mr. cornyn: mr. president, i know that senator durbin and senator ayotte and others will be coming to the floor, but let me get started. according to the united nations, more than 8,000 syrians have been murdered in attacks by the desperate regime of president bashar al assad of syria. we continue to receive press reports on a daily basis about assad's forces summarily executing, imprisoning and torturing demonstrators who want nothing more than what we take for granted, which is to live in freedom in a democracy. this week -- this week we learned that dozens of syrian women and children, some infants as young as four months old, were stabbed, shot, and burned by government forces in homes in syria. i think it's difficult for most of us to comprehend and most of us would be so revulsed by it we

would not want to comprehend the kind of brutality assad is perpetrating against his own people, yet in the face of these atrocities, russia continues to prop up the assad regime by supplying it with arms that are being used to slaughter these innocent syrian civilians. russia is the top supplier of weapons to syria, reportedly selling up to $1 billion or more worth of arms just last year. western and arab governments have pleaded with russia to stop supplying these weapons to the assad regime but they have refused so far. russia is not just passively supplying weapons to the assad regime, it's also recently admitted to having military weapons instructors on the ground in syria training assad's army on how to use these weapo

weapons. russian weapons, including high explosive mortars, have been found at the site of atrocities in homs. mr. president, this picture, which was taken from "al arabia" and reuters, translates into "russian foreign minister sergei lavrov, why don't you visit viss and see the effectiveness of your weapons on our bodies of children." the russians see their role and current misery as reflected by this picture and by this statement to russian foreign minister sergei ravlov. russell borne export is russia's official arms exporter.

this company now handles about 780% of russia's foreign exports, according to its web site, and it's spearheading russia's continuing effort to arm the assad regime, which, in my mind, makes them an accessory to mass murder. i see the distinguished majority whip has come to the floor and i want to give him a chance to make any appropriate remarks he cares to make and engage in a colloquy with him. but let me just close my comments at this point on -- on this concern that i have. not only is russia selling arms to syria to kill innocent civilians, but you can imagine my shock and dismay when i found out that our own department of defense has a contract, a no-bid contract, with this same russian arms merchant that is helping arm the assad regime. this is a no-bid contract to provide 21 dual-use mi-17

helicopters for the afghan military. this is, as i said, a no-bid army contract awarded just last summer that's reportedly worth more than $900 million. so the only thing i can conclude is that the united states taxpayer is providing money to a russian arms dealer to purchase russian helicopters for the afghan military from the very same arms merchant that is arming president assad's regime and killing innocent syrians. i think that, along with 16 of my other colleagues, we have sent a letter to secretary panetta expressing our alarm and concern over these arrangements and asking for further information and urging them to reconsider this consider with rosa borne export.

but i want to just stop on this point. we must keep the pressure on the department of defense to reconsider this contract and on the russians to cease all arms sales to the assad regime. i'm hopeful that the upcoming debate on the repeal of jackson-vanik will provide an opportunity for the senate to further examine these serious issues. and let me again close by stating my appreciation to senator durbin, the distinguished majority whip, for his participation in expressing alarm and concern over these circumstances and ask him to make any comments he cares to make. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: it's my honor to join my colleague and friend, senator cornyn of texas. we're on opposite sides of the aisle but we're on the same side on this issue. listen to what america has said about what's happening in syria. almost 8,000 innocent people have been killed in the streets of syria by ba bashar assad, the

dictator. the people who expressed their concern and objections to his policies are mowed down and killed in the streets. their homes are bombed and nothing is being done. sadly, the united states, when it tried to engage the united nations security council to condemn this action, to join the arab league and others condemning what assad is doing to these innocent people, our efforts were stopped by china and russia. the relationship between russia and syria is well documented. they have been close allies for many years. we also know that they are providing about $1 billion in russian military aid to the syrian dictator to kill his own people in the streets. that's part of this. and i have to join senator cornyn in saying how concerned we are when we learned that one of the leading military exporters of russia, this rosa

boren export, is doing business not only in syria but with the united states government. now, i understand the history of this. we're buying russian helicopters to help the afghans defend their country against the taliban. the helicopter of choice in afghanistan today is the old soviet i believe it's m-17, m-18 helicopter. so our government is buying these russian helicopters to give to the afghan government to fight the taliban. we are, in fact, doing business with the very same company and country that is subsidizing the massacre in syria. it is right for us as members of congress to make that point to secretary panetta and the department of defense. i think it is also appropriate for us to ask why we are not converting the afghan defense forces, the security forces, to another helicopter -- can i be

so bold as to suggest it be made in the united states of america, since we're paying for it? why aren't we doing that? why aren't we creating jobs here in america and training these afghans on helicopters that come from our country? that are as good or better than anything the soviets ever put in the air? i don't have a preference on an american helicopter. don't have any producers in my state. so i'm not into that particular bidding war. i wouldn't get into it. but i do believe sending a word to the russians immediately that our relationship of buying these helicopters in afghanistan so that we can subsidize their military sales to syria should come to an end. that's what this letter is about. we cannot pass resolutions on the floor condemning the bloodshed in syria and ignore the obvious connection. russian military arms moving into syria, killing innocent people. let me show, for the record, here, i noticed the senator from texas brought a photograph with

him. this photo that i'm going to show here is one of a russian warship, an aircraft carrier docked at the syrian port of tartus on january 8 of this ye year. what we couldn't turn into a poster is the video clip showing the russian war ship captains being greeted like royalty by the syrian minister of defense, who went out to welcome the ship. this soviet -- pardon me, this russian aircraft carrier was launched from a port used by the same export company. i can't go any further in saying that the particular company involved sent goods on this particular ship, but the fact of the matter is obvious -- syria has become a major supplier of military arms to the syrian dictator who is killing innocent penapeople. we are doing business with that same military company, rosa

beron export. it is time for to us step back and say to the rugs, we can no longer continue this -- russians, we can no longer continue this relationship f. you are going to subsidize the killing of innocent people, we cannot afford it do business with you. america, we have to acknowledge the obvious. no matter what they are paying, it isn't worth the loss of innocent life in syria. i thank the senator from texas for joining me. i think we have another 16 or 17 colleagues who are joining us in this effort, bipartisan effort, to raise this issue. and i hope that the russians will understand once and for all they can't play both sides of the street. and we in the united states should draw the line. i thank the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: would the senator yield for a question? is the senator aware that the very same arms export -- arms merchant, rosa beron export, i think is the way it's pronounced, or something close to that, has also been documented selling weapons to iran and venezuela?

mask, according to one published report, as late as 2005, rosa boren export sold iran tor m-1 antiair missile systems worth $700 million. and iran's revolutionary guard corps successfully tested this antiair missile system in 2007. it's also reported that in 2012, russia will deliver t-72 tanks, bmp-3 infantry fighting vehicl vehicles, and btr-80 armored personnel carriers to venezuela, just on our back door in south america. and that in -- in the last five years alone, hugo chavez, a dictator with strong ties to cuba and fidel castro, that venezuela bought $11 billion worth of republicans through

rosa boren export in the last five years. i wonder, do you find that surprising or alarming? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from texas, a point which you made earlier and i think bears repeating. rosa baron is the russian state-controlled arms export firm. there is no so-called private company. this is a firm run by the russian government. as you go through the litany of countries that they are supplying, you are going through a litany of countries that have never in recent times had the best interests of the united states at heart. if the russians through their government company want to supply iran which we know is an exporter of terrorism, not only in the middle east but around the world and in the united states, if we want to supply them, if they want to supply sniper rifles and arms to the syrians to kill their own people, why in the world are we doing business with them?

there ought to be a line that we draw at some point. we have no obligation, moral obligation to do business with a firm that is in fact supplying those that are killing innocent people and our enemies around the world. i thank the senator from texas for raising those points. mr. cornyn: i would also ask the distinguished majority whip whether he was aware of the testimony within the last couple of weeks before the armed services committee, secretary panetta, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, with a lot of attention being placed on iran, the principal state sponsor of international terrorism in america -- in the world today, and a destabilizing influence in the middle east, seeking as they are a nuclear weapon which would create at the very least a nuclear arms race in the middle east and a consequential destabilizing area of that region.

i know the senator is aware that syria is one of the principal proxies for iran, and general dempsey and secretary panetta both said that if syria were to go by the wayside as various other countries have in the arab spring, that it would be a serious blow to iran's aspirations for hedge -- hedge emmy in the middle east and something that is important for the peace and stability in that region. i know the senator is aware of the close relationship between syria and iran, but i wonder if you would care to comment on that connection. mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from texas -- and i am sure he has studied this as i have -- it's hard to parse out the elements in the middle east and decide who is fighting for which team, but when it comes to syria consistently, they have allied themselves with iran and in that alliance, iran has been very supportive of syria and

hezbollah and another group, terrorist group that is operating primarily through syria. so that close connection there is a matter of concern to me. our goal in the middle east is to create stability and to stop the march of these dictators in the middle east who are killing innocent people and denying them their most basic rights. we have tried everything short of military intervention, which i do not call for in the syrian situation, but we have tried everything else diplomatic and economic to put pressure on syria. we should continue to, and we should join with other nations to continue the efforts of the united nations, but we can't get this job done when russia plays the role of outliar, -- outlier, supplying both syria and iran with military arms and support. if they want to truly join us in a stable situation in the middle east, they should tell assad it's over, and it clearly is over. this man would never legitimately govern syria from

this point forward after killing so many innocent people. and i hope what we are doing today is suggesting to this administration and secretary panetta another avenue to let the russians know that we find it unacceptable for them to be supplying arms to what is a destabilizing influence in that part of the world. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i can't recall whether i asked unanimous consent, but if i haven't done it to this point, i'd ask unanimous consent that the letter that we're referring to that 17 senators sent to secretary panetta be included in the record at the close of this colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: well, i know, mr. president, there are other senators who are signatories of this letter who may well be coming to the floor to talk more about this issue, but i want to express my gratitude to senator durbin. it's important that the united states speak out on behalf of people who have no real voice in defense of their most basic

human rights and point out that president assad and his regime not only are killing innocent civilians but also being supplied by russia who also maybe not coincidentally, senator durbin, also vetoed the sanctions that the u.n. was considering with regard to iran. so it's very important that not only we speak up on behalf of the people who have no voice and no defense but we also make sure that the united states government at a very minimum isn't doing business with the very same arms merchants that are supplying weapons to president assad with which to kill innocent syrians. i thank the -- i thank the chair. i'm advised that senator ayotte was planning on coming. she is a signator to this letter, a member of the armed services committee, who shares many of these same concerns, but

she is not going to be able to come at this time. i am sure shell be commenting on this later. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and thank my colleague. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: i thank my colleague mr. durbin: i thank my colleague >> also on the senate for several women senators talked about domestic violence and called for passage of the violence against women reauthorization act. they are remarks are about 45 minutes. here today with the women senators to talk about the reauthorization of the violence against women act. a law that has a history of passing this chamber with broad bipartisan support. i would note that there are many authors of this bill. i think up to something like 58 authors currently and the women that are speaking today include

myself and senator feinstein, senator hagan, senator mikulski, mr. senator murray, senator boxer, also intorg the bill are senator collins and snowe and senator mccaskill, stabenow and gillibrand. the bill is led by senator leahy and senator crapo so we're here to pledge our support for this bill and ask our colleagues to move forward for this bill. the violence against women was a landmark bill when it first became law in 1984. back then it started a sea change in it is a tiewdz and sent a strong message to the country saying that sexual assault and domestic violence are serious offenses that will not be tolerated. we heard that message loud and clear in my state, and i'm proud to say that our state has always had a strong tradition of standing up against these crimes. in fact, no conversation in our state about domestic abuse would

be complete without mentioning former senator paul wellstone and his wife sheila, who we miss dearly. the wellstones put so much time and energy into bringing these issues out of the shadows into taking a subject that many people considered at the time a family matter and saying, you know, what? domestic violence isn't just something we can sweep under a rug. it's a crime, it hurts families, it hurts children, and we're going to do something about it. and while i led the prosecutor's office in hennepin county, minnesota for eight years, we put a lot of focus on the victims' needs and atlantic the children's needs in domestic violence cases. because it doesn't take a bruise or broken bone for a child to be a victim of domestic violence. kids who witness domestic violence are victims, too. we had a poster up on the wall in our office, madam president, a poster of a woman with a band-aid on her nose holding a

baby, it said beat your wife, your kid goes to jail. you know why? the statistics show kids who grow up in violent homes are 76 times more likely to commit acts of domestic violence themselves. it's a sobering number, and over all, the statistics for these kinds of crimes are staggering. more than one in three women in the united states have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. and every year, close to 17,000 people lose their lives to domestic violence. so once again, this is not just a family matter. this is a matter of life and death, and not just for the victims but oftentimes for the law enforcement officers who are all too often caught in the line of fire. i've seen this in my own state. in fact, i saw it just a few months ago when i attended the funeral of sean schneider, a young police officer in lake

city, membership. he died after responding to a domestic violence call. a 17-year-old girl was being abused by her boyfriend. when officer schneider arrived at the scene he was shot in the head. he literally gave his life to save another. i attended that funeral, madam president, and i still remember those three little children, the two boys and the little girl with the blue dress with stars on it going down the aisle of the church. and he you see -- when you see that, you realize the victims of domestic violence not aren't just the immediate victims, it is an entire family, it is an entire community. so we know all too well just how dwast stais stating domestic -- devastating domestic violence can be to victims and entire communities. six years ago we passed a a reauthorization bill out of the judiciary committee, and the bill has the support of 58 senators, including six

republicans. i'm glad that this bill has continued to attract bipartisan support. i wish it was unanimous. just seven years ago, in fact, the reauthorization bill passed the house by a vote of 415-4 and it passed the senate by unanimous consent with 18 republican cosponsors. i know that this year some of my republican colleagues on the judiciary committee are not supportive of this bill, but it is my hope that while they may disagree with the bill, they will not stop this bipartisan bill from advancing. combating domestic violence and sexual assault is an issue that we should all be able to agree on. many of the provisions in the reauthorization bill made important changes to the current law. the bill consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines others. it provides flexibility by adding more purpose areas to the list of allowable uses. it has training for people providing legal assistance to victims and takes steps to

address the high rates in native american communities. the bill also fills some gaps in the system and i'm pleased to say it includes the legislation that i introduced with senator kay bailey hutchison to address high tech stalking where stalkers use the internet, video surveillance and bugging to stalk their victims. the bill will give law enforcement better tools for cracking down on stalkers. just as with physical stalk, high-tech stalking may foreshadow more serious behavior down the road. we need our tools for our law enforcement to be as sophisticated as those who are breaking the law. now, i can tell you i want to end with this, i snow senator feinstein is coming -- i know senator feinstein is coming soon and a number of women who will be speaking today but i want to remind everybody in this chamber that domestic violence takes its toll. one of the most memorable cases

i had in our office when our office prosecuted a case of a woman dmild eden prairie, minnesota. she was a russian immigrant, her husband was a russian immigrant, didn't have many friends in the communities. she was most likely a domestic violence victim for many, many years. one day this man killed his wife. he then took her body parts down to missouri. he left some of the body parts there and the entire time he had their 4-year-old daughter in the car with him. he then drove back to minnesota, confessed to the crime. and when they had the funeral, there was only me, our domestic violence advocate, and the grandparents that had come to russia and this woman's identity twin sister. what had happened at the airport when they arrived was that this little 4-year-old girl who had never seen her aunt, who had never seen her mother's identity

twin sister, ran down that hallway when she saw her aunt the first time and hugged her and said mommy, mommy, mommy, because she thought that her mom was back. it reminds us all that domestic violence isn't just about one victim. it's about children, it's about family, and it's about a community. and we all know that this bill has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. the women of the senate know it, there are already three republican women on this bill and many others, i hope to come. we believe in this bill, we ask our colleagues to support this bill. i see that my colleague, senator feinstein, is here, and i know that as a member of the judiciary committee she and i are the only two women members of the judiciary committee. she that has taken a lead on this issue for many, many years. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from california. mrs. feinstein: madam president, i want to thank the senator from minnesota for her remarks. for a long time i had been the only woman on the judiciary committee, and i'm just delighted that she is there as well. and that we share the same point of view with respect to this bill. i rise today to urge the republican leadership of the senate to allow this piece of legislation that protects american women from the plague -- and it is a plague -- of domestic violence, stalking, dating violence, and sexual assault, to come to the floor of this senate for a vote. i was in the judiciary committee, i voted for the original violence against women act. it was authorized for six years. we reauthorized it. it served another six years. and now the bill is up for reauthorization. it came out surprisingly from

the judiciary committee on a split vote. and, unfortunately, that was a split party vote. i might say i was stunned by this vote because never before had there been any controversy in all of more than a decade and a half, in all of this time about this bill. this act is the centerpiece of the federal government's effort to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. and it has actually impacted positively response to these crimes at the local, state, and federal level and i hope to show this. the bill authorizes a number of grant programs administered by the department of justice and health and human services to provide funding for emergency shelter, counseling, and legal services for victims of domestic

violence, sexual assault, and stalking. as a matter of fact, i was thinking last night when i was mayor of san francisco back in the early 1980's, i started the first home for battered women, which was casa de las madre sanch and it was such a critical need. women being battered had no place to go and often stayed in the home there where they were battered again and again. this bill also provides support for state agencies, rape crisis centers, and organizations that provide services to vulnerable women. and american women are safer because we took action. today, more victims report incidents of domestic violence to the police, and the rate of nonfatal partner violence against women has decreased by 53% since this bill went into

effect in 1994. these figures are from the department of justice. so here we have a 53% decrease in the rate of nonfatal partner violence. the need for the services was highlighted in a recent survey by the centers -- centers for disease control which found on average 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the united states. 24 a minute by an intimate partner in the united states. over the course of the year now that equates to more than 12 million women and men. in california, my state, 30,000 people access crisis intervention services from one of california's 63 rape crisis centers in 2010 and 2011.

these centers primarily rely on federal violence against women act funding, not state funding, to provide services to victims in communities. in 2009 alone, there were more than 167 -- excuse me, 167,000 cases in california in which local, county, or state police officers were called to the scene of a domestic violence complaint. 167,000 cases. that's many. despite the fact that the underlying bill has 58 cosponsors from both parties, not a single republican member of the judiciary committee voted to advance the legislation. now, the bill that came out of judiciary does have some changes, and i want to talk about them for a moment. it creates one very modest new

grant program. it consolidates 13 existing programs. it reduces authorization levels for all other programs by nearly 20%. and the savings, 17%, the bill is reduced in cost by 17%. that's $136 million. it encourages effective enforcement of protective orders, and that's a big probl problem. women get protective orders and they're violated because they're want enforced -- not enforced. and it reduces the national backlog of untested rape kits, a real problem if a jurisdiction can't test a rape kit. yet there's some who refuse to support it because it now includes expanded protections for victims. and let me put this on the

table. the bill includes lesbian and gay men. the bill includes undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. the bill gives native american tribes authority to prosecute crimes. in my view, these are improvements. domestic violence is domestic viems violencviolence. i ask my friends on the other side. if the victim in a same-sex relationship is the -- is the violence any less real, is the danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? i don't think so. if a family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, well, you're illegal, i'm sorry, you don't deserve any protection? 911 operators, police officers don't refuse to help a victim

because of their sexual orientation or the country where they were born or their immigration status. when you call the police in america, they come, regardless of who you are. the violence against women reauthorization act of 2011 is supported by 50 national religious organizations, including the presbyterian church, the episcopal church, the evangelical lutheran church, the national council of jewish women, the national council of catholic women, and united church of christ, and the united methodist church. so i go back to my days as mayor and seeing over and over again, up-close and personal, in a city what happens because of domestic violence. i see police getting killed when they go into a domestic violen

violence. we had a number of funerals of police officers in oakland which i attended, and it all stemmed from domestic violence. so to defeat this bill is almost to say, we don't need to consider violence against women. it's not an important issue. it is. it's not a partisan issue. it never has been in this body. , which is why, candidly, i'm surprised that i find myself on the floor urging that this bill be brought to the floor, because it's been historically, through two reauthorizations, a bipartisan bill. you can't help but notice this isn't the first time when a policy that would specifically imperil the health and safety of american women has compelled some of us to come to this floor and speak out on behalf of american women. i hope that this bill is not

part of a march and that march, as i see it, over the past 20 years has been to cut back on rights and services to women. and i mean that most sincerely. i have never seen anything like it. when i came here, there were discussions over roe v. wade. when i first went on the judiciary committee, which was in 1993, i heard it, there were debates over supreme court opinions, casey et al. then there were debates over partial-birth abortion. then this year we fought against the blunt amendment, which would have effectively allowed employers to arbitrarily combine four pages -- decline to provide four pages of critical preventive health care services for wet. you know, we've had to fight for the simplest thing. i think young women forget that it took until 1920 for women to

get to vote in this country, and it was only because women fought for it. and we have fought since the country was established for the right to -- to vote, for the right to inherit property, for the right to go to school. and now we fight for our rights to have sufficient service from the government with respect to our health. so now i'm here to fight for a bill that strengthens laws and protects women against domestic violence and sexual assault. to me, this bill is a no-brain no-brainer. it has the support of both sides of the aisle. it's bipartisan. it saves lives. it is a lifeline for women and children who are in distress, who have no place to go o other than to stay and to submit to domestic violence abuse. and no one can say i'm

exaggerating. trust me, i have seen it. i've seen the bruised bodies up-close and personal. and this bill has reduced the number of assaults, domestic assaults, on women. the record indicates that. it should be continued. it's a no-brainer. i hope it's brought to the flo floor. i hope we maintain a bipartisan vote, and i hope it's reauthorized. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: madam chair? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much, senator feinstein. we've now been joined by the senator from washington, senator murray, who's been longtime fighting for domestic violence bills. thank you. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, thank you so much. and i want to thank my colleague from california, senator feinstein, for her longtime advocacy on this. and to our colleague from minnesota, senator klobuchar, for leading the effort this year to reauthorize this critically important bill to protect women

in this country from violence. i was very proud to be here with the senator from california back in 1994 when we first passed the violence against women act or vawa, as we call it, which created this national strategy for dealing with domestic violence. and since we took that first historic step, vawa has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates and social service providers and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. this law has helped provide lifesaving assistant to hundreds of thousands of women and their families. it's been supported by democrats and republicans along with law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victims' service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors. vawa has attained such broad support for one reason -- it's

worked. since it became law 18 years ago, domestic violence has decreased by 53%. and while incidents have gone down, reporting of violence and abuse has gone up. more victims are finally coming forward and more women and families are getting the support and the care they need to move themselves out of dangerous situations. as a result of the language in this law, every single state has made stalking a crime and they've all strength ends criminal rape -- strengthened criminal rape statutes. madam president, we have made a lot of progress since 1994 but we still have a long way to go. every single minute, 24 people across america are victims of violence by an intimate partner. more than 12 million people a year. 45% of the women killed in this country die at the hands of their partner. and in one day last year,

victims of domestic violence made more than 10,000 requests for supports and services that could not be met because programs didn't have the resources. that's why i was so proud to cosponsor and strongly support the violence against women reauthorization act, and it's why i join my colleagues today in prouding expressing our hope that we can move this critical legislation when possible. this is a bipartisan bill that will advance our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assaults, and stalking. it will give our law enforcement agencies the support they need to enforce and prosecute those crimes, and it will give communities and nonprofits the much-needed resources to support victims of violence. and most importantly, to keep working to stop violence before it ever starts. madam president, this bill was put forward in a bipartisan

fashion. it is supported by hundreds of national and local organizations that deal with this issue every day. it consolidates programs to reduce administrative costs. it adds accountability to make sure tax money is well spent. it builds on what works in the current law, improves what does not, and will help our country continue on the path of reducing violence towards women. and, madam president, it should not be controversial. we reauthorized this law last time here in the senate unanimously by voice vote, and president bush signed it into law with democrats standing there with him. so i am really hopeful that the bipartisan approach to this issue continues today as we work to reauthorize this law once again, because, madam president, this shouldn't be about politics. protecting women against violence should not be a partisan issue. so i want to thank the democrats and republicans who've worked together to write this bill.

i'm very glad it passed through committee. i stand ready to support this bill when it comes to the floor. and i truly hope we can get president obama for his signature in a timely fashion so women and families across this country can get the resources and support that this law will deliver. finally, madam president, i just have to say, many of us women have come to this floor so many times over the last few weeks to fight back against attempts to turn back the clock when it comes to women's health care, as the senator from california just talked about. i'm disappointed that these issues keep coming up. but i know i stand with millions of men and women across america who remain ready to defend the gains we have made over the last 50 years and who think we should be moving forward protecting and supporting more women and families, not moving backwards. that's what this bill does. thank you, madam president. thank you for your leadership. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from north carolina is recognized. mrs. hagan: i want to thank our presiding officer or bringing this forward and the other comments from the senator from washington and the senator from california are really highlighting the issue as that we're talking about. but i am proud to join my colleagues to support the violence against women reauthorization act. and i stand here today, during national women's history month, to urge my colleagues to take swift action on a bill that's critical to the well-being of women, our families, and our country. as hillary clinton declared more than 15 years ago in beijing at the fourth world conference on women, "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights." if we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families, too. it is disheartening in the last several months that petty partisanship and gamesmanship has held up policies critical to women's health, including this act.

since its original passage in 1994, the bill has made tremendous progress in protecting women from domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. the bill has transformed our criminal justice system and victim support services. it has encouraged collaboration among law enforcement, health and housing professionals, and community organizations to prevent and respond to domestic partner violence. and it has funded programs, such as services training officers, prosecutors. it is training officers and prosecutors, and these are called stop grants, and they are used to train personnel, training, technical assistance and other equipment to better apprehend and prosecute individuals who commit violence, crimes against women. unfortunately, until congress takes action on the violence against women reauthorization act, the well-being of women across our country hangs in the balance. i see this as a serious lapse in

our responsibility as u.s. senators. and as a mother of two daughters, i am here to tell you that this reauthorization cannot wait. the rates of violence and abuse in our country are astounding and unacceptable. according to a 2010 c.d.c. survey, domestic violence alone affects more than 12 million people each year. in the year leading up to the c.d.c.'s study, 1.3 million women were raped. and this study shows that women are severely affected bisexual violence -- affected by sexual violence, intimate partner violence and stalking, with 1-4 women falling victim to severe physical violence by an intimate partner. domestic violence also haze significant -- also has a significant impact on our country's health, costing our health system alone over $8.3 billion each year. the reauthorization of this act

strengthens and streamlines crucial existing programs that really protect women. in fact, title 5 of the reauthorization includes a bill that i sponsored titled "violence against women health initiative," and this legislation consolidates three existing health-focused programs while strengthening the health care system's response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. this initiative fosters public health responses to domestic violence and sexual violence. it provides training and education to help the health professionals respond to what they're seeing from violence and abuse, and it supports research on effective public health approaches to end violence against women. since my time in the north carolina state senate where i served ten years, i have been dedicated to combating violence against women. while i was a state senator, i led the effort to ensure that

local law enforcement tested rape kits to convict the perpetrators of sexual assault. it was astounding to me to discover that after a woman had been raped and she had an examination where d.n.a. was collected, that that rape kit test would actually sit on a shelf at a sheriff or a plagues plagues -- police station and would not be analyzed. sadly, the evidence would only be analyzed if a woman could identify her attacker. what other victims in america have to identify their attacker before law authorities will take action? when i first discovered this and brought it up, i was told there was not enough money for every rape kit to be tested. well, we soon found the money, but there are states today that still have these rape kits sitting on shelves unanalyzed. so for all of the progress we have made, combating violence against women must continue to

be a priority and it must be a priority in every state in the country. so as i take the floor today in support of the violence against women's reauthorization act, it is fitting to recognize one of our fiercest advocates for women's rights. my colleague and mentor, senator barbara mikulski who on saturday will become the longest female senator in history. senator mikulski has been a strong and unwavering voice for women, families and the people of her state of maryland. she shepherded through the lilly ledbetter act which helps ensure that no matter your gender, race, religion, age or disability, one will receive equal pay for equal work and she fought tenaciously for her important amendment to the health care reform legislation ensuring that preventative care would be covered with no out-of-pocket expense. i thank senator mikulski for her mentorship, her leadership and her fierce advocacy for women's

rights. i look forward to continuing to work alongside senator mikulski and my colleagues here today to promote policies that support our women, our children, our families and to put them on a path to a brighter future. madam president, the violence against women's reauthorization act is central to this goal, and i urge my colleagues to take this bill up and pass it without delay. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i am proud to be able to stand today to speak about the violence against women act in joining with some of my colleagues here on the floor. this is legislation that i have supported in the past and look forward to supporting again. as we talk about those issues

that women care about, no surprise to most. we're talking about what's happening with the price of gas, what it costs to fill up the car tank. we're talking about the quality of our children's education. we're talking about the postal service in alaska. we had a military town hall. i met with some of the military spouses. and let me tell you, they were really quite concerned that some of the facilities that they access are -- are perhaps in jeopardy. we care about the security of our jobs, our spouses' jobs, our friends', our neighbors' jobs, all that goes into working in a small business. we certainly care about our country's fiscal situation and the very dire situation that we are in. but something else that we all care about is -- is the violence, the assaults that women often endure, their

sisters, their daughters, their neighbors, their friends, and the violence against women act is an important commitment to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, that they are not alone. this is a promise that resources and expertise are available to prosecute those who would torment them, and also a reason to believe that one can actually leave an abusive situation and transition to a more stable one. it's one of the greatest importance that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are confident that there is a safety net available to address them and their immediate survival needs as well as the needs of their children. only on this level of confidence can one muster the courage to leave an abusive situation. these are some of the promises that are contained within the violence against women act. there are some additional reasons that i feel as strongly as i do about the

reauthorization of this act, and it relates to the safety of the people in my state of alaska. unfortunately, in as beautiful a state as i live in, our statistics as they relate to domestic violence and sexual assault are horrific. they are as ugly as they come. nearly one in two alaska women have experienced partner violence. nearly one in three have experienced sexual violence. overall, nearly six in ten alaskan women have been victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. in alaska, our rate of forcible rape from between 2003-2009 was 2.6 times higher than the national rate. and, madam president, unfortunately, very tragically, about 9% of alaska mothers reported physical abuse by their husband or partner during pregnancy or in the 12 months

prior to pregnancy. we have to do all that we can to get a handle on these tragic statistics, because as we know, they are more than just statistics. these are -- these are the lives of our friends, our neighbors, our daughters, and the violence against women act presents the tools to do so. in the villages of rural alaska, oftentimes victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence face some pretty unique challenges. many of these villages have no full-time law enforcement presence whatsoever, nobody to turn to, no safehouse, no place to go. a single community health aide must tend to every crisis within the community, including caring for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. oftentimes, they don't have the tools that they need, they don't have the rape kits, they don't have the training. oftentimes, you will have a situation where weather can prove an impediment to getting

the victim on an airplane, out of the village to one of the shelters in a rural hub. you've got to remember, in most of my communities, 80% of the communities, there is no road out, there is no way to get out. so if you have been violated and there is no law enforcement and there is no shelter and there is nowhere to go, what do you do? basically, the victim is stranded in her own community with the perpetrator for potentially days before help can arrive. the violence against women act i think is a ray of hope for those who service victims of domestic violence and sexual assault within our villages. it devotes increased resources to rural and isolated communities. it recognizes alaska village public safety officer program as law enforcement so that vawa funds can be directed to providing a full-time law enforcement presence in places that currently have none. and it establishes a framework to restart the alaska rural justice and law enforcement commission. this is an important forum for

coordination between law enforcement and our alaska native leaders to abate, discourage domestic violence and sexual assault. madam president, i, too, believe that the senate needs to take up the violence against women act, but i do feel strongly that we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. i'm a cosponsor of this bill. i know some of my colleagues have some concerns, and i have said that we need to take these concerns into account so that we can have, we should have an overwhelming bipartisan bill. this is too important an issue for women and men and families that we not address it. madam president, i know there are others who wish to speak, and i appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues in the few minutes that you have given me. thank you. ms. okeechobee: i thank the senator from alaska. we now have -- how much time left? the presiding officer: five minutes. ms. klobuchar: five minutes to

be divided between senator mikulski, senator shaheen. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i strongly urge that the violence against women act come up to the floor so that we could look at the issues and debate them in an obey and public forum, and if people have amendments to either add or subtract from the bill or improve the bill, let's do it because this is really a compelling situation. i have been here since we have passed that first bill. in 1994, the original architect was senator joe biden, now our vice president. why did we do it? it's a compelling need. one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence. 16 million children are exposed to domestic violence every year. 23 million will be victims of physical or sexual violence. 20,000 in my own state of maryland. since we created the legislation

in 1994, the hotline, the national hotline has received over one million calls. when women felt that they were in danger, danger, so that one million -- those one million people had a chance of being rescued. and who was the biggest request for passing the violence against women? it is not only the women of america, it is also local police. one out of four police officers killed in the line of duty are responding to domestic violence. they love the lethality index. when they go to a home, they have a checklist to determine how dangerous is that situation? is it simply a spat or a dispute or are they in the danger zone? madam president, we debate big issues -- war and peace, the

deficit. all these are important. but we have got to remember our communities and our families, and i think if you are beaten and abused, you should be able to turn to your government to either be rescued and put you on the path and also to have those very important programs early on to do prevention and intervention. i fund this bill. i stand ready to support the passage of the bill and putting the money in the checkbook to support it. i ask unanimous consent my full statement be in the record. maryland has done such a good job. i want to leave time for other senators. i'm going to yield the floor, but i will not yield on this issue. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor today to support this crucial legislation to reauthorize the violence against women act.

it provides essential services to women and families across the united states, and i have seen it in my home state of new hampshire where one program that i want to talk about funds services, training officers and prosecution. it is called stop. it provides law enforcement the tools they need to combat domestic violence. this was a life-saving service for a woman from new hampshire named kathy who was in an abusive relationship for six years. she was being -- kathy was being abused as often as twice a week, frequently leaving her with black eyes and bruises. once her partner mark threw her down the stairs. things worsened after the couple had their house foreclosed on, and one day mark grabbed kathy by the throat, lifted her up off the floor and dropped her and began punching her again and again in front of their 3-year-old child. this was the last straw. kathy finally mustered the courage to contact a friend who helped her call the local

police. kathy obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and mark was charged with assault. but as is often the case civil procedures overwhelmed and frustrated kathy so at times she even considered dropping the whole thing. but fortunately funding from the violence against women act made it possible for kathy to have an attorney who could help her, and thanks to this assistance from stop, from the violence against women act, kathy was able to obtain sole custody of her children as well as support payments and was ultimately able to make a fresh start free from abuse. this body should not be divided on this issue. i'm so pleased to have senator murkowski join us on the floor today to point out that this is a bipartisan issue. the presiding officer: the majority's time has expired. mrs. shaheen: by like to submit

my entire statement for the record and urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization. support this reauthorization.

>> at the most powerful electorate block in the u.s. are independent voters. also this weekend on booktv, saturday at 8 p.m. david brock on how fox news president roger ails turned the next -- network into an an extension of the republican party. booktv, every weekend on c-span2. >> congratulations to all this year's winners of c-span's student cam video documentary competition. a record number of middle and high school students entered a video on the theme, "the constitution and you," showing which part of the constitution is important to them and why. watch all the winning videos at our web site, studentcam.org, and join us mornings in april as we show the top 27 videos on c-span, and we'll talk with the winners during "washington

journal." >> what would the world look like if america were to reduce its global role in order to focus on domestic problems, and is america really in decline? those questions are posed in the book "the world america made" by robert kagan who's an adviser to the romney campaign. he joined others to discuss the afghanistan war, whether america should get involved militarily in syria and the impact of defense spending cuts. this is about 90 minutes. >> get started. okay. welcome, everybody. i'm tom donnelly, i work here at aei as a resident fellow and director of our center for defense studies. again, i'm just here to welcome everybody, at least for the moment, not only on behalf of aei, but my partners in crime from the new america foundation, and from the center for a new american security. this is a joint project and

multiplying think tank bureaucracies adds geometrical levels of complexities, but we've been working at three now for a while and very pleased to kick off what is a series of events examining the core issues of foreign and national security policy in this presidential year. the three of us are, obviously, institutions with somewhat different policy perspectives. what's brought us together in this case is a shared belief that this will be an extremely consequential election. voters may make their choices based on domestic concerns, but the outcome will matter to the world, and the world will be watching america come this november. the series is intended to frame what we've agreed are the four principle strategic concerns of our time; the future of the middle east, the effect of china's geopolitical rise, whether the american military can continue to sustain american global leadership in the years

ahead and, really, above all today's topic, what role do we see for ourselves in the years ahead. we're very lucky to have bob kagan from the brookings institution to lead this conversation. really nobody's thought more deeply about the role of american power than bob has in recent years. so that further wind-up, let me turn the podium over to our moderator, npr's tom gelton. tom's not only a very fine and experienced reporter and serious student of international affairs, but he's got the gravitas and the horsemanship to herd this think tank pundit round-up forward into the future. so, tom, please -- >> thank you very much. maybe i need to push the button, so that's a warning to the rest of you too. and as is the custom, you know, at these events i guess we have to remind you to silence your cell phones so we don't get interrupted. this is a real pleasure for me

to be here, and i'm very impressed by how many of you have shown up on this spectacular spring afternoon, almost a summer afternoon. i guess i shouldn't be surprised, though, because you have a chance to listen to the thoughts of a writer who has given president obama his main talking point, foreign policy talking point for the state of the union. so i'm not at all surprised that you are anxious to hear him elaborate on his very provocative thesis that idea that america's declining is actually a myth. a very impressive new republic article and an even more impressive small book in which he spells that out. so without further ado, i think you all know bob kagan from his writings, from -- and one of the things that i think is most impressive about your record, bob, is that you are not only a

pundit, but you actually help advise administrations, and you play a very important role in advising the past administration in iraq policy which i hope we can get into a bit as well. but without any further comment, why don't you take it away and tell us what the message that you really wanted to put out with this book was. >> well, thank you, tom. and thank you for crediting me with so much influence. especially when i was living in brussels at the time. i consider that to be truly extraordinary influence. but i would like to just say a few words before we have a terrific panel here, let me just thank both toms and thank the organizations who put this together. it's a very important subject, and i do believe this this is a consequential election on an issue which is not being talked about very much which is foreign policy, so it's very important and timely that you guys have pulled this together. it's true that thanks to a certain high-ranking

administration official, the aspect of my book that's gotten the most attention is the argument against american decline. but the major thrust of the book is about other things, and mostly it's about the very special world order that we live in today and that has existed since the end of the second world war, how fragile it is and how, in my view, dependent it is ultimately on american power. let me just tribe this -- describe this world order because i think with all the difficulties there are in the world today, it's easy to lose sight how from any historical perspective we continue to live in what i think can only be fairly described as a golden age of humanity. and i would say that looking at three fundamental qualities of the international order that we have been enjoying now since, you know, for the better part of the last seven decades. the first is one of the more obvious which is the enormous spread of democracy.

on the eve of world war ii, there were roughly ten them in sas -- democracies in the world, but today there are over 100. and, again, if you think in terms of human history, that is absolutely unprecedented and unique quality. the second thing is the global prosperity that we have enjoyed. um, it's hard to measure past gdp growth for the world, but some serious economists have tried, and the estimates are that, you know, between the year 0 and 1500 global gdp grew on an average of .1% a year. from 1500 to 1950, it may have risen to something like between 1% a year, maybe around 1% a year, but since 1950 global gdp has grown on average about 4% a year which we're talking about an entire planet. that is a huge and seismic difference. and one of the remarkable qualities of that economic growth is that it has been

global. it has not just been centered in the transatlantic community but, in fact, the highest growth rates have occurred outside, and we see the fruits of it all around us with the growth of china, india, brazil and other rising economies. this is a unique situation, and in the course of this period four billion people have effectively move out of poverty into some area of the middle class. and that itself is truly extraordinary in human history. most of human history has been a story of poverty and tyranny and, also, war. and while there have been no shortage of wars in this period, we have been spared massive, great power war which was, needless to say, a feature of the immediate 50 years prior to the onset of this world order with two world wars in the 20th century, but prior to that as well. the world knew almost constant

great power conflict through the 16th, 17th, 18th and parts of the 19th century. these are the kind that kill tens of millions of people, destroy an international system, and we have been spared that. if you take those three things together, you realize what an utterly unique period this has been in human history. most of human history has known poverty, dictatorship and war. we have, with obvious -- the difficulties we've had in this period, never the less, we have been spared the great power war, the poverty and the tick today to have -- dictatorship to a remarkable extent. the second point is this world order was created substantially by american power, rests on the continued exercise of american power in all its dimensions, military, economic and political and will not survive the decline of that power.

this world order reflects very much american preferences and proclivities. it is not foreordained, it is not the product of natural human evolution. we have seen democracy fail in the past in history, we have seen liberal economic orders collapse in the past, and we've seen, obviously, wars between great powers break out. um, nothing about our current era is permanent. it relies on the powers that have created it to sustain it, and the most important power in that regard has been the united states. the second -- the final question which is the subject that has gotten more attention is, well, are we not, in fact, in decline and incapable of sustaining this, even if it is the right thing to do? my argument is, and we can get into this in discussion, i'm sure, that most of the discussion about american decline is based on a myth, and the number one myth that it's based on is that you often hear

it said the united states can no longer do whatever it wanted to do, wants to do, can no longer get nations to do what it wants it to do, can no longer have its way in the world. um, the myth is that there ever was such a time. if you go back to any decade of the cold war beginning with the first, for whatever successes the united states achieved there were at least equal and in some cases greater failures. from the first decade when the chinese revolution was considered, i think rightly, a tremendous strategic setback of the united states. i could move on to the korean war, the vietnam war, the oil crisis of the '70s, the fall of the -- the rise of the iranian revolution. i could go on and do go on in this lengthy essay, so if you want to get all the details, you can find it there. so most of the notion that we are this in decline is based on a myth about the past. if you look at basic measures of power in the international system, the united states and in those harder to, the less

tangible measures of influence, i would say the united states is roughly where it has been in past decades. unable to do everything it wants, unable to solve the middle east peace crisis as it has not for the past 40 years, but nevertheless, capable of doing quite a bit more, i think, than people think. so let me leave it at that and leave the rest for our discussion. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, bob. what we're going to do here now is i'm going to ask bob a question or two, and then i'm going to invite each of our panelists to ask a question or two, then we're going to get a discussion going among us, and then we're going to let you go at bob. i do want to point out in if echoing what tom said at the beginning, i think it is impressive that we've got three different think tanks sponsoring this series which, of course, three marginally different views of the world. but i don't, i don't want to bend too far over in the direction of harmony here.

i do hope that we can have a spirited discussion because there are serious policy issues that are being debated. and this, actually, sets up my first question for you, bob. i mean, in emphasizing that, um, the, that the position of the united states and the power of the united states has been remarkably consistent through economic crisis, through political crisis, through different administrations, and yet on the other hand you say another thing which is that this is not foreordained, this could change. so what is it that explains the permanence of this position, and conversely, what matters? i mean, does foreign policy matter? does presidential leadership matter? what is it that could actually change this if, in fact, we have maintained this position throughout administrations, throughout different ideological perspectives? >> well, it's an excellent

question and, you know, what can change it, um, is a growing consensus either that we simply cannot sustain this role anymore or that we shouldn't sustain this role anymore. and there are certainly spokesmen for all those positions out there. um, i think that even the president who made this ringing reputation of decline in his state of the union address sometimes encourages the notion that we ought to be not engaging in this activity which, i think, feeds the notion that it's time for a timeout. and, obviously, since we are moving in the current budget crisis toward the possibility of sequestration which means cuts that this administration believes would be catastrophic, i think that's a word that they've actually used or certainly words like that, to america's military capabilities overseas, yeah. if you begin to make -- if you make that decision and you stick

with it long enough, um, people don't like to think about the role of american hard power in the world because they think about wars that haven't been successful, but they underestimate how important that hard power is in maintaining this world order. if america has significantly less of it, that will begin to reshape the international system. now, i am relatively optimistic that that is not where the american people are going to go. i don't think ron paul is going to get the republican nomination, much less the presidency. i think there is a very pretty strong consensus in the country that although we may be having our difficulties, the united states should continue to play this role in the world, and i think you'll get it regard he is of who's elected. >> and does that also explain why there has been such continuity in this? despite republicans in the white house, would you say that consensus has largely been maintained?

>> since world war ii. um, there was more fluctuation, obviously, in the past because the americans made a decision after world war i to absent themselves from the international scene as best they could. the major continuities are, one, the belief in the special nature of the united states which really goes back to the founding and has driven american foreign policy consistently regardless of who's president. the notion that the united states is the keeper of a fundamental truth about which there are no other truths and that the united states has this special role in the world. the other element has been power. the more power the united states has had, the more it has taken on these responsibilities despite all the complexities of what that means. and the lesson of world war ii or really the lesson of both world wars that americans in a way ingested and became part of their psyche was the world really doesn't work well without

us. now, this notion is constantly challenged and constantly questioned, but i think that that remains a fundamental premise of american thinking about these things. >> and one final question before i turn it over. it seems like you are arguing against the kind of zero sum analysis of the world because you do talk quite extensively about the rise of the rest if not the decline of the west, but the rise of the rest, and you say the rest can rise without u.s. position declining. that seems to be a rejection of the zero sum view of the world. >> yeah. i mean, the rise of the rest needs to be analyzed more specifically. it depends on who's rising. i don't consider the rise of brazil to cut against american power and influence. and i don't mean that in the sense that brazil's not significant enough to cut into it, i mean i think the rise of brazil is additive to the world order that america has been supporting. the most dramatic rise of the rest in recent history was the rise of japan and germany during

the cold war. american share of gdp at the end of world war ii was 50%. because of the rise of germany and japan, by 1969 it was 25%. catastrophic, right? except that that was a crucial element, i think, in the victory in the cold war and america's success. the only nation, in my view, today that is rising that raises a real challenge to this world or the united states support is the rise of china. in that regard i welcome the rise of india because india's a natural check on china. i welcome the rise of turkey because i think turkey remains fundamentally interested in furthering the goals of this world order. so in my view, most of the rise of the rest is additive to the american position. >> of course, japan and swrermny were -- germany were far more deferential to american leadership than any of these countries you mentioned. >> well, i don't think that's the mark of american power and influence. i'm willing to put up with much

more independent democratic nations pursuing their own policies because i still think they are contributing to the overall world order from which the united states benefits. >> okay. >> and, by the way, there were many european allies during the cold war, and our dear friends the french would be the first to remind us of that. >> that's true. i have an idea that, um, what you say about china is one of the most provocative points of your argument. and i want to bring richard in specifically on that point. um, you pay attention a lot to china and the so-called pivot to asia that this administration is now committed to pursuing. um, what are your thoughts about what robert's just been saying on, with respect specifically to china? >> well, i agree that china poses the most profound challenge we're going to face in terms of the rising of these new powers, and i also agree that

the rise of countries like india is good for the united states even if they are not tightly aligned with the united states because they provide, um, a balance to the rise of china, and the question that we're going to face as a country is how do we deal with these rising powers like china, like -- sorry, like turkey, like brazil, like indonesia, like india in order to have a balance of power that frames the environment into which china continues to rise. in terms of the pivot specifically, there have been plenty of people that have quibbled with this term "pivot," is that the right term. i think there's some reason to question that. but i would point out that it's a goal rather than something that the united states or the president or the state department can hand down by fiat. and perfect example, i think, was yesterday when president

obama and prime minister cameron were in the rose garden doing their joint press conference. there were, i think, four questions that the press asked and a number of points it raised both sides. these are two key allies that have global ambitions. not a single point was on east asia. it was on syria, it was on iran, it was on afghanistan, it's on the global economy. and so the united states is going to have to pivot to asia in the sense that it puts more resources to bear and spends more diplomatic attention, but it can't come entirely at the expense of what's going to happen in the middle east and asia as well because no matter how much we might want to focus on asia and deal exclusively with china, these other things are still going to be in the forefront of our minds. >> yeah. how about, robert, if i just finish with this, and then you mentally, you know, think of things you want to say in response to points they've made. tom donnelly, the -- robert

makes this eloquent point about the importance of consensus and continuity in looking at american foreign policy over the last 60 years and the fact that through all of the financial and political turbulence that we've had, the changes of administration, america's position in the world has been remarkably consistent. i want to put the same question to you that i put to him. if that is the case, what does that say about presidential leadership, what does that say about the conduct of foreign policy? does it suggest that the choices that we have made are less consequential perhaps than they seemed at the time, and the choices that we have to yet to make similarly, are they perhaps less consequential than they appear right now? >> well, i would agree that there are habits and traditions and legacies, if you will, that transcend any president, any particular administration.

it's really hard to, you know, change a foreign policy tradition or a strategic tradition as strong and as successful as ours has been. so i think there's something to what you say. it's accommodated all kinds of personalities as president and, obviously, parties with very different agendas. i think the thing that would be worrisome to me and i'd be interested to hear bob to drop on is whether there are underlying structural things that are changing the perceptions of, been changing the effect that our domestic debate has on our ability to play the role that we have constantly played. and just to sort of put it in shorthand terms, whether we can become a social democracy that's spending, you know, seems

imminent 20-25% of our gross domestic product on what we call entitlement programs or mandatory spending and, also, debt service. whether that doesn't really, you know, as is obviously having the effect on our defense budgets, that whether over the course of time that kind of shifting of governmental priorities will once the impulse reasserts itself mean that the means to, you know, sort of return to a more traditional leading from the front kind of american leadership will be just, you know, very, very difficult. just to listen, you know, we don't see a democratic party debate, obviously, because they have an incumbent president. but in, you know, talking to the republican politicians who have been elected in the 2010 election and seeing the presidential campaign if you

have, you know, we at aei had what was allegedly a foreign policy debate sponsored early in the campaign season, and it immediately turned into a budget debate, you know? and a budget-cutting debate. so, you know, i wonder whether those kinds of concerns are really going to constrain a future president who might decide to assert a more traditional form of american leadership. >> um, well, you know, it seems to me we've had at least a couple moments in the last 60 years when there really were quite abrupt changes in the international situation. one would be the aftermath of the vietnam war. both of these had profound implications for u.s. policy, and the other would be the fall of the berlin wall and the end of the cold war and the rapid decline in defense spending that occurred in the aftermath of that. and yet, you know, i think bob

makes a compelling point that through both of those watershed periods there was actually a surprising amount of consistency. we're now facing a situation where we have, u.s. forces have been in close combat in two ground wars for more than ten years now. there was an interesting op-ed in "the washington post" yesterday from general robert scales quoting lord moran from "anatomy of courage," a book about combat stress in world war i where he wrote that the reservoir of courage begins to empty after the first shot is fired. the horrors of inti mitt killing along with fatigue, thirst, hunger, isolation, fear of the unknown and the sight of dead and maimed comrades all sort of start a process of moral atrophy that cannot be reversed. so i think we have to look at these issues now in the context of having fought ten really difficult years in iraq and afghanistan, and i'm wondering,

peter, what you think the implications of the last ten years of combat in iraq and afghanistan mean for this debate, this discussion that we're having. >> i think two sort of points on this. and first of all, i want to thank everybody for -- particularly tom -- for arranging this at aei and bob for doing this and tom for moderating. and we're webcasting this on cnn.com. i just wanted to mention that. in 1968 we spent 9.5% of gdp on the vietnam war. as sort of a matter of the budget, it's relatively small. sitting next to one of the great experts on the subject. we're only spending 1% of gdp in afghanistan, you know? so as sort of a historical matter, we're not spending much money on these wars, point one. point two, sort of agreeing with both bob and yourself, tom, and i hate to be all in violent agreement. and, in fact, you've undercut intellectually the whole point of this exercise because you've pointed out it doesn't make a

difference who's the next president because, essentially, these politicsing will continue. just as a factual matter, president obama who came in on an anti-war ticket in 2011 was involved in six conflicts in muslim countries, essentially. an undeclared war in yemen, somalia, a kind of war that was winding down in iraq, he quintupled the number of drone strikes of president bush in pakistan. he tripled the troops in afghanistan. so not only was this continuity with george bush, it was an amplification. and, in fact, when we pull troops out in 2014 -- we're going to have the same number of troops, i think, that we had at the end of president bush's eight-year term. so it's an amplification in a sense. >> but the question is whether looking ahead, i mean, we're now looking at getting out of afghanistan just as quickly as we possibly can, it seems to me. >> i am extraordinarily

skeptical of that. i think, yes, we are -- there is that discussion. but, i mean, look, the state is a forces agreement is going to leave 25,000 americans there in some shape or form. they won't all be combat troops, obviously, but it's not the same situation as iraq. doesn't matter who's in the white house in 2012, we've already abandoned afghanistan twice. in '89, in 2001 and 2002 we did it on the cheap. no american president's going to do that again. >> well, i think failing in my effort to -- [laughter] i'm happy to throw a quick hand grenade. [laughter] look, i mean, it's not the case that, i mean, part of the point of bob scales' article is that because the professional force is so small, a very small percentage of us have been doing the actual fighting. >> right. >> it's true that there has been political enthusiasm for these wars -- an ebbing in political

enthusiasm for these wars. but the question is, again, you know, to go to this sort of means resources which are changing sort of, you know, without actual decisions being made except in absentia, you know, whether absent some hard choices made to rebuild the needs of power and particularly hard military power whether this world order that bob describes, you know, will run itself or, you know, whether you can, you know, what it would look like to share the load, so to speak n a way that fundamentally changes the role that the united states has played. >> well, i think that is the point, bob. and has there been any period in the last 60 years where we have had such a debate over the fiscal constraints that this government faces as we have right now? and, you know, you make the point that defense spending

shouldn't necessarily be the focus of that debate. nevertheless, it has introduced a new element, hasn't it? >> well, i mean, in the interest of not emphasizing continuity, i won't emphasize this point too much. but as i recall, the debate over the defense budget in the reagan years was great or than it has been up until about a year ago. i've been, actually, used to make the point that i was somewhat astonished how little the budget was creeping up towards $700 billion -- were a major democratic party platform for much of those years. now, of course, things are more like what you're saying because of the fiscal crisis, um, and i think that we are capable as a nation because we have done it in the past of overcutting our defense capabilities and getting

to the point where we have weakened our ability to shape the international system and brought ourselves to a potentially perilous point in, even in conflicts that we may get ourselves into because we have a way of greating ourselves into -- getting ourselves into conflicts even when we think we're not going to do that again. so we are capable of doing that. the only thing i would say is if history's a guide -- and that's always a good question -- if history is a guide, something else will happen in the world which will send us in another direction. the 1990s trend was toward ever-declining defense budget. it wasn't that dramatic a cut, by the way. to go down to 3% of gdp, i don't know what that was at the time, we were only spending $400 billion a year or whatever that number was at the time on defense. and then, of course, something happened in 2001 which then led to this explosion. that's not the first time that's happened. and so there is a kind of cyclical quality to this. but what i -- and it's an

interesting question about having been in war for so long. my son who is 13 years old said to me not long ago has there ever been a time when america was not at war? well, you know, when i grew up, we were mostly not at war. i mean, for much of my life we were mostly not at war, and that's an extraordinary thing. i don't know what that means. i don't know where that leads because i also know there's a whole generation of young people who, for whom september 11th was a defining moment. many of them have gone into the military. people you wouldn't expect to go into the military go into the military, international relations fields. they go into -- so has this conflictual period we've been in created a real sort of fundamental weariness with it, or has it brought people back to the realization that the world's a dangerous place, and the united states has to do something? and i would say peter's point about where barack obama has been as president is really

maybe the most compelling point. if ever there was a time when the world thought america's done with this intervention business, they thought it was the election of barack obama. and i get to tell this joke that what you say which is that -- people told me if i voted for john mccain, we'd attack another arab country and overthrow another muslim dictator, and they were right. i voted for john mccain, and that's exactly what happened. [laughter] so, you know, so although, yes, i think there can be a tipping point, i think it's more likely we will tip in a dangerous direction and then go through another cycle where we move up again. >> well, and i also got the feeling that you and richard were on the same page and, richard, i took your comments to say, to mean that this pivot toward asia at this point may be sort of more words than reality since we still have an awful lot to deal with in the middle east. and i think -- >> by the way, i would also pick a fight with the pivot if you

want me to. >> there you go. >> in the interest of picking a fight. i don't want to get in the way if you want to ask richard a question first. >> no, it wasn't a question. >> okay. i'm very dubious about this pivot because your point you're thinking as an asianist, your point is we never really left. but the point that is made, say, in europe and the middle east to some extent is if you're pithing towards something -- pivoting towards something, that means you must be pivoting away from something else, and the conference organizers in europe are having a field day with what does the american pivot mean for europe. that is the subject of every conference in europe right now. and i think that it is a mistake for a nation of america's global responsibility to talk about pivoting anywhere. we can't pivot. our interests remain very much in europe, our interests remain -- we're not leaving the middle east as you rightly pointed out. um, that we need to increase our

attention to asia, certainly, in terms of our capabilities, i think, is true, but there's a kind of misunderstanding of our role in the world to even talk about pivoting in one direction or another. >> i have a question that i want to pose to all of you, and you just confessed to having voted for john mccain, so you're going to have to defend senator mccain's position right here. he had leon panetta up on the hill last week talking about syria, and leon panetta said before i recommend that we put our sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way, i've got to make sure we know what the mission is, we know whether we can achieve that mission at what price and whether or not it will make matters better or worse to which senator mccain responded, well, let me tell you what's wrong yo f with your statement, you don't mention america's leadership. america should be standing up, building coalitions. we're not leading, mr. speaker.

so syria is a case in point where we can sort of play out, you know, what does this, what t does the idea of american leadership mean in the context of a very difficult policy conundrum like syria presents right now? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, just sort of push a point that bob made. i mean, what sort of -- and to go back to my original obsession with domestic politics, you don't hear american politicians of any party talking about how the international system fits together. i mean, everything is now sort of done in a retail basis. and even libya and even the dialogue about syria so much about the humanitarian aspect which is compelling and absolutely real, but if you sort of charted out a great strategic opportunity to, you know, if

you're worried about the largest problem in the middle east, iran and iran with a nuclear weapon, you know, this is a tailor-made issue to use as a prism for a larger understanding of america's role in the world, and it just, again, seems to me that there's almost no conversation anywhere in the political spectrum about this. look, i mean, everybody in the region certainly intuits that and grasps that. in fact, a lot of the rest of the world, again, it's one of those moments where, you know, we may be defining for ourselves, you know, defining american leadership downward to sort of channel, you know, charles murray in this regard. um, you know, so the issues of syria in and of itself, it is not a dispositive, but it's, you

know, fact or data point, but it's, you know, i worry that it would be a leading-edge indicator of america that's sort of in this contraction mode particularly across the middle east. >> what would be? if u.s. were to what? >> thrz a whole series of -- there's a whole series of events. there's just to be, you know, fuzzy, there's the withdrawal from iraq. there's the, as you suggested earlier, who knows exactly where the afghanistan drawdown will end and what the pace will be. but the message has been even since the announcement of the obama surge that time is limited, and we're not going to commit as much as we really thought was adequate to do the job in a timely fashion. you know, our role in the arab spring and in the egyptian revolution is, you know, you can look at that in a multiplicity of ways. our inability to really decisively constrain the iranian

nuclear program. it can go on and on. it's a region that's in -- you know, that does seem like it's a deflection in its own politics, and americans have been working for this moment, you know, when a whole generation of autocrats is, you know, losing their grip on their own people. this ought to be a huge opportunity for us to seize and, again, the overall, overarching message at least, you know, sometimes appears to be of, no, we want to back up off. the offshore balancers and do this from a distance without getting involved in these messy situations. >> do you agree with it, that's the overarching message, peter, and what do you think american leadership means in this context? >> this is sort of just a comment. it took two years for president clinton to intervene in bosnia, it took nine days for president obama to intervene in libya.

why did he sewer screen? you know -- intervene? you know, the toothless talking shop that actually did something almost surprising itself which was saying, essentially, allowing -- giving the intellectual framework to allow the u.n. resolution, to allow nato to do something. now, what's different in syria? i mean, there's a u.n. problem. i think that's something the obama administration's been trying to deal with, but you've got two countries which are vetoing this kind of, any kind of operation in syria. i think that will change. i think it's possible that china may, you know, if resolution is reworded somehow, i mean, clearly, there are people working on this to make this happen. i think there are differences, i'm not an expert on the syrian military, but i think it's a more formidable force than the kind of, essentially, you know, the libyan auxiliaries. so, you know, the burden is also -- it's easy to say we should do something, but what is it we should be doing? what -- are we talking about a

naval blockade? are we talking about a no-fly zone? the devil is sort of in the details. >> so, bob, what does american leadership mean with respect to what to do in syria? >> well, i think that if, in a way, if we were not in this phase of the election season, wf we were in the first year, let's say, of obama's second term or we were two years ago when we hadn't done libya, i think we might be moving very quickly toward military action in syria. these circumstances, you know, the circumstances are everything. i think the president does not think that the american people want another military intervention now, and he's not going to do it before the election. now, he may not do it after the election either because he's got iran on his mind as well, i'm sure. and i don't rule out the possibility the president will, if he's reelected, may use force against iran. so that's part of the calculation as well. um, but i don't think we would be having these tortured

conversations about our inability to do anything in syria. what i find amusing about the current discussion is that people like i saw senator corker say this isn't obviously easy like libya. [laughter] i remember somehow during the lead-up to the libya operation everybody was saying that was impossible. who's this opposition, what can we possibly do militarily? now, i don't doubt of course the syrian military is stronger, but i would guess that our capacity to create a safe zone if we wanted to and carve it out in syria using air power is something that we could do. um, but i think that the president is just not in the frame to do it. and i do think it's worth -- in terms of the cosmic meaning of this, i think we shouldn't overstate it. as unhappy as i am, i suffered miserably through the clinton years when they wouldn't do certain things, and then ultimately two years later than necessary, they did it. by the way, the clinton administration, i remember -- my

favorite line was a quote from a samantha powers' book when she asked anthony lake why they didn't do anything in -- they're not eager to get into this. i think the trajectory they are on is that they're ultimately going to sewer screen. -- intervene, i actually believe. if a president doesn't want to intervene, he really shouldn't say assad must go. that's the kind of rhetoric that, ultimately, leads to action. now, as i say, because of the peculiar circumstances of timing, we may not get action when we want it. >> and it gets more difficult the longer you wait, i think, too. >> well, it gets more costly because lives have been lost in the interim. >> many i'm a little more skeptical, maybe, than you two about the idea that we will intervene in syria. i think the circumstances in libya, my reading of that was the europeans were so far out in

front, the british and the french wanted to do something. they wanted to do a no-fly zone, the arab league had called for it, there was going to be a resolution at the united nations security council. the president's saying if we're going to do this, we have to do it the right way. you had these stars aligned, and in the backdrop you had this sense if gadhafi was able to stop this revolt in its tracks and that was going to have an effect over the rest of the arab spring. i don't see that you have a very serious humanitarian tragedy going on every single day in syria. but in terms of the diplomatic overlay with the europeans, with the u.n. security council, i think even if you're able to get the u.n. security council resolution that russia and china will sign on to, it certainly will not authorize military force the way the resolution did in lip ya. so the administration then will be -- libya. so the administration then will be in the position of having to produce some kind of military

intervention without arab league endorsement. i'm skeptical that they will. >> just quick footnote. the military aspect of this smells to me a little bit more like an excuse than an explanation. i mean, the syrians haven't shot down an israeli airplane in decades, if ever. it's stronger than the libyan mob, but that is a very low threshold. how the conflict would end and where this would all lead are really great questions, but, you know, the conventional syrian military is just the kind of target that our high-tech forces would love, i mean, are certainly completely capable of wreaking incredible devastation on. >> and one more footnote, i mean, al-qaeda in iraq is in syria, and it wasn't in libya. so they are part of the opposition in a way that, obviously, we need to be careful

of. >> and they've played a very important -- they had a whole recruiting infrastructure in syria, didn't they? >> right. all the suicide bombers transferred through syria. >> right. yeah. um, this has been an interesting discussion. i do want to raise one other issue before i turn it other to you folks and, bob, you'll have to tell me because i didn't make it all the way through your book if you talk much here about education. because -- >> no, you dent miss anything -- you didn't miss anything. >> i didn't think so. [laughter] >> you don't have to read the rest of it. >> no, there's plenty more in there. i'm going to just ask that maybe is not a weak point in your analysis because america's educational decline is pretty clear relative to the educational attainment in other countries. and isn't that a very important part of america's strength? and if america's educational performance is declining relative to some of the other advanced countries, isn't that a

worrisome development? >> it is a worrisome development. but i think that, i mean, you know, i'm not an expert on education, that's why it's not in the book. i only pretend to be an expert about some things, nottering. but my -- not everything. but my sense is it's a mixed picture. on the one hand, we have the most, the best universities in the world that everyone in the world is trying to get into. and so at the level of higher education i think the united states is way ahead of the rest of the world. um, you know, european higher education's in crisis now, and i'm not sure that people are really yet dying to go to the chinese universities. so -- >> the chinese are coming to our universities, and then they're going back home. >> i don't mind that, i mean, that's the way life is. but there's also a lot of people coming and staying. and, again, this is very anecdotal, but some parts of the american secondary education system in high schools are very high precisely because the immigration here is so great.

the local high school where my kids go to school has a huge stream of asian immigrants coming in who are driving up standards like crazy and making it very hard for the rest of us to compete. but in any case, the overall level is extremely high. now, i think that there are big gaps, obviously, in the american educational system. and, you know, some places are doing extraordinarily well and i would say doing as well as anybody in the world. but then there are many others that aren't. but i don't want to evade your question. of course we need to improve our educational system to stay competitive. we're in an information age, um, we're in a symbol-manipulation economy. as it happens, i think the american -- the united states is still at the forefront of that kind of economy, but you can lose your place, there's no question about it. >> we have focused primarily on wars and foreign engagements in this discussion so far, but you make very clear that when you talk about power, you're talking about comprehensive national power in the chinese term.

>> yeah. >> um, any other thoughts before we, um -- >> well, i just hate this comprehensive national power thing. [laughter] it's true, i mean, you know, it makes perfect sense, but some of these things are better tools of state craft than others. this whole soft power, you know, sticky power, gooey power, you know, it's all important, but, you know, you can't sort of order american culture around the way you can order the american military around. and you can order the american economy around, but that tends to have more downside consequences than upside consequences. it's like our whole conversation about power and state craft has become sort of, you know, debased. what i actually like about bob's book is he tends to concentrate on putting, you know, the --

when he talk abouts about the international order, he's clear that what's understood lying it is a -- underlying it is a security architecture that enables all the other good things, and you wouldn't discount the value of american military police, culture, high low or anything, but you're not making the world safe for rap music is, you know -- >> well, let me illustrate that quickly. i mean, i think that's a good point that tom's making, and there's a little easy capsule illustration of that. you know, over the past two years at a time when the american economy has been in terrible shape and the chinese economy has been very successful and soaring and all these elements that we are worried about have existed, but if you ask, i think, anybody looking at the diplomatic and geostrategic score sheet who has done worse over the last two years, it's actually china. by overplaying their hand in the south china sea, they have

resurrected the american position in asia, they've got everybody in the region including southeast asians who were never that enamored of america coming to the united states. china is a net loser so far, and that may change. the other thing is look at what's going on in the international system in terms of syria, libya and iran. china has been forced again and again into positions they would not otherwise take. china is not in the business of helping democracies overthrow autocracies, and yet they have been forced into the position by a combination of the united states, europe and the arab league. so, you know, for all of our weakness in gdp, education, the other things, at the level of grand politics it's still the case that we wield a lot of influence. >> well, you say china's been the net loser, but i think you could make an argument that europe hasn't done too well either. >> i didn't write a book about how europe's not in te can decline -- [laughter] but i would be willing to make the case. >> but you did say the rise of the rest has come not at the

expense of u.s. power, but it did come at the expense of european power. >> right. although i'm still optimistic about europe. >> let's open it up to the audience now and i'm thinking we probably have microphones, right? yeah. all over the place. >> and just admin wise please follow the flee rules, wait -- three rules. wait for the microphone, state your name and make your statement in the form of a question. >> you, sir. i think you were the first to raise your hand here right in the front row. he's coming. >> um, thanks. garrett mitchell, and i write the mitchell report. i want to offer a point of view for bob kagan to respond to, and it goes like this. it's about the continuity of american foreign policy, um, argument. the point of view is that for, from post-world war ii --

perhaps even before -- to the present day for much of that time the differences on american foreign policy were sort of easily described as hawks and doves or terms of that sort. that tended to be more a reflection of, um, party affiliation. that at some point -- and i'm not sure where, i'm also not sure whether this thesis is right, but i'm offering it -- at some point that has shifted, and we're not so much in the hawks versus doves anymore, but perspectives about kinetic initiatives taken by this government have more to do with ins and outs. >> are you asking bob if he agrees with that? >> yeah.

i'm asking whether that is an accurate assessment. in other words, in kosovo, you know, clinton wanted to do it, and suddenly the republicans were against it. somewhat the same situation pertaining to libya. so my first question is, is that remotely accurate and if it is, a, what has made that transition and, b, how does that auger for the likelihood of continuity moving forward? >> well, i think that it has generally been true throughout american history that the ins were activist and the outs were anti-activist. because -- and it makes a certain amount of sense. the president in our constitution wields enormous power and influence in foreign policy, and congress is really about stopping. and even in the early part of the cold war, after all, when the democrats were in power, the republicans were fundamentally

isolationist, and the democrats were the hawks. and that, basically, persisted until the democratic crack-up in the vietnam war. but, of course, the real turn to being opposed to war came only after nixon was elected, right? it didn't quite finish during the time when the democrats were many power. so -- were in power. so there's a certain continuity there which i think is still true. there is a general continuity throughout the history of american foreign policy that i would call -- and this isn't always true either, but it's been true -- the more aggressive of the two parties domestically has also been more progressive in their global approach. just asen illustration. -- an illustration. at the end of the 1890s, the democrats were the more isolationist of the two parties while the republicans were the more internationalist. and you can see that flipping and flopping. it flips, woodrow wilson becomes the progressive, changes the

party, and republicans go back to being conservative and isolationist in the '20s. more than you wanted. >> my name is trevor for the united nations washington office. thank you for your talk today, first of all. i wanted to ask the panel what they view the role of the international community, specifically current american partners and the united nations moving forward in afghanistan post-2014. thank you. >> well, i mean, yeah. i mean, nato has already made it clear that it will be in afghanistan after 2014, and in may we're going to have a nato conference in chicago, summit meeting which i think, i mean, i think the hope was there will be an announcement of a strategic forces agreement with afghanistan and the united states. one of the big impediments has just gone away which is the question of will the afghan government be able to handle,

get afghan detainees, prisoners into their prison system, and the answer to that now is, basically, yes. so, you know, the international community has a good reason to be involved in afghanistan going forward. we're still in okinawa six decades after world war ii, so i don't think we're going to be leaving the place where we were attacked from only a decade ago. tom alluded to this, we sent a lot of mixed messages about when we're leaving. every time it looks like we're heading for the exits, it causes consternation. if message comes out that we plan to have a long-term partnership and it's a nato partnership, that is a desirable thing because that will effect the hedging strategies of pakistan and every other country that surrounds afghanistan making it clear that we will be there. >> [inaudible] wildcard which is that we may have a brand new french government taking office just days before the