the right. that is what is going on in this country. no republicans talk about it. ask a grover norquist and asked a friend to meet with him why they don't. when molly norris' story had a close race senate race in washington dino rossi the incumbent -- were neck and not. the incumbent after 9/11 had actually said quote we should not forget the good things to humanitarian things that bin laden did. dino rossi is running, losing women. 2.5-1 in washington state.

i couldn't understand why no one would make an issue and why they did make an issue of molly norris who was in hiding. to challenge the incumbent on that basis. is washington consultants, the corrupt core in both parties, corrupt american politics told him he couldn't do it. that was not on their agenda. neither was the mosque. the political corruption is unbelievable, whether it is tea party express operating pretending it is the tea party for the political consultant from california and loses three states for the republican party, whether it is the democratic corrupt consultants robbing widows and orphans. they are all in the business but the problem i have with watching conservatives and republicans is you people don't know how to fight. you don't know how to fight. it is unbelievable to me. wisconsin is happening now, organized labor is putting everything in there. a lot of people raised a lot of money and a lot of people are

doing -- in that issue will have a great impact on the results in the recall in another two weeks will decide a lot of what happens in 2012. i could go on about california and marriage. whatever i feel about it more really the issue to me is a pragmatic and real one and a legal one. we saw what no-fault is forced into the country. it sounded like a good idea. we have 30 years of evidence overwhelming that the communities saved. we open the door but we change the law about families not mattering. you heard last night from rick santorum, now it is become the issue of what makes you happy. the issue of marriage is the law should be what makes people happy. when someone pray tell why is it limited to two? why not three? why not for?

polygamy certainly has a greater history in both this country and worldwide then does marriage and what i'm amazed by his conservatives have never gotten the family in utah to move to massachusetts in 2004 and apply under the equal protection of the law for the right to marry. if you think the country may be divided over marriage, let me tell you it is violence on the issue of polygamy which is an abuse of women in the first order. but not all conservatives know how to fight. they just sit around and complain. we talk about the axis, it is not between democrats and republicans were liberals and conservatives. it is about a political class in washington and the mainstream of america. there is a majority of 70 to 75% of the country that unites around some very fundamental concepts that i will outline because that is what i'm working on and there is a lot -- a

quarter of the country to 20% who are basically what scott rasmussen and i devised a scale called the political class. political class classes in power right now and it has determined a a lot of power at all costs and it is basic means of operation are rigging the system and looting it. 85% of the american people believe that members of congress now do nothing but serve themselves and 60 some percent believe their own congressperson does that. 70% say most of the members of congress are at least somewhat corrupt and 46% say most of them are corrupt including their own congressman and 61% of people. when asked whether not the government, the government in washington operates with the consent of the government, 23% of the american people say yes and 60% say no. that is about 72% of those who have an opinion.

members of the political class, 79% of them say they rule with the consent of the government. 75% of the mainstream america says they do not rule by the consent of the government. that is 154-point margin difference. you might as well be the indifferent universe is much less different planets. do you know what? that was the basis of the american revolution. the question i encourage scott to ask as he is written about it which was when asking people whether they thought the distance between those who are governed and the governor was how did they compare to the british and the colonies in the mid-1700's, 55% of mainstream americans by a margin of more than 20, said that they believed it was worse, equal or worse to what it was when the colonists faced the british. 0%, none, no member of a political class believe that a 95% dissented. about 150.difference. what we are discussing here is what i use the term

revolutionary moment. the political class in this country washington and the satraps of lobbyists on lobbyists in the money and all the people with chronic capitalism, they run this country for themselves. let me tell you something, they are determined to hold onto power and the privilege. even if it means the country goes to hell and fails. let me tell you something, the motto why use could be attached to that the john milton wrote in lost in paradise when he quotes satan as saying the devil as saying better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven. that is the political class and that is why i have no particular use for them and after this little display in the last few weeks if you do not think the conditions of 1992 would have produced a winner and ross perot would have been crazy. the country was ready to elect him. those conditions are very grave. you so what donald trump did

throwing about what he was talking about, someone runs like an attendant and spoken against the party something is going to happen. but, the one thing i want to talk about his principles. i'm involved in an effort, called secure america now which is to get the grassroots involved in the messaging come into the argument of foreign policy on the basis that the average american has better sense than the experts do on foreign policy now. it is a nonpartisan effort. another one is an idea i'm working on and part of the principle -- my motto for this is very simple. we don't speak democrat or republican. we speak only american here. [applause] the principles of that i will speak you quickly because i know i'm running over. the first is that american exceptionalism, that we are the exceptional nation and must be. we have a generation of young people that don't believe that because they were told for the first time ever-present of the united states who united states

who sits in the oval office, for the first time ever who does not believe it. you saw voluntarily abdicating and surrendered our supremacy in space a week ago to the russians and the chinese, and nobody said anything of either party. you know i could go on with a different things like that. the second great idea is the idea of america is simple, it is freedom. americans need to start acting like they are free people. whether it is a tsa -- this idea that we are all sheep and should be treated that way or that the government is now -- make there was a "wall street journal" piece in the front page yesterday about how ordinary people are being caught up in federal laws and are being intensified over minor offenses that no one could possibly know about. does the government prosecuting its people to keep them in line. and i urge you to read that story. it should sheikh everybody who believes in freedom and that is

going on every day. the third i talked about our generational commitment and the fourth i want to mention principle is that we much have truthful discourse. unless we can be honest with each other and tell the truth, we cannot survive as a democratic republic. lies after lies. we are also told that there is no such thing as right and wrong or personal responsibility or relative -- relativism. all the things that will undermine this country to its core in which 75 to 80% of the american people don't believe. but that is said not to be a political issue. it is a political issue because unfortunately the line comes from everyone and that belief is if they can get away with it, we will just take it in until we start to manage something different that is a problem. the next is the great poison that is killing this country is corruption. it has entered by corrupting the political system we have

corrupted every institute and you do not think wall street could have done to america's politics hadn't been corrupt first. they have allowed wall street to by both parties. the republicans are the ones who want to defend wall street and the democrats raise money for them and they actually raise more than republicans do but that is because they can't do any better. fannie and freddie the single greatest scandal in the history of the united states. if you took all of the corruptions in the history of this country and combine them together they would look like a teacup compared to this fannie and freddie which looks like remember when we had the well blown out in the gulf? that is fannie and freddie. we passed a 2500 page law called the dodd-frank bill, which was what i call the equivalent of washing some oil off of birds feathers. you know it took unanimous consent to call after the two authors every republican agreed

in congress to call it that. i call it the dodd-frank guilty. a.k.a. dillinger, the a.k.a. capone dillinger act because those are two people we should have had in jail instead of reforming the system that republicans didn't stand up in the senate and say no bill will pass for us that those people right and not a thing was done with fannie and freddie? they did everything but that, including sanctifying the bailouts and one issue that unites americans outside of the political class from the far left to the far right is the bailouts, the looting of america in order to pay off the people, $16 trillion. you probably didn't see that story last week, $16 trillion that the fed secretly lent to every bank during the crisis, $16 trillion only because bernie sanders whatever you want to say about bernie sanders, it is one

thing about liking a socialist when he wants to find out sacks. he forced the bill for us both that they had to do in august that the fed opposed. no one in the mainstream media covered it. $16 trillion. even this week the faa is in this -- we are not picking up taxes. what do the airlines do? the taxes you pay for your airline ticket and that they are simply keeping the money. they are taking -- changing their prices. that is what we are here for. we are lobbyists and we are allowed to do whatever we want. you don't have to believe in free enterprise to be against looting. that is not free enterprise. [applause] my next principle is the issue, the primary ideology in america is not, circling not liberalism and not conservatism. the ideology this country is common sense and what we need is to restore that as a principle to which we look at and everyone of you know what i mean when i say the word common sense. every day you are offended by

what we read of the abuse of common sense in this society. the seventh is probably one of the most important in my principles. it is the power resides exclusively in the right hands of the people. the ultimate sovereignty of those countries where the people. you are responsible for what happens to the country. all of us are responsible. i am and everyone of us. we didn't get here by accident. every one of us closed our eyes or did something. i did things and i didn't mean for it to be what it did but it helps mess the system up. everyone of us are responsible for how we got here and everyone of us is responsible for getting us out of here. the notions of the political class wants to tell you is two things, you will have no power and you are wrong. the truth of the matter is you are right in you have all the power and you have all the numbers. [applause] it was said this morning and i invited someone to come here because it was important for you

to meet him. i was amazed at this person at cpac. i was speaking at national security there. a lady asked the question this morning about what you do about getting information. you have to learn how to share it and you have to learn how to evangelize. the press was not going to give it to you and this is my next.. the fact of the matter is i don't know where you are alice. stand up. this woman is a number three, was never in politics until three years ago. she has turned texas politics on its head by getting people to social media, having food camps to train people like you how to communicate and use the tools that are there to restore democracy. that is the future of america. it is not the politicians parading around pretending to be tea party people are non-tea party people who believe in the idea that people should rule. but, people and that gets me to

the next-to-last principle which is freedom of the press. we have freedom of the press and it is given to this country for one reason. it was a deal. the only institution in our constitution, the only institution that has no checks and balances in the press. that was not done because of the founders. they hated the press but they did it because they understood the country could not be free unless the people were protected by a free press that would protect them from the government and from power. and the deal was they would have no checks and balances and the commitment was they would protect the country. we have a press for the most part that has abandoned its role as the watch woman on the walls of freedom. they have abdicated that role, they have decided it is their job to be out writers of one political party and the other now basically gone. they believe it is their right to tell you who you may vote for

and who you must not vote for and they also believe worse what truth you may know and what truth you may not know. and i want to tell you that in doing so, by deserting their sacred responsibility, they have made themselves by choice the enemies of the american people. and until we restore free information, we will not be free. lastly, my last point is, i am working on these and it is very simple. what this country needs is a good dose of what it believes in, real free enterprise and real democracy and so far we don't have much of either one right now and we need them back. i want to end by saying, and i know i went on but i just want to say this. i believe we are at this critical moment and i want to tell you i've spent a lot of time since i was in politics studying more history and i loved history. one of my heroes robert kennedy spoke about when he died, 1968. he said, he said before he died, he said you know, he said, our

future may not be beyond our vision but it is not beyond our control. it is shaping impulse of america that neither faith nor fortune or determine our future but rather the work of our own hands match and reason in principle that determine our destiny. he said that there is pride in that statement. there is also arrogant, but there is also great truth and in any event is the only way that we as americans can live. abraham lincoln in december 1862 right after he had announced the emancipation proclamation before he would actually write or release it on the first had a statement that he had to the congress. in those days it was called, you didn't have the state of the unions. they were called messages. they were written messages and it is one of his most famous and i want to read the ending to you

because it says everything we should be about. he said this. fellow citizens, he said the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. the occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with dedication. as her case is new we must think anew and act anew and we must must distance ourselves and we shall save our country. fellow citizens we cannot escape history. we will be remembered in spite of ourselves, no personal significance or insignificance can spare any one or the other of us. the fiery trials for which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. we say we are for the union. the world will not forget we say this. we know how to save the union. the world knows we know how to save it. we been here pulled the power and bear the responsibility in giving freedom of to the slaves we have assured freedom for the free. what we given what we preserve. we shall nobly save or mainly

lose the last best hope. other means may succeed. this cannot fail. this way is plain, peaceful and generous and just. a way which has followed the world will ever applaud and god must forever bless. i will close on one last thought by a hero for many of you people and someone who i became too no one like, president reagan who i try to defeat twice. one of my favorite stories of his was about what happened with joseph warren, one of the founders you have never heard of. joseph warren died in bunker hill. he was the president of the massachusetts congress which meant he was the commander-in-chief of new england army besieging the british. but instead he went and served as a soldier in the ranks and would be killed, one of the last people killed when the americans ran out of ammunition. he was the person to revere and the others rode out to warn when

the famous british were coming. and he said when they gather there, the country that we love, the country that we love to send dire danger but do not despair because upon you rest the future of generations not yet born. act worthy of yourselves. that is the question i have for all of us, is to act worthy. the road is not easy but it is a road of honor. i will tell you if you walk that road of honor, at the end of the road you will be a will to stand in front of her children, as your parents did in front of you, grandparents stood in front of them and speak the sacred words, we kept faith. thank you. [applause] [applause]

>> pat caddell, pat caddell thank you. magnificent. [applause] we asked viewers about their spending habits. the question, do you plan to spend more in the next six months, less or about the same? more than 400 viewers have weighed in with 51 saying they will spend four, 263 saying they will spend less and 91 spending about the same. we welcome your participation in the pole today at facebook.com/c-span. that is c-span with node.

>> he is a partisan guy he wants to unite people. i mean, all of the problems of the era could get from this guy and why we couldn't elect him is the same reason we eventually went to war. they couldn't be resolved. >> he had the misfortune of running against a great military i don't really think that there any way that adlai stevenson could have won. >> you think about smith in 1928, lost to herbert hoover, but paved the way for franklin roosevelt. there are 14 people in the series, many of whom i guarantee

viewers may never have heard of and all of them i can pretty much guarantee you they will find interesting and fascinating and certainly surprising. >> history professor jean baker, real clear politics editor carl cannon and presidential historian richard norton smith talk about the 14 men who ran for president and lost friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific it is a preview for the contenders, 14 week series on c-span beginning friday september 9. >> coming up next to michael needham ceo of heritage action for america, conservative grassroots advocacy organization. he recently spoke to a group of conservatives called the red state gathering. the group is about to release a scorecard and congressional voting on spending issues. this 20 minute speech took place

in charleston south carolina. [applause] >> i never know what to make of this claim that i'm so young. i've been out of diapers for 38 years so i feel -- this conference right here is the washington establishment for the site here and it is our job to make sure the washington establishment doesn't have a good nights sleep from now until the time they leave washington d.c.. [applause] and let me be clear the reason i say they leave washington d.c. it is not just the elected officials we need voted out of office. it is a bureaucrats and the staffers who have been washington d.c. for 45 years to say we can't do that conservative idea because lbj did not teach them to do it that way. we are big fans of red state.com and all of us know d.c. is

broken. does not just broken because we have a liberal ideologue who is an oversight in the white house. is broken because the establishment and because of the congress that isn't doing its job and the only solution to the situation we have in washington is active citizens who keep washington accountable for holding their politicians feet to the fire. redstate.com is the leading playset that happens the thank you offer what you are doing. it is great to be in south carolina. haley is one of the most inspiring politicians we have in this country. we heard that this morning. [applause] i also want to talk about the congressional delegation. we have five republicans in the house in the state who are among the best congressmen we have been washington d.c. right now. [applause] eric reference a scorecard we are doing. i'm not supposed to talk about it. where publicly releasing it in 10 days but let me lift the lid on it for a second. first of all you would not

believe the crying and gnashing of teeth that happens in washington d.c. when you do a scorecard. you may remember back in february that the house passed h.r. 1 which is a historic spending cut of $61,000,000,000.1.6 trillion deficit. and in addition to h.r. 1 was passed a house and every republican voted for there were 23 amendments that were voted upon to cut spending further. let's take spending back to 2006 in south carolina today. list defund a legal services corporation somebody said so we put out a report card on those boats and we simply said here is the percentage of those 23 votes to further cut spending that each member of the house voted for. the wailing that we endured from washington establishment politicians is indescribable. we had one politician he said, how could you give me a 53%? i said sir we didn't give you a 53%. you voted for 53% and we just pointed it out. [applause]

he looked at me like i said the moon was made out of cheese. the man did not understand what was being said. we are doing is scorecard and releasing it in 10 days and we don't grade on a curb. we are conservative, we are not tenured professors. [applause] it turns out there are only 26 members in the house of representatives 26 out of 435 to get over 85% on our scorecard. all five of the south carolina republicans are in net group. [applause] and i should also say senator edward dirksen many years ago said there were two parties in washington. there is an evil party and the stupid party and occasionally the evil party and the stupid party get together and do something together that is both evil and stupid in a call that bipartisanship. [applause] all five of the south carolina republicans voted against the

evil and stupid plan that came out of washington. [applause] i i will be honest i'm not here to up to politicians. i'm here to thank you. if any of us had thinned skinned the last month, really the last year frankly our entire lives as principled conservatives would have been really tough. just in the last few weeks we have been disparaged as hobbits. we been told their refusal to go along to get along is self-indulgent masquerading as principled sectarianism mass conservative. an unnamed congressional staffer and the republicans i told the newspaper there was nothing these far right guys will say yes to. the far right guys who passed o'brien budget in cut, cap and balance at both of which are present in the senate refused to do anything about, there's nothing these far right guys would say yes to. is clear they will be in transient now matter what. conservatives were told to quit whining and get our in line.

all from people who are supposedly on our side of the fight. i want to say it would have been very easy to buckle under this pressure. it would have been very easy to bend and would have been very easy to break that every single one of you in this room redstate.com a lot of the conservative groups in washington we stood tall and i admire you and thank you for that commitment to principle. let's be very clear. there is a bipartisan political establishment in washington that thrives on the consolidation of power in the federal government and the draining of benefits to his supporters and labor unions, big business and the so-called elite. as conservatives we may wish we could all stay away from politics and we could focus on our families and their faith on our careers and our communities, but our country is at a tipping point right now and it will only be saved by staying actively engaged, holding washington accountable and telling washington establishment they need to get their act in line. [applause]

this is what we are trying to do at heritage action and this this what redstate.com is trying to do and i wanted to come here in thank you for your patriotic engagement in our nations future. i also want to talk about fight diseases that afflict washington d.c. that are the reason why this country is heading down the path of this. there's a team mentality in washington that says they're only two teams in this nation, a red team in the blue team and every citizen needs to pick their team and they need to salute. my party right or wrong. this is a premise that is increasingly sworn in a country where more americans than ever failed to identify with either party. for those of you who remember the bush years this is what got us into some of the messes we got into. the present of the united states did not use his veto pen for the first six years of his administration and i will tell you as at the heritage foundation at the time and we would go to the white house and say if you need pens we will send you a truckload. and these republicans would actually explain it as if this

was something that they didn't understand. before anything is passed through the house they are in the same team so they agree with the legislation so that the president never has to be in a situation where he says no to the republican congress. in essence, the president of the united states and the republican leadership in the house in the early 20 -- to thousands decided the constitutional principle of separation of powers of the thing that needs to happen in the legislative branch and executive branch was to be subservient to a team mentality that overtook washington at the time and this is the philosophy that gave us out of control spending. this is the philosophy they gave us no child left behind. this is the concept that gave us medicare part d. second, we have a congress that is completely given up its constitutional power to legislate and handed it over to unelected bureaucrats who can't make tough decisions and not be held accountable. we are in a state right now that is with the nlrb.

all of us have seen when president obama couldn't get his cap-and-tax plan through the congress that he decided to try to get the epa to enforce it. all this this had seen it with obamacare which was thousands of pages of legislation and is now literally hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that are being written by washington bureaucrats. third is the elevation of an establishment come a bipartisan establishment, of campaign donors, big business, labor unions and so-called elites who have been elevated above the constituents and the entrepreneurs in the small businessmen who are actually the people who send politicians to washington. you saw it with auto bailout and the u.s. labor union taking care of the hard-working americans and putting their money to work investing in those companies and were given the short end of the stick. we see with campaign-finance reform. all you need is to s. john man cave -- mccain is the labor unions the big donors and politicians are the labor unions treated the same way and the

answer is no because the labor unions are part of the establishment. politicians are part of the establishment and they passed their laws in the defense of all of us. the fourth is the rise of a technocratic class that sets baselines of make absolute no sense to any of us who exist in the real world and mess up the incentives that people have when they pass legislation. you have a system in washington where the congressional budget office scores allegedly the largest spending cut in history the cr that we passed in april despite the fact that spending went up this year. that doesn't make any sense. you have only a washington politician can say because the data is only gone up by $7 trillion in the next 10 years as opposed to a trillion dollars, we have done historic spending cuts that we can all go back and salute. i will say on this none of this would be possible if we had a media that truly fought for the truth rather than the horse race. [applause]

i hear stories of the media that wants to be committed to principle and check those in power but they are just that. their stories. too often the media today is the getaway driver in a bank heist that can bankrupt our children and grandchildren and the chief cheerleaders of divisiveness that have called greg -- caused deadlock in washington. it does explain why al sharpton is about to get a tv show on msnbc. [laughter] and finally the rise of a permanent and very lucrative class of campaign consultants whose very livelihood depends on the next election and depends on congressional voting keep an eye on the next multibillion dollar campaign cycle rather than the policies our nation needs and if you look at earmarks he became a rallying cry because they worked in elections. you look at the crusader tank program which was able tanked designed with good merit when the cold war was going on and we

might have fights across the plains of europe and the number of years and the pain and suffering the donald grimes through -- rumsfeld went through to kill the program because it had a built-in constituency. u.s. politicians were folded levin 2005 to take social security and looked over their searcher and all of their colleagues were leaving them alone on the hill because it would be dangerous in the next election. these five things bring us back to the claims that the members of tea parties are hobbits. the hobbits were the good guys and the hobbits were the guys you want to be on their site not disparaging them on the floor of the united states senate but when you pointed this out to some of the establishment outlets that were making the claim that the tea parties a bunch of hobbits they would say yeah but you guys don't get it. the hobbits are imaginary and they don't exist in the world world and that is exactly the point. the real world is the way washington d.c. has worked for decades. the werewolf is the world defined by an establishment that doesn't want to save this country from its future. so what we need is we need

imagination. meet people who are willing to say that saving the country from a tsunami of spending coming our way is what it should be the consolidation of power in washington d.c. is what we need to be doing, that the disruption of the platoons of society who are the actual entity that should be taking care of the elderly and poor the poor and the sick, that they are being weakened by an oppressive government in washington that views itself as the solution to all of our problems. business as usual in washington -- america leads to a slow decline towards the society we see in europe or worse if you don't accept the premise that western civilization can handle the collapse of america in the same way we are dealing with the collapse of greece it could be far worse than american becoming europe but the american people at the imagination to return america to our status as the most prosperous and free nation that god has given to man. olivia unfolded redstate.com inherited section of the have the imagination to saber nation and many of you who are not part of heritage action ought to seek me out or our colleague jessica

anderson or her web site heritage action.com. let's be clear the forces stacked against us are incredibly powerful. it it is reporting the next couple of months $20 billion will be spent by lobbyists in washington d.c. lobbying the congressional super committee to preserve the status quo and continue to grow government year after year after year. we have the next essential fight ahead of the fed will take or then elections to win but it is a very real and very important fight. thank you all for being engaged in it. it is not to be -- but it is never going to be boring. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> i want you to stick around and answer some of your

questions because i got to tell you whenever i go to washington d.c. and think i have a target on my back i think mike is there. [laughter] questions? >> i had a conversation with saxby chambliss our esteemed senator in may and he shrugged his shoulders and said, i had the best voting record of anyone. that is what we have to dispute. >> judy's point was a republican senator in georgia have pointed out that he was recently named one of the -- will he was recently named by "national journal" i believe the most conservative senator in the senate even ahead of jim demint despite having supported the whoosh immigration plan, they gang of six financial compromise, the farm bill and a host of other things.

i just wanted to point out one of the things mike said about how they were so few people who scored so well and heritage action scorecard, most republicans scored very well on most scorecards because the scorecards i designed for them to score well. heritage action for america actually does its doesn't scorecard based on legislation, not on who needs a slogan to put on their mail piece in the election. [applause] >> i could not have said it better than eric but i will try. there is one scorecard in washington that is perceived as the gold standard. out of 178 republicans in the last congress 76 have gotten a 100% score. jim demint has 99% on our scorecard. [applause] >> i just like that jim demint doesn't even have 100% on their scorecard. there is no perfect man in washington. yes, maam?

[inaudible] >> $2500 to the candidate of their choice and nobody else. only the american citizen, no businessman, no lobbyist, nobody else. >> i think sunshine is the best disinfectant so i think everybody should be able to give as much money as they want but it has to be posted there and i tell you if they did that we would put out a scorecard for funding and say how was it for this organization gets all this money to senator so-and-so and he coincidently always was for them? eric talked in his introduction about the whining and the gnashing of the teeth to get over our scorecard. when you point out to people that you are a member of congress from a landlocked state. there are no beaches in your stating you voted for a beach replenishment project, there are beaches there and maybe you can accuse him of that one

principle. if you are from a landlocked state there is absolutely no excuse for voting for beach replenishment projects and you should be held accountable for that so i think i'm campaign-finance reform -- macroform of the information is out there and in a transparent way and not being stolen by people who are forced to join labor unions and inside the democrat party if you can put information out there in a transparent way all of us who are at the end of the day are the people who vote to holder members of congressman accountable that is the way i would go about campaign finance reform. >> that is outrageous. john kerry is a landlocked state but he has got five each houses. you can expect him to oppose the program. [laughter] yes, sir. >> i have worked with -- back and forth trying to vote for a resolution. [inaudible]

do we weigh it this way our way it that way? >> we have looked at this point and one of the advantages that we have. first off we have six people on our staff who are ours on capitol hill said they know the amendments and the votes coming up that we have a heritage foundation which is a think-tank and it is done research on all this. there was about a couple of months ago on a firefighter grant program which is the type of thing that sounds great. who who is against firefighters but the heritage foundation did a study in 2006 on this program and they looked at all the fire departments across america. they got funding for the firefighter grant program and all the fire departments found absolutely no difference in outcomes. firefighter safety, civilian safety, property damage that was done. no outcomes at all. this is wasteful money regardless of whether the federal government should be giving money to local fire department come these. in indy think they should this is a program that does work.

the republicans decided it would be a smart idea to put an amendment out there to double the funding for the firefighter grant program. i'm sure he has written a campaign ad about how he is on the side of firefighters. that is how we go about our scorecard that we look at the votes that are tallied that show the difference. the paul graham budget is a fantastic budget and on our scorecard. is a big step in the right direction. is not perfect. they should be in our scorecard and every in republican voted for. we also need to scorecard the shows the difference between someone he stands up against the firefighter grant program that maybe it is being maliciously used against any campaign but it is the wrong thing and not the role of federal government and it is wasteful. we look for those types of votes in the laser research heritage is done to build to make the case to members of congress there is no excuse. there is no excuse to vote for this program and that is how we go about our scorecard. >> i'm afraid we have got to cut it short there and get folks out of the room. if you haven't been to their web site these go to heritage

action's web site. [applause]

>> earlier today president obama took to the rose garden to ask congress to pass a surface transportation bill. earlier this summer the senate environmental and public works committee heard about the bill or co-chairman barbara boxer and ranking member james inhofe released their bipartisan

legislation funding transportation projects and its current level for the next two years. the transportation bill expires on the september 30. this is about two hours, 20 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. this is the hearing. i believe it is a milestone and every one of the panelists here played a role and i, before i begin my statement i want to thank a host of organizations, who have been transportation advocacy organizations and this is not complete, but i just feel this moment belongs to you as well as to all of us, and i'm going to name them. the national conference of mayors, the american public transportation association, the american council of engineering companies, the american road and transportation builders, national stone, sand and gravel

association, the afl-cio, a host of environmental organizations, the american bus association, ash joe, aaa international union of operating engineers, american traffic safety services association american society of civil engineers, the associated general contractors, the american trucking association, association of metropolitan planning organizations, the american concrete pavement association, the associated equipment distributors, portland cement association the national ready mixed concrete association, national auto dealers, national asphalt pavement association, laborers international union of north america owner operator independent drivers association, american iron and steel institute, u.s. chamber of commerce, national association of development organizations, national association of truckstop operators, american highway users alliance and many more. i had to do that, because this day has been hard to reach and

it is because of your advocacy working with all of us that we have gotten to this point. so now i will begin my five-minute statement. i want to thank so much my friend and colleague senator jim inhofe for ensuring that our differences on many other issues never got in the way that are working toward a bipartisan and transportation bill. we admit that we see life differently in many areas, but where we can come together we do and this is one area. we believe it is absolutely necessary torah states and the united states to be strong and competitive and we share a deep commitment to the safety of our bridges and our infrastructure and one of the most i think compassionate moments i have seen on this committee is win senator inhofe talked about what happened when there was a piece of infrastructure that started to fall apart in oklahoma and the consequences of that. all the senators on this committee have been instrumental

in getting this bill ready for action and i must say senator baucus and senator vitter who were the chairman and ranking member of the transportation infrastructure subcommittee were extraordinarily helpful and we had many many meetings for more than a year now. i want to thank the committee staff who have been working so diligently on this bill and thanking everybody doesn't mean this bill is done. but i want to make the point it is an unusual situation where we have had to work so hard to get to this place, so i want to thank ruthven mark, david and james o'keefe. these are the bipartisan staff. i think i have spoken to them at nine, 10, 11:00 at night for nights on end. i want to thank the staff of all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working so closely on this bill and i want to welcome everyone to this very important moment, this critical moment in our nation's infrastructure because current surface transportation bill

expires on september 30 and if we don't act, this is a fact, we will see a cut of one third, actually 36% and we will see a loss of 620,000 jobs between highway and transit, 500,000 of those on the highway side. so it is clear that we have to act because if we don't step up to the plate, we will see all these hundreds of thousands of jobs lost and we will see arpa structure continue to crumble. this hearing is a milestone. this bill moving in for progress in the 21st century map 21 will maintain current funding levels to protect existing jobs, help spur economic recovery. we made a lot of reforms in this bill. it is remarkable how many reforms we have made. we have taken an array of programs and we have consolidated them or get we have made this bill much more streamlined than any other bill that we have seen before.

but we keep funding at current levels, and that is crucial. we also have a new section called america fast-forward. bad name was after a name that a bipartisan group of leaders in los angeles came up with to describe one particular part of this bill, the part that funds at a billion dollars in the mayor will speak to that, mayor villaraigosa will speak to that and i thank him in his bipartisan team for that. according to the federal highway administration every federal dollar made available through tifia historically has mobilized up to $30 in transportation investments and i'm pleased to say that although chairman mica's bill is quite different from this bill, and it totally reflects a huge cut, he does step up to the plate on tifia and i'm very grateful to him for that. i joined join him in los angeles where he heard about tifia. he step up with us and he has

a -- for tifia and i'm very pleased about that. let me say again, we have many differences on this committee when it comes to the environment. that is no secret and we are very open about it. sometimes we have a sense of humor about it although sometimes neither side is laughing much, but on this, we really do believe this is a basic function of the national government to address our infrastructure needs, because if you can't move people and you can't move goods, you are just not going to grow. we are not going to have the jobs. we are not going to be the great power that we are and we want to continue to be. i would say in closing that the coalition i mentioned at the beginning, i think was really represented in a mag with us his leg earlier in the year, when we heard from tom donohue president of the u.s. chamber of commerce and richard trumka president of the afl-cio. they practically held hands during their testimony.

they were so close together on the way we need to take immediate action to reauthorize this nation's transportation system, so i look forward to this hearing. i look forward to our markup. we are working together on a date before we get out of town here on this summer recess. pray to god all the other things fall into place that we know we have hanging over us but again my deepest thanks and i call on senator inhofe. >> thank you adam chairwoman. i want to put in an editorial from the oklahoman in the record. i think it is very, very good. let me start by commending chairman boxer. as he says we have had a lot of differences in the past, but this one area we don't really have differences. we recognize this is what we are supposed to doing up here and her leadership and dedication and willingness to work together

has made this possible and i say the same thing for senator baucus and the rest of the committee. i know senator sessions has had real concerns about what is happening in the state of alabama, and we put together i think a really good highway bill under the circumstances and one that we would not have anticipated we could have done even two or three months ago. it is very appropriate. we have my favorite secretary of transportation gary ridley back with us and i've often said he is the best in the nation and one of the reasons for that is he has been there as long as i have. did we figure out we came to the department of transportation at the same time i came to the state legislature? i think it was the same year. we won't tell how long ago that was the week of back a long ways. you know i don't think, and i say this, you can't find too many of members that have a close relationship we have. there is not a week that goes by that we don't talk about this

problem that we are facing. we acknowledge that the components we have as a 12 billion-dollar shortfall, i know that the finance committee is working on that, and it is something we are not we are not going to be able to come out with a bill. it is not going to reach where we need to have it to get it passed until such time as we fill that hole. we can do that but i can tell you right now, it would be virtually impossible to pass and that is where we want to do that. we are facing that and we know it is going to happen. we are fortunate to have the chairman of the finance committee on our committee. senator baucus. we worked very closely with him. so, i support the effort that has been working behind the scenes with him and with the republicans. i've been talking to the republicans on the finance committee, talking about what really we should be doing as we address the spending problems and i have to say there are a lot of things in this bill that

were compromises between barbara and myself and between the chairman and myself and there is a lot more in the way of project delivery that i would have preferred, like more of the livability stuff that she would have preferred but most of all we got a bill in this includes many in the central policy reforms that my colleagues in the state holders have recommended. could consolidate some number programs from what was it, 87 down to 30, a major change, and i also want to say that putting this thing off is not an option. we have been putting it off and putting it off. the chairman mentioned, we were talking about it when we had dinner last night was with secretary ridley about the lady in my state of oklahoma who drove under a bridge, a chunk of concrete the size fell and hit her and killed her. she was the mother of two small children and we could tell stories about this. this is not just come this is

something that should enjoy a high priority? this is life-threatening and certainly something we are going to have to do. i don't think letting it off as an option and i don't think settling for the lower figure would be a 34% cut and i will be asking secretary ridley to talk about the specifics in our state of oklahoma as to what this would mean, what this would cost and be very expensive. and i want to get to one thing across to my colleagues. you know, i have been a ranked more often than not the most conservative member of the united states senate and yet i have often said there are two areas where i am a big spender and i admit that. one is national defense and the other is infrastructure, because this is where it has to happen. if we don't do it here it is not going to happen any other way. so we have been -- i personally have been on the since i've been in the senate and eight years prior to that on the same

committee in the senate so i think that we know what we have to do, and they think we are prepared now to get something done so we will be looking forward to it, and i agree with you madam chairwoman, this is a very significant thing. >> thank you so much. i'm going to call on senator baucus. i want to say something i said to him privately and said to senator inhofe privately in the gang of six proposal which you know everybody's looking at, one of the things they do there is fully fund the highway trust fund were 10 years out based on current levels of spending and i think the reason is important to mention, is because they think it does show that among democrats and republicans, this is a strong priority. they don't mention any other specifics. ..

>> the result is waste of human and economic resources, and each of the taxpayer's dollar. modern transportation can be the rapid conduit of economic growth or a bottleneck. it can bring jobs and loved ones and recreation to every family or bring a sudden and purposeless death.

it can improve every man's standard of living or multily the costs of all he buys. it can be a convenience or it can be a delay. the choice is ours to make. that was president lyndon johnson in calling for an establishment of the united states of transportation. what he said 45 years ago is as relevant today as it was then. the choice is ours to make. we need to plan for america's future. through leadership, madam chairman, the senate will proceed with a bipartisan two year bill. let's be clear, two years is not ideal, not in the transportation bill. i know chairman boxer held out for a six year bill as long as possible, but the issue is funding. the congressional budget office

says the highway trust fund needs $12 billion just to maintain funding and still have a prudent balance at the end of two years. i want to say publicly i am working very hard with the finance committee to find that money. we're having constructive conversations, nothing is certain around here, but i feel fairly confident with some of the ideas that we're working on that we will on a bipartisan basis find that $12 billion, but there's also a sequence to thing. senators want to see congress resolve the debt limit before they'll commit to anything with respect to how we fund and find that $12 billion. i'm, however, optimistic we'll find the money and avoid severe cuts the house propose, and i'm optimistic about the bill we're discussing today. this is one of our most important national programs, and i underline the word "national."

we need more of that around here. as with defense, space, agriculture, security, we are all in this together. chairman boxer, and others and i have stayed focus on the goals. i want to note the contributions of senator aye -- isaacson. some people won't like it. they say it doesn't do enough of this or does too much of that, but that's, of course, the nature of compromise, and we made compromises in the national interest. the american people need a 21st century national network. we pursue assets, systems, mobility, freight, and planning and prioritize needs and foster smart investment for the future. states need funding certainty to uphold the national network, and america needs jobs,.

nationally, unemployment is 9% and the construction sector is 16%. the urban and rural, the states must all pull together for a shared financial benefit. we're in this together. it reminds me of benjamin franklin, either we hang together otherwise we hang separately. i think it's true of the highway bill too. we need to hang together to get a good national bill. we need to contemplate what we want the bill to be for the 21st century, and we have to think about how we're going to pay for it. we should use the time wisely, and as president johnson said, the choice is ours to make. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you so much. i thought it was eisenhower, so you surprised me on that. >> eisenhower was the highway bill, the interstate system. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> we all would have failed the exam.

that's embarrassing, but it's fascinating to think how long ago that was said, and think about how much we've grown since then and what problems we now face. thank you so much. senator sessions. >> thank you. i'll offer my statement for the record and just congratlation you and senator inhofe for putting to the a framework that really answered some of the questions our state highway director raised when he testified here, so you made some progress in a lot of different areas. as a ranking republican on the budget committee, i do know how significant financial situation is, and if we can maintain the funding level that you've recommended, i think it would be something i can support, and i say that very seriously because a lot of programs will not be

able to map tape the level -- maintain the level we'd like them to be maintained out. i'm disappointed the stimulus bill only produced 4% of that money to roads and bridges, so we've missed an opportunity there to jump start some of our infrastructure needs, and we'll wrestle with this. secretary lahood testified at the budget committee, and said we needed more revenue, and -- but it was not a gas tax, so i teased him a little and asked him about the not-gas tax. senator baucus, i don't know, you'll have a not-gas tax revenue enhancement somehow i guess or offsetting senators somewhere. it will not be easy. >> the leading contender of the not-gas tax. >> the not-gas, tax tax. >> the gas tax measure.

>> may i take this opportunity to introduce one of the witnesses from alabama? >> of course. >> i have two other hearings at this moment, so i'll be in and out. it's my pleasure to introduce don james, chairman and ceo of vulcan materials company based in birmingham, they are the largest producer of materials that goes into highways and readways. he joined the company after a successful career with alabama's largest law firm, and i'm sure don fought the best and is still a great law firm. he has a bachelor's degree, an mba from the university of alabama, and his law degree from the university of virginia, served in the army as a first lieutenant. he is active in a number of businesses and industry organizations. he is one of alabama's most respected and important leaders. he's past chairman of the national stone, sand, and gravel

association, a director of the boy scouts, the u.s. chamber of commerce, university of alabama-birmingham medical health care system, the economic development partnership of alabama, and university of alabama health services foundation, a trustee of birmingham southern college, a fabulous liberal arts college i guess one of the highest academic in the state, and children's hospital -- a fab fabulous hospital in birmingham, so mr. james is a fine citizen and knowledgeable person who is deeply involved in the issues and with my experience in talking to him, you can be sure the comments he offers will be beneficial. thank you, madam chairman. >> senator sessions, i know you have to go in and out, but i thank you for your comments. your support for this bipartisan bill that you express today goes a long way with me. i'm just very grateful to you.

>> thank you. >> senator sanders. >> thank you, madam chair, and i find myself in agreement with much of what already has been said. what i can say is i was a mayor for eight years, and unof-- one of the things you learn about infrastructure is if you don't invest it or maintain or rebuild it, it doesn't get better. one of the stupid elements we do of delaying infrastructure costs us more because we allow it to deteriorate. that makes no sense at all. madam chair, i was hoping we'd discuss a six-year bill, your desire as well, rather than a two-year bill, but that said, i hope this committee and senate can come together to pass meaningful legislation that will address our significant transportation infrastructure needs, and it has already been cited not only we deal with infrastructure and the need to rebuild our infrastructure is apparent to everybody in the country, but in the prosays we

can create over a period of years millions of good paying jobs. it's not just an infrastructure issue, but a job creating moment, and it's one we must take advantage of. even with this meaningful investment, being made as a result of the recovery act, we put some money into infrastructure, not enough. our transportation system is clearly in worse and worse shape every year. we heard in previous hearings that the american society of civil engineers has graded america's road, public transit, and aviation with a d, a d. they say we must spend $2.2 trillion over the next five years simply to get to a passable condition, passable condition, not $109 billion over two years, but more than eight times that amount each year for the next five years, so what we are doing here is trying to move forward, but i think we can all

acknowledge that it is simply not enough. madam chair, let me just simply conclude that not only is this important for infrastructure, not only is it important for job creation, it is also important in terms of our position in the global economy. today, the united states invests just 2.4% of gdp on infrastructure. europe invests twice that amount. china invests almost four times our rate, roughly 9%. i will conclude with a short story. good friend of mine returned from china leaving a state of the art airport in china, having ridden on start of the art rail, getting cell phone service all over their so-called third world country. came back to an overcrowded airport in new york city where he had to wait for hours to catch the plane, couldn't find a seat, and when he returned, he was wondering which is the third world country. the rest of the world is moving

forward aggressively in public transportation and sustainable energy and so forth. we are not. this is an enormously important bill for a number of reasons, and i look forward to working with you to make it happen. >> mr. sanders, i so appreciate this great disappointment we couldn't do a six year bill relating to funding and locking in funding for six years and the good job our senator baucus does in the committee getting support, but i know how you feel, and i want to note that you've been nothing but help and your staff as well, and senator lautenberg, long time champion of transportation, so glad you're here. please have the floor. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i won't be long, but i start by looking at what our mission is, and if our mission is to move our economy forward and create

jobs and we can do it very rapidly, very effectively if we look at the infrastructure side of things, and i saw it in my own state that we -- the governor made a decision not to except $6 billion worth of assistance from the dot and port authority in new york and new jersey because of concerns that there might be overruns and in building this tunnel, so critical for us to continue to get cars off the road. this by the estimates that were available would have taken 22,000 cars a day off the road. it would have created 44,000 jobs immediately in the construction area where there's plenty of people shovel-ready, ready to get going. they can't wait, and last week, too, to create a better avenue

for those who want to work in the city of new york and vice versa or those who want to live in new jersey and move things along more efficiently, and it was mind boggling to say the least to hear that that decision by the governor was being made, and i look back in history, and it meaningful be a surprise, -- may be a surprise, but i'm old enough to remember wpa and other things, and i remember when the george washington bridge was being built and said it wouldn't last, but there it is. in any event, what happened? washington bridge between the largest crossing facility, between new york and new jersey. george washington bridge was built during the great depression. the interstate highway built over 40-year span even when the country was in recession. the fact is that if we short

transportation now, we'll be selling the country short in the future, and that's not why we're here, but we do need to make the smart investments, simply building more highways won't solve the transportation problem, makes us more competitive. we need a national tray teggic transportation policy that establishes clear, measurable goals for the future and then the border approach that plagued the transportation system far too long, and while we shouldn't, in my view, be adding more lanes on our highways, we ought to be repairing the infrastructure that we now have in place and keeping dangerously large and heavy trucks and the wear and tear off the brimmings and highways. after all, a 21st century economy cannot be built on collapsing bridges and crumbling infrastructure, so we ought to be making substantial

investments in mass transit, faster high-speed rail, and we are now planning to build a gateway tunnel it's called to allow us to run more trains, faster trains through the vital northeast corridor, create tens of thousands construction jobs and permanent jobs and should put more cargo and trains and ships to help get more trucks off the road and help us save fuel, boost productivity, improve the environment, and reduce tract, and we ought to make transportation safer by investing in systems that reduce things like drunk driving, more tech uses of all transportation networks including bicycles if necessary, and other things to encourage people to not jump in their cars. if we don't prioritize smart transportation investments

today, we're -- we'll fall behind tomorrow. i remind everybody that the -- there were 100 million new americans in the 30-year period, and it's predicted that the next 100 million is going to come at a much faster rate, and we have an infrastructure that isn't built for that kind of use, and we ought to wake up to the needs of not only tomorrow, but for the days well after tomorrow, so thank you, madam chairman, for holding this hearing. it's important, and i hope that we won't be the only ones listening to ourselves. thank you. >> well, i can assure you we're not because frankly, the work that went into this bill really came from stake holders all over

the nation, and it's, i think it's a good moment today, and i'm optimistic hearing what senator inhofe said and senator sessions and senator baucus. i feel good about where we're going. keep up the spirit. >> thank you very much. i'll keep up the spirit. i want to thank you, chairman boxer and ranking member senator inhofe. the fact the committee was able to reach an agreement on the bipartisan bill i think is nothing short of miraculous, and for this, i want to thank you for your leadership. i want to thank the witnesses for appearing today and sharing thoughts on the two-year bill. while we still have work ahead of us as far as funding is concerned, i do believe this bill is an extremely important step in the right direction. we cannot afford to let current projects go unfinnished, and

that's a concern. in arkansas, there's a number of unfinished projects that are important to the state, but more importantly of national significance to greatly help the flow of commerce throughout the country. without appropriate investment in the in nation's infrastructure, thousands of jobs are directly and indirectly on the line, and the ability of our people to travel hangs in the balance, and i'm pleased the committee recognizes the problems such as this and have worked hard to put forth a proposal that will hopefully address much of our needed infrastructure investments. again, i'm excited to discuss the details of the highway funding proposal without the dedication of the members here today, this would not be possible. with that, i yield back. >> i thank you so much for that, and we're going to get right to the panel. we're going to start with the honorable mayor the of los angeles, and i think everybody

knows -- well, right now, you are the head of -- what do you call it? the chairman of the -- >> [inaudible] >> president of the conference of mayors, and mayor has done wonders in los angeles and continues to do so in an area with all the congestion and needs a leader like this and we're so proud and you worked with all of us and worked with chairman micah. thank you for working across the aisle on this. we welcome you and i know you got in at 4 in the morning and leaving at one. you just go, and if you need to leave, we understand. we are thrilled that you are hear, mayor. >> well, actually, i have to welcome about 50 mayors from around the country to my city at 5:30, so i may take you up on that. >> yes, of course. >> madam chair, and all the members who had the opportunity

here, i dare say those of us listening and watching and working with you, marvel at the bipartisanship, the ability to work together, and if we could just do that on many of the other issues facing the nation, i think america would move forward even during these tough times. as i know i speak for my fellow mayors around the country, both democrat and republicans when i say that this is a critical moment in our nation, hearing senator sanders a few minutes ago speak to the $2.2 trillion need just to get us to a passable grade, it boggles the mind, the challenges before us. with the future of federal infrastructure investment in question, we're standing at a generational cross roads, and i believe we node to sympathy --

need to think very carefully about how we choose the path ahead. across the country from portland, oregon to portland, maine, one thing is clear, america needs jobs now. with all the debate around the deficit and the debt that when people walk up to me on the streets of los angeles, and, in fact, when they walk up to mayors august cruet the country, they don't ask us about the debt and the debt. i'm not suggesting they are not important issues, but invariably they say, mayor, can you get me a job? i want to work. we have a solution for them. y'all have a solution for them, and that's to pass a transportation bill. now, a bill like the one outlined by chair boxer and ranking member inhofe not only invests in crumbling roads, bridges, airports, water

treatments, and power facilities, it would create a half million jobs just right now, and i want to applaud the leadership in developing the outline for map 21, a forward looking proposal to help create a world class infrastructure this country needs. you know, people don't -- obviously i come from los angeles, and for some of you, it's all -- it's on the other side of the country, and sometimes it seens like the other side of the world, but what people don't realize is that we move 44% of all the sea born gods that enter the -- goods that enter the united states. every single congressional district generates jobs because of the trade activity that occurs at our port. our airport is the number one destination airport in the united states, so we know firsthand that we're wide competition is demanding more of us than ever from our

infrastructure system just to remain competitive. i'm very pleased to see this committee's frame work includes a national freight program. we also continue to grapple with growing congestion, and you may have seen on the news last week carmageddon, a day without a car in los angeles is the day we don't enjoy often. we enjoyed it the other day. what i tried to explain to everyone, we were not just destroying a bridge, but connecting a system of hlv lanes from orange county all the way to san fernando valley with the goal of reducing traffic and congestion one minute a mile as a result of that hov lane, trading 18,000 jobs just with that alone, so we continue to grapple with congestion and the impact on mobility and jobs and

take it from innateive angelino, that's a killer. it's simple when infrastructure works and congestion and other constraints choke movement of people and goods, companies pull up stakes, and the jobs leave with them. now, l.a.'s no different from other major metropolitan areas. our cities are the heart, lungs, and muscle of the nation's economy. let me give you an example. if you took new york, l.a., and chicago, our economic output is roughly the equivalent of france. take the ten largest cities in the united states of america, they'd be the third largest nation in the world, roughly a $5 trillion economy after the $5.9 trillion economy of china and the $14.9 trillion economy of the united states.

the key to those economies is investing in infrastructure and investing in the movement of people and goods. the current extension of the surface transportation bill expires on september 30th. the clock is ticking, and we're at a critical fork. we can put people back to work and up -- invest in the infrastructure and the city's desperate need or lose ground against our competitors in the way senator sanders just said. put simply, we cannot afford cuts to infrastructure spending, and at the very least, have to maintain current levels. according to the dot, a 30% reduction in transportation funding equates to a loss of 630,000 highway and transportation jobs, and so i stand with you, and i know that the mayor's across the country came out in unanimously in support of this effort, a two-year bill which would invest about a $109 billion, my

recollection, and as senator sanders says when china invests four times the rate of what the united states is, and what he didn't say is they are also footing most of the bill for europe. we're not competing with the rest of the developing world. that america is investing more in infrastructure than we are. we believe in the u.s. and support, and we said we can't keep building brimmings in baghdad and kandahar and not baltimore and kansas sphi. the american people deserve a great infrastructure and we include the proposal in the house and senate bills, and i,

too, want to acknowledge chairman micah for the support. it was great to see senator boxer, senator inhofe, congress member micah, tom donohue, richard trumka all supporting the idea of trick and the jobs that come with it. according to the economic development corporation, your committee's proposal to increase the budget authority to a billion dollars has the power to create just with that alone, 500,000 jobs in just two years and over a million jobs over a six-year period of time. why? because it's a 30 to 1 leverage with that money. at a time with high deficits and debt, now is the right time to make those investments, and i hope the senate and the house also looks at some point in a transportation bond program that will help us expand on that effort as well.