the law of the sea will expose the united states into a necessary good and extraconstitutional bureaucratic and regulatory. you sympathize with that statement? >> well, i have to confess i can't look around all those corners, but we have seen an explosion of litigation in the world. i don't know how many lawsuits have been filed, but every time anyone in the united states government turnaround to get lawyer to hear something like 10,000 lawyers in the department of defense today and i don't doubt for a minute that that could happen. it seems to me -- i watched some of the military panel this morning. they are wonderful people and they are talented. as they said things, i did not hear about it and chances as to why we believe that with this

the chinese or the iranians, for example -- they haven't solved some of the problems in the south china sea. china and neighboring countries are members in in terms of dispute resolution, i haven't seen it. in direct answer to your question, it seems to me that anything they said that they believed this treaty could or should do that with benefit as, and there is no doubt in my mind, but there's certainly some things that it would, with respect to the military. the question is what is their way to again some other aspects of the disadvantages.

>> let's say that we getting to an international arbitration. what our opponents that we can't agree on the fifth arbitrator come as a the fifth is chosen by the secretary-general. at the end of the day, three of the five arbitrators rule against us. they rule against this on a

theory that we think it's deficient, it is wrong, it is against us and we don't like it. is that judgment not withstanding the errors of the scenic? isn't enforceable in u.s. courts? >> it is enforceable on u.s. territory. because that is what a treaty says it is. we have at least one department of justice that sessile. he discussed how decisions made by tribunals would be in u.s. territory. >> justice stevens opinion -- and is there anything about our decision from the treaty and the convention, which could not become effective until a year after we provide notice anyway? is there anything about our withdrawal from the treaty and the convention that would affect the validity and the impact of such a judgment. >> under international law, no. and we are actually dealing with that issue right now. regarding the mexican death penalty cases that were litigated versus them.

we withdrew -- them bush administration withdrew the optional protocol after they got a very that judgment from the grip of the judgment of the international court of justice come in that case, is still pending. it still has legal force and effect because we were under its jurisdiction when we made the judgment regardless of our subsequent withdrawal almost 30 years ago. the case was during the bush administration. you might be thinking of the nicaragua case during the reagan administration. >> thank you very much. i see my time has expired. >> coming up next, wisconsin governor scott walker. in our interview with former labor secretary robert reich's come and the senate foreign labor relations committee considers the law of the sea treaty. >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal" from the federal reserve has published a

report showing falling household incomes in the united states. we will discuss it with economist. he looked at america's changing urban populations with mike carey of the census bureau and patrick harris of the urban land institute. and on the objectives of the new regulatory agency. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> one of the quotes that i thought was very sectional uninspiring, is that once you realize the magnitude of difference you can make come everything else will pale in comparison. >> someone came and said those who think they are crazy enough to change the world are the ones that actually do. another said choose carefully and execute relentlessly.

that meant a lot to me. too many times we found ourselves thinking things off and on. we should focus on something that is a top rarity. >> every year, our nations youth come together for a conference. >> i started with a mindset of what is it like to be them? now that i am in this role, what can i share with them that either i wish i had known along the way or that they will remember when they leave washington, which as you mentioned is a very intense, rapidfire experience. if you leave a few key encouraging messages, at a time when you know it is easy to be cynical about politics, it is a good thing to encourage young people to pursue public service. >> more with brian on sunday at the eastern pacific on c-span.

>> you're watching c-span 2 at politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. weeknights, watch key public policy then spend every weekend, the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at her websites, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> wisconsin governor scott walker was in washington dc today and was the featured guest at the monitor breakfast. lastly, governor walker became the first incumbent governor in u.s. history to win the recall election. at this event come he discussed a wide range of topics, including the presidential race with christian science monitor and washington bureau chief, dave cook. this is one hour. >> good morning, i am dave cook from the monitor. thank you for coming to an other of her intimate gatherings. our guest this morning as governor scott walker of

wisconsin. this is its first meeting, although we had several visits with his predecessor, tommy thompson did we thank you very much for coming. scott walker was born in colorado and moved to wisconsin when he was 10 years old. our guests attended marquette university. his first office was the wisconsin state assembly. when he was elected at milwaukee county as executive committee was elected governor in 2010. earlier this month, he became the first u.s. governor to keep the seat in a recall election, the battle was triggered by his efforts to restrict collective bargaining rights for public workers. first, a note about c-span's presentation presence here

today. for two years, we have posted a video of the breakfast on our website and or video partner. the presence of cameras did not negatively affect our goal of hosting civilized and in-depth conversations, and based on a positive experience, be reached out to c-span, given the reputation for circulars, nonpartisan coverage of the way of broadening the breakfast reach and its appeal to speakers. some things don't change. as always, we are on the record. no live blogging aureate tweeting. there is no embargo in the preface is over, except that c-span has agreed not to use video for at least two hours after the breakfast ends. by the way, if you don't like any of these details come i would like you to talk to me afterwards, because if you don't come to the breakfast, we don't get to hold the breakfast and my children starve. [laughter] >> finally, if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a nonthreatening signal. i will do my best to call on all. now, i will begin by offering

our guest the opportunity to make comments, and then we will move around the table. thank you, governor for coming. >> thank you. you are right. i was born in colorado springs. my father was a minister, so we moved around a lot. in between colorado and wisconsin, i lived in plainfield, iowa. population 450. my state but some women back in the early 70s was a farmer just down the way from us by the name of chuck grassley. yes, i am sure you have heard them before. we eventually moved on to the big city of elgin, which is about 7000, where my dad retired. seems like these days i talk to people around food. instead of sausages, it was brought good and i could a night ago, the night before last we had lawmakers, spouses and staff

as residents, and we had some beers and like miller and microbrews from the states, not if we did not solve all the states problems at once, but it was a nice way. one of the things that i think a lot of lawmakers have missed is the sense of collegiality. you could certainly be passionate about the debate, but then go out and have a beer afterwards and still chat about things. at least in state government. in state government, good chunk of what we do is the things that get covered. a lot of the things we do are particularly nonpartisan. having a good relationship is important. i used to say to my new term members i would mentor, don't personalize your differences because your opponent today may be your i like tomorrow. just one brought sermon alone is

not going to change all that, but i think it is a good start and the feedback is good. in our case, the interesting thing is, in wisconsin, the legislature is out of session until next january. all the members of the assembly, the lower chamber, and have the numbers of the state senate -- the members up for reelection. this is an extraordinary session that requires both houses, a special session, which i would have to call, the legislature doesn't come back in until next january. the press you would otherwise have to immediately start activating things isn't quite as relevant. we can spend the summer working on things. we think there is about a half of a dozen issues that we could find some agreement on. particularly, an issue that is not uncommon to wisconsin, but we have routinely, when i hold the sessions with small businesses, i hear employers tony they have jobs, particularly in manufacturing, but they don't have enough skilled workers. they have welding jobs and they have fabricating jobs and machining jobs, but they don't

have enough employees with the skill set needed to fill those jobs. in our state, a lot of jobs are very good pay. you look evil kept high skilled welders, starting pay is 50 to $80,000 a year. this is tremendous opportunities. we are going to try to work on some things within our state agencies and that maybe even some things that require legislative action. those letter things that are not partisan that we can act on. a lot of interesting things out there. with that, most of the time you want to ask questions, so we will do that. >> thank you. let me do one or two questions, and then we will move on. at a breakfast hosted by bloomberg earlier this week, jeb bush said that his dad and ronald reagan would struggle with today's republican party, which he described as having an orthodox view that does not

allow for disagreement. how does that mesh with your sense of the party? >> i love jeb bush. he's a good friend of mine. he came on early in my campaign. i think for example, president reagan -- there are a lot of lessons that governor romney and others can take from president reagan from about 32 years ago. in the 1980s, certainly in part, the election was an referendum in referendum of president carter, for the policy that failed, high employment, the economic challenges, other hard areas of that time. there is no doubt that reagan came out on top on the failures of president carter. i turned 132 days before the election. i can still remember that. the other part was that reagan had a vision. her memory back 32 years ago, i can still remember limited

government, lower taxes, strong national defense. it did not matter who you are come as a kid i could remember that. those were memories and it was a combination of having a referendum on the current president, but also a vision for where we went from there. and i think the lesson i would tell to governor romney and others is that you have to have both. you have to point out and make the cases as to why you need somebody new in office, but that alone is not enough. you have to have a vision and a message and it is something that paul ryan and i have been talking about extensively. >> the "washington post" today reports that in your remarks, he derided what he called a false choice between cutting taxes and cutting services and you said it is not more money, but spending more wisely. do you believe that the united states would be fiscal woes can be solved without mounting debt

or having to step up the need for revenue and spending cuts? we had a visit yesterday from [inaudible] saying that there is a hard trade-off. and it is a hard truth. >> clearly, they do not. >> on the spending side? >> i think illinois is a good example where revenue, as you call it, tax increases are a bad choice. >> revenue went up 46% on businesses taxes went up 67% and individuals from illinois -- and instead fixing the fiscal woes, you have a governor now was talking about closing 14 state facilities that would lead to

employees cutting more than a billion dollars of medicaid, in contrast, we avoided and we lowered overall tax burdens because we know that property taxes are down in the first 12 years. on the median value of homes. but because we made structural changes, we avoided massive layoffs and cuts in medicaid. i put a billion dollars into medicaid, or -- than any governor has spent on medicaid. you have to have growth and frugality. but you have to be done. you have to have a pro-^ growth agenda because you have to grow your economy which will increase your revenues without raising taxes. at the same time come you have to restore frugality. the federal government is optically much more complex in terms of the severity of the problem. i think you cannot just -- you just cannot have a sturdy -- you have done something that stimulates true growth, not

governor and driven growth, but growth in the private sector. >> 30 years ago, the unemployment rate was 10.8%. in november and december of 1982, it was the highest it has been since the depression. it was higher than i was at any point in the last couple of years in the height of the recession. it was 10.8%. once president reagan's economic plan, when it went fully into effect, he had the longest sustained economic peace time in american history. after slashing the marginal cuts by 25%. he put more money back in the hands of the american people and the american consumer and the american entrepreneur to have an impact on growing the economy. >> excuse me, sir. >> [inaudible question]

[inaudible question] [inaudible question] just on the surface level, bobby flay, voters feel better if economy is better read there are a number of those who put the aggressive policies in a place to turn the economy around. this is one of the best issues -- it might be the president. the question that voters have to look at is why come in those states, if the economy's going to turn around, why is that, back, and what will help us further improve the economy. in wisconsin, i look at why is it before the economic was sour for three years before i took office. he lost jobs and employment at 9.2% the last year we turned around and had a game and didn't

gain in jobs. unemployment is the lowest it has been. it is because of the things we have done at the local and state level. without a doubt, what can you learn from it? i have said this before, but i firmly believe that if governor romney looks at wisconsin and thinks that he can win, just because he hasn't r next to his name and i have a r next to my name, -- they think here is a candidate for president that has a clear, bold plan to take on the economic and fiscal crisis our country faces. he has a shot. looking at the numbers, it wasn't just republicans and conservatives like him elected. a lot of them like the fact that some he was willing to make bold

choices. >> [inaudible question] >> i think it is an issue that governors in both parties -- there are some discerning democrats that vote closely. some already have. it was driven by the legislature, but when it comes to local, government, when it comes to health care in massachusetts. he understood if you don't fix the pension mess, there is not enough money to spend on the planet. governor cuomo in new york state was talking about some of the same things that jerry talked

about that pushed some of the reforms and caliber. ron emanuel and them are taking on some of the challenges. i think that every state and jurisdiction is different. i don't know that there is one template, but i do think, in one of the things that i said yesterday, that is taken out of context that is on the internet last night -- i said that pension and health care are like a virus eating out more and more at the budget. it doesn't mean that i think it's a bad thing. health insurance through the public sector is well. but it is the growth -- the unsustainable growth that is a challenge. i made that comment in reference to a democrat from delaware who made some changes even though it was 96% funded. he said you cannot sustain that kind of growth pattern as well. i think that prudent executives, both at the state and local level, republican and democrat alike will say you can make

these changes, you can make the tough changes that are rate, not just now, but for the next generation and not suffer the consequences. >> in our city come you cannot make those changes with that. i was a local official for eight years. i've tried repeatedly to avoid massive layoffs. i remember some of my toughest days, employees coming into my office in tears. i had to tell them they have to talk to the union president. we cannot do it arbitrarily. now officials can make those decisions. making the best interest choices for not just the taxpayers, but unions as well. >> i know that the effort to combat this has been an issue. i was wondering of what you

think of governor scott in florida trying to clear non-citizens from the voter roll. is there more that you want to focus on in regards to this? >> in terms to what rick scott is doing, i have read a little bit, but i don't know the specifics -- it is a law that you have to have a photo id to be able to vote in the state of wisconsin. we still have same-day voter registration and access. the law went into effect earlier this year. in february, we had our local government primaries and the media and state reporters -- the result of hype and hysteria and there wasn't a drop. everybody else in our state, for almost every other reason, has to use that same sort of photo id for just about everything else that we do. it really wasn't a barrier in the first trial tested between that point and ultimately the next point -- was the april election and the primaries and

general, the circuit court -- they would on a temporary injunction that blocked to block the law from going into effect. between now and then come i, i expect the court will rule on that. we expect that the law will ultimately be upheld. still, it is simple. all it requires is that you show your photo id, your drivers license from your state id card, which, by law, we provide for free if there is a request for it. so there is not an economic barrier. they show it and sign off on the pull list command we go to vote. it was never a problem. i expect when it makes its way through the court, i don't think it will be a problem in november. >> [inaudible question] exxon [inaudible question]

[inaudible question] [inaudible question] >> in terms of things i'd do differently, absolutely. any time you make major decisions in your profession, whether it is in business or life, you go back and you are a retrospective of it. i looked over the past year and thought, if i had come in last january and february, and instead of just moving quickly to fix things, if i had spent more time explaining the problems, if i said to people of my state, you know, this is before the reforms -- you know that most school districts in wisconsin have to buy their health insurance from just one company -- and that cost will districts tens of millions of dollars more than it has to -- most would set fix it. if i would've said that you know that like a bargaining and its abuses lead to some executives making under $50,000 per year --

most would've set fix it. most politicians, not just in my state, most politicians talk about it and never fix it. in the future, what i have learned is we can do both. we have to talk about it and get people engaged and get them to understand the problem, but don't use it as an excuse not ultimately fix things. but you can go hand-in-hand. to a certain extent, people are just happy -- last wednesday, to be able to watch tv and not be bombarded, which lasts, apparently, about a week. before the u.s. senate primary ads come up. not only are we a swing state, with an open u.s. senate seat, it will be back again shortly. you know, a lot of the best initially a lot of the money that came in -- over time, it

was almost equally balanced by outside interests that were forming against me. a lot of those folks in groups, a lot of that money has moved on to ohio and florida and other places, where lisa has become more dispersed. that is why that we did the brat-fest the other night. a lot of the intensity and scrutiny heightened that. this is not unique just me. in both of those elections, 2.5 million votes were cast in only a few thousand was the difference between the two. in many ways, we are a microcosm of america. we have urban areas, suburban areas, womack areas. just about everything. 2008 was an anomaly. the 2004 at end in 2012, it will be very close. >> [inaudible question]

>> you know, the interesting thing is the recall kind of slowed a process leading down that path. in terms of all for the candidates -- they spend most of their time talking about state senate candidates. that has been a unifying factor. between now and august, will they start to distance themselves? i think so. but i think that is part of the reason why i am not likely to get an endorsed candidate because it allowed me to play a little bit of referee and callout candidates if they are stretching the truth about the views of other candidates. i'm excited. i think that if you look at it, and i don't just say this -- it is probably the most impressive primary if not one of the most impressive ever.

you have for legitimate candidates. you have tommy thompson, one of the most beloved former governors in wisconsin, you have smart woman and a member of the house, and you have the speaker of the assembly, fitzgerald, who helped purge the reforms through, and you have eric, who is a businessperson who is trying to replicate some of what ron johnson did two years ago. you have for its sound quality candidates. if anything, if anything, the winner comes out will be that much stronger, and the center-right coalition is energized in the state of wisconsin. whoever is the winner will be nicely situated. >> [inaudible question]

what are some things he should speak out more strongly about on reforming, and if he is going to win wisconsin, he will have to get some of those people who win for obama last time. what is the best way to do that? >> my sense, then, fresh off a campaign, there are voters -- i have voters that said i voted for your opponent two years ago, and i'm voting for you. i had a guy in oshkosh say hey, i'm a democrat, my parents are democrats, but we are voting for you. each of those cases, including the last month or two of the election, it was voters who would tell me their story but who would say i appreciate the fact that you had the courage to take on tough economic and fiscal issues. politics is the only profession called courageous despite keeping of the word. but people are so cynical about

politics that people who are willing to stick their neck out a little bit, i think there is a great degree of respect. there is respect for paul ryan, even among people who don't necessarily agree with him. but they respect the fact that he actually has the guts to put a plan out and to talk about both things. in regards to governor romney, i think both economic and fiscal -- that is what we faced in wisconsin -- economic and fiscal crisis. not only talk about it, but i think it has to be narrowed down to a very simple set of messages that embody the larger plan that he has. and i think it is one that people have to walk away saying, it is not just a referendum of president obama. it is also has to be -- yeah, i don't think i am better off than i was four years ago and i don't think the economy is where it should be. i don't think the federal government is in control of the fiscal house. and i believe that the candidate mitt romney has a it when i can believe in. that is what i believe.

thirty-two years ago, people didn't like where president carter was at. reagan said, a recession -- a recession is when your neighbor doesn't have a job, a depression is when you don't have a job, and recovery is when jimmy carter doesn't have a job. great lines like that caught people's attention. but you could also come in the same breath, said saved exactly what you thought reagan was going to be when once he got in office. i don't know that voters are there yet with governor romney. it doesn't mean you talk about are -- it doesn't mean he has not talked about it, but he needs to talk about why he would be better. >> can i just do a follow-up? there was a front-page story in "the wall street journal" today arguing that there was some dissidents in romney's message. going around saying that things are bad and he needed to run things -- in some swing states like ohio that had governors

that are selling the facts that things are better. does that trouble you? >> no, i run into employers in my state who like the things we're doing in the direction we are headed. but like some of the things that some of our state agencies have done to be more customer friendly, and then turn around and say, where we get hung up is with the apa order where we get hung up is with some other federal agency. this feeling of frustration out there -- the biggest thing businesses are concerned about is the portable correct. there are two things they are waiting for in june. my election and some action from the supreme court to get a handle on what may or may not happen with health care in this country. for a lot of small businesses, elise, i don't know if it's true or not, but absolutely true in my state -- it is not only the policy implication, the implications of not knowing under the affordable care act.

>> [inaudible question] >> solidarity people singing on the steps of the capital -- i hope they have gone the other way. and people with an infantry doing things. and there was nothing that evidence for you in terms of turning voters out. how do you turn out those voters? in order to get their? >> in the primary -- the primaries are a good example of this -- there are a lot of people more than a year ago -- voters who would be sympathectomy who said i don't need a protest sign, i need an opportunity to cast a vote. it is what you saw in our primary. i had a primary that was literally a protest. an uncontested primary. greg wrote a great series of

things about the numbers and how remarkable it was. in my primary, i got as many votes as the past two democrats combined. with that said to me was there were voters who even though they knew that it didn't mean anything in terms of the primary, they were that motivated to vote. they were coming out may 8. a part of it was already the pent-up feelings. the issues were so clear. unlike most elections, where it is personality order -- this is pretty clear-cut. voters in my state, you could've spent tens of thousands of dollars of more money on both sides and voters knew months ago where they stood on the issues. they knew what was at stake and what the definition was. we had victory offices all around the state. a week before the election, we had identified -- we heard he

made 4 million voter contacts. through volunteers, offices, the state party offices and our campaign. it had a tremendous impact. we had people, not just republicans and conservatives, people like i mentioned before, independents and even a few democrats, we found like the bold action we took. we found them in nature that they got to the polls. >> could i have a quick second? >> [inaudible question] in an overhaul of the pension system to a 401k system. >> we are not going to go through that whole battle over it again. actually, private sector unions in my state have largely been a partner in my economic development. for example, i have had great support from them because my predecessor spent more than a

million dollars out of the state transportation fund. i restore that. we need reinvestment into transportation infrastructure. humans like that, they like the fact that we have affordable, reliable sources of power in that state. many of the skilled trade unions are working with us to streamline the process. the reason i tackle collective bargaining was him because of unions, it was because i knew for years as a local official in as they were just about 60% of the total budget that paid to local governments, i could not hit my objective of no tax increases, no massive layoffs, no cuts in things like medicaid unless i changed the dynamics in terms of states relationships with local governments. i ultimately had to give them the tools. the reform that they needed to

offset, which they can now. the city of milwaukee, for example, -- [inaudible] those are all things for the positive. the good news is, we are talking about working for the greater benefit. it is not going to be as hard as it sounds. in the short term and is not. things we are working on, getting more people into skilled trades, educating and school district accountability -- those are things i've are even working with democrats on for the last nine in 10 months. we are finally getting to the fruition of those efforts. a lot of things we are going to work on, including our work force, make it easier for small businesses. >> we have about 25 minutes left. we are moving down the table. i'm having a senior moment, and i apologize.

>> [inaudible question] if there are negatives, would you consider getting in? also, do you think the mitt romney is ultimately the favorite going into the general election? >> it is easier if you are not aligned with one of the candidates, but i certainly called people out if they were grossly out of line in their characterization of other candidates. i think in wisconsin, and there is a term in its chance for republicans to win that seat. not just because it's open, but again because of the quality of any of the four republicans running, combined with the fact that i think there is probably a pretty strong contrast. you have congresswoman tammy bowman on trent baldwin, a friend of mine, and her policies are some of the most liberal in

the country, coming out of that congressional district. i think they would be horribly out of whack with where the people are in the state of wisconsin. it puts any of those were coming out of that primary in a tremendously positive position to build it. >> [inaudible question] what other than coming up with a slogan like ronald reagan, what does he need to be more specific on what he would cut? what exactly are you not hearing from him that you think voters need to? >> i think having a plan and not just on the economic plan, but on what he would do budgetary and talking about that doesn't have to be 9-9-9 or any other

kind of been like that, but that he's going to deliver on this plan. the thing that i got out of the vote with wisconsin that could apply anywhere else, is that voters have become so cynical about politics, not just about candidates making promises and not delivering on them, but also, more importantly, candidates get into office and not having the willingness to take on issues. i think part of it is just the believability that yes, have i have a plan and yes, i am committed to it. >> [inaudible question] >> well -- >> what will it do otherwise? >> i think at the end, i say you have to look at the big picture. it you go back to lacerate. billions of dollars were poured

into ads just attacking me. they spent millions in the state, then they spent millions on the recall election and petition process, i don't know the exact numbers, but if you contend to look at all the money that was spent against me for me, it is a wash. it is similar -- unions from outside groups, from the left and right -- a lot of it has to do with our numbers last year, they were way down when the only voices out there were voices don't want. not just myself, but when i had ads up -- i had a public school teacher in high school, i had an small businessperson on air saying, hey, i saw these reforms last year and i'm scared. i thought my job would go away or my class size would get bigger.

i was wrong. it was just the opposite. now we have more teachers in our school, our quest sizes are better than before. when i hear small business owner saying, you know, i'm scared about the economy, now it is better because of what the governor is doing. we need to get a message out where a lot of voters and independent states, they are willing to vote for the person and not just the party, gave voters a chance to say, you know what? i have heard why people don't like you, now i want to hear somebody make the case for you. and it allowed us to even things out and make the case, obviously, the majority of the voters have. >> [inaudible question] do agree with him or disagree with him about the current state of the republican party that he expressed concern about orthodox feelings about the policy -- whether republicans and reagan would become one party today. is he right or wrong. and specifically, how would you

answer the question about whether you would accept the 10 to one spending tax increase bill? >> i just don't believe that the problem in government is that we don't act now. not only that we don't control our spending enough, we don't use our resources appropriately -- i think it is also that there is not enough out there that helps the private sector to make growth. that is one of the big things that i think is missing in that equation. i think there is a false choice other between raising taxes or cutting services. no one else in life you say i'm going to double the price of the product weren't going to cut the quality and half. in business, outside of government, you find a way to balance the two out. for example, an example of how public education -- at least in my state -- we have two sons,

one just has graduated, the other will be a senior. for years we were pitted against her finances, or whether we were told. either you have higher property taxes are your schools fail. that is a horrible choice. we should at of this year. that is a false choice. we showed it this year. we still were allowed to a have more resources going for classrooms. it was money from collective bargaining in the past. that's putting tens of millions of dollars back in the classroom. i just think -- i think it's got to be true at the federal government level as well. there is a false choice between the way taxes or cutting for services. there still has to be a greater frugality in our government, but

also more to stimulate regrowth and not from our government spending, but three things that actually stimulate the economy. >> [inaudible question] >> no, no. our country, just like our state faced an economic and fiscal crisis. to me, it doesn't make any sense to make the economic crisis work. i think raising taxes would make the economy worse. i have a very good friend of mine, i e-mail him out of bed. i think there is a large cross section within the republican party. i don't think it is monolithic. it is pretty clear cut. i think that goes beyond the publicans. i think that a lot of people in my state appreciate that once and for all, some of he stood up and said instead of a handful of special interests controlling state and local governments, we

think that the taxpayers should be in charge. i think right now a lot of people in america don't feel like they are in charge of much of anything in washington. they would like to have elected officials, regardless of party, stand up for them a little bit more. >> just to be clear, you talked about the economy, but you are not about raising taxes in an economy? >> no, i just think you couldn't pick a worse time to start raising taxes. >> [inaudible question] >> obviously, [inaudible] -- i also think he is -- as an executive now, i think one of the most important things for somebody -- to me, one of the most important tests to see they

are ready to be president, is to pick someone who can actually help govern. i don't know, if you believe that the fiscal crisis facing our country is clearly one of our top challenges, i don't know of anybody that is better equipped to help do that. not just because of this plan, but because i think he understands the dynamics and incredible respect and both sides of the aisle. i don't think there is any work you in the city who don't have respect for the fact that he's committed to his position and understands the budget. far beyond that he is from wisconsin. i think there is tremendous value to paul ryan. it kind of goes against my natural instinct to put an executive on it. that is the one to make an exception. you mentioned mitch daniels, chris christie, bobby jindal, there is a whole list of names like that. very competent, local governors that would be a great match if he's looking for someone other

than congressman ryan. >> [inaudible question] a lot of people said they would support president obama who voted for you. [inaudible question] >> well, i don't know. obviously, i found that odd. two years ago, coming for my opponent -- i don't know if it helped or hindered me as much as i had presumed it was calculated on their part to stay away from it. i think probably because of a thought the other candidate was likely not to prevail, they didn't want to be attached -- they kept their distance. it's not like they are calling me up talking about it, but there is a lot of disappointed democrats in the state and labor leaders. i don't know what that leads them backing off of their commitment to the president or not. there is a lot of frustration

last week that the president wasn't more involved. even the names that came in for me, that all good people -- the people and the folks that came to see them who were enthused -- because of the profile in our state, i mean, the day after, i fulfilled a promise that i made to a group of fourth-grade kids in elementary school. they came over and visited me in the governor's residence. i took questions and i thought it would be like the schoolhouse -- one of the first questions was how was it to win more than 205,000 votes than the first time. >> everybody in our state knew what was going on. whether i brought a few more people in the competition that -- i just think it was probably more calculated for their part. in terms of winning the state, though, one, remember the exit polls showed me 50-50.

another poll was saying that romney is up in wisconsin. governor dreyfus said that [inaudible] there's a lot of truth to that. our state will flip back and forth between now and november. probably there will be polls when. i think of romney's going to have a shot in our state, because you can't go on just republican votes. he can't just be viewed as a republican attachment. he has to get our country back on track again. you have a shot, but it just might win alone is not enough. he has to build off of it. >> when we go back to the portal correct.

other elements -- [inaudible] [inaudible question] secondly, if it is thrown out, do you have any plans for the health care system in wisconsin to expand the portal care for those whom don't have it? >> actually, in our state, we are one of the highest covered states in the country in terms of people who have private insurance and some sort of coverage and medicaid and other programs. for us, my secretary of the department of health services, she pointed out last year that some of the majority of people in my state -- they pay a higher amount for less coverage than they have before. overall, it was in that losing for us and what it means for people of our state. if we did not say, for example, say that the whole thing was overturned -- for us, i don't

think you can go back to just having nothing, but i think that this should be made up of state and local level. i think families and individuals should be driving decisions about health care, and i think one of the best things we can do is give you more transparent health care system. if you have a heart attack, you're not going to go out and shop around. most of us don't use emergency systems, most of us use conventional procedures. whether it is using health savings accounts which we change blasters, whether it is changing the greater amount of transparency in pricing so that as employers and consumers, we actually know what we are getting -- i think those things are important, because not just changing health care health care costs, it could change behaviors regarding health. long-term in our state across the country, there are really only two ways to rein in health care costs.

he did the people as consumers making a more active effort to control their wellness decisions. i would rather be on that end. i think that is more in the market-driven solution that works. i think it's difficult right now to be truly market-driven because most consumers, be they individuals or employers, don't really have a total understanding of what the true cost is because it is not transparent. that is where state and federal government can have a role in terms of ensuring greater transparency in health care pricing. is it essential that i raised yesterday, if you look at one particular procedure, corrective eye surgery -- years ago, that was something only the super wealthy could do that. today it is not. today, you can save up for it and it is reasonable for most people if they wanted to get corrective eye surgery. well, it was the folks who did those procedures who realized

that i can do it at this price, or i can do it at that price -- but hopefully don't have anybody out there doing it porter $2 or $50. that is where it got to be affordable for the average person out there. that is because people can actually look at the price and they can measure the quality. everybody other is texting or tweeting right now, everybody has their cell phone. all of us probably know more about our cell phone plan than we do about our health care plan. right? i mean, i have two teenagers, so i know i have to have a plan that has unlimited texting. or i am in the poor house. right? how many have told me how much it really costs for that test of the doctors office?

how many people can tell you? you never say, oh, i will just put an application on my phone, i don't care how much it costs. you want to know, right? begin in health care, we blindly take something because the plan covers it. more transparent, the more people have transparency in the game, the more we will make prudent decisions, which alternately affects health care costs. >> what it has done through the affordable care act or separately about -- things that allow you to go over state lines are important. there are things -- i just don't think you need the federal government to muster those things. >> [inaudible question] >> what is that? >> i thought. >> certainly not a federal mandate. >> let me just quickly follow

up. if it was upheld, do you go for the exchanges or do you wait for the next thing, which would be the elections inouye other states -- [inaudible] i think most of us are going to wait. in the end, we are in a federal suit. it was one of the things that i did -- first things i did after the session was authorize the attorney general to join in. the fifth amendment is pretty clear. i don't read anywhere in the constitution that the federal government to mandate health insurance on me and my family. ..

democratic or republican alike didn't raise concern about this because this is a fundamental federalists. i mean, if you can manage health care, you can mandate any and that's not what our founders envisioned. it is not the crack is. you might so strike up a 10th amendment if you're going to engage in a process that allows it. >> this in relation to that of your comment. >> i am wondering what you think about the president economic

record of my people in wisconsin think about the president's economic record. is it as negative as some in your party with paint, or do you think that he would have decent argument in terms of camillus, in terms of the auto bill, in terms of the 23 month job creation. does that make you concerned that romney comes up with a different plan? >> asked the people in janesville about the bailout because they still have a plan that's close. as the people in kenosha. they still don't have a plan in kenosha for chrysler. it's still pretty clear what they think about that. they may be a case to be made, but certainly not of us can't sin. if you look at overall the stimulus, most of the stimulus in wisconsin was spent on billing the state government not a couple years ago. it's part of the reason why the $3.6 billion hole to begin with. so if they want to take credit for this team has come i would

say what to do gets you? we a temporary reprieve to making tough decisions a couple years ago and it stuck us with an even bigger budget deficit when i started last january. i mean, instead of making decisions on school wage and medicaid are used to billion of stimulus money to put into it. what do you agree or disagree come most people thought the stimulus was to build roads, bridges and freight rail line and very little of that, at least in our state was spent on billing of state and local government and allow them to the crutch to avoid making tough decisions camacho may exacerbate it positions the past year. so we love cleaning up the mess. a lot of voters get that clearly in our state because what happened in the last year and half and is precisely what a lot of voters, including some democrat appreciator decision because it relates economic to cancel far down the road. >> with about four minutes left. rosie. >> yes, i think you're portrayed maybe a thousand times to have

been a sort of the organized labor of power. would you agree with that assessment? to you think that they have the same sort of influence that they had before? >> la mesa back for a second. i've done a lot of commentaries on a big tree that i think voters needed to needed address. as a people who overstate and had no impact is all about money and that's completely wrong. i think there's people on the right who think that this means every republican is going to win and you can apply to every state. i think as often is the case, the biggest thing i saw, but i do think this sentiment was before i saw the county was that many of the big government leaders thought that no one would ever dare to make the

changes be made. and if we did, there is so quick to punish us that they thought it an innocent joke, don't ever -- don't mess with these changes. i mean, think about it. a week or two after we made our original repair bill, the plant started coming in. they brought people from chicago and washington and new york, las vegas and elsewhere. and they actually had, the shirt and hudson banners are a source not like i was hiding them. if you look at my office on the you can see the banners come in the science cover the tracks in a runoff the cayman. and i think they thought it would intimidate people. you could hear the protesters out there and people say, i thought you were to protest. i said they do. they've ever right to be here.

but tens of thousands of protesters have a right to be heard, but so does the 5.7 million people in my date who are taxpayers, the majority of whom voted for me in the last election and know what i'm doing. but in the past, they intimidate elected officials, intimidated local government officials who are making tough decisions. i think we should not just in my victory, but throughout the process if we dare do make more about the next generation in doing so, i think we open the door not just in the election, but more importantly for both state and local government leaders to say, yeah, maybe we can consider making some changes and realize that we do, groups that before it got recorded take you out admit it.

[inaudible] >> even more specific, interested in governing, i think that they kind of are going past with these before and people really see can stand up and make a change. the other difference in the date is in the teachers union you see given the choice for these workers option not to be in the union. that's not something we've done. the something the teachers themselves decide whether they want to be in the union or not. a lot of them said you know what, just fine on her own. we like it could with their principles a supervisor. we don't be so much to advocate for for us. >> thank you governor. the former governor, haley barbour will come back. thank you so much. he might appreciate it.

[inaudible conversations]

in >> american politics in the last century or so, moving less the closer you get. one is fascist, others racists, another us access to in some ways the best working definition is of a fascist is an argument. >> on thursday in "washington journal" he talked to policy professor and former labor secretary, robert's transport about the 2012 elections. this is 40 minutes. >> host: welcome back to c-span, professor robert reisch who teaches at you see berkeley and the author of a new e-book, which is not to speak. but the title?

>> guest: "beyond outrage." >> host: what is the message? >> guest: if you don't like what is happening in washington, d. something about it. what i have always understood, really going back to my days from washington and three administrations is to matter how good the people in washington, the people outside washington are mobilized and energized and organized to put pressure on even good people in washington, very few good things happen in washington because the organized interests, money and triscuit air work. so i've been preaching sometimes people don't want to hear my preaching that being attacked as you said is more than showing up for duty and being a citizen is taking a nap is: how a ears. poster on a web server that one of the last couple days, robert ray stockport, the latest jobs report and the recovery or lack

thereof and the possibility of another recession. a double dip recession. how close? >> guest: i don't think we will go into a double dip recession, but the economy has been flowing. part of that is europe and everybody is concerned about the uncertainty of the european debt situation. part of it also is the continuing problem of american consumers, the vast american middle class not having enough purchasing power. one thing i have been saying that has not really been -- i don't think acted on by this administration and certainly not by republicans is your basic runcible here. that is it is so much of the incoming welcome the country continues to go to very top and we have liberals that inequality now that we haven't seen in this country by some measures of 100 years. the middle class doesn't have the purchasing power, that means

the risk not going to have jobs or expand. this is not rocket science, but it's a very basic economic principle here. the very, very rich and some people accuse me of being a class warrior and i worry that an economic terms there is not sufficient aggregate demand because with so much wealth goes to the very top, you know, very wealthy, the top 1% spend at most 50% of what they earn or what comes in in whatever form. and those savings go around the world wherever they can get the highest return. but that's understandable. i'm not blaming that. the average working people will spend a much higher proportion

of what they earn because their incomes are much lower than that spending fuels and economy. that spending gets businesses to make decisions to expand and hire more people. the problem of the american economy in terms of american consumers whose spending is 70% of american economic dignity, the problem has been with us for at least three decades, but it was disguised for a long time by the fact that first of all in the 1970s and then again in the 1980s large numbers of women winning the paperwork that is not the case of the 50s and 60s. the money was disguised by the fact that american families and households went deeper and deeper than that, using the lapsing value of their home as collateral and that is over and the housing bubble bursts. and so we are left with some and we can no longer work, which is

the ability of the vast middle class to sustain the economy. >> let me put this in terms of numbers. the latest report from the federal reserve should the overall wealth on the decline of the median u.s. income, but the figures figures in 2007 was just over 49,000 x hundred dollars to hear. in 2010, dropped 7.7%, just under $46,000. >> at 7.7 dropped from 20,722,010 continues and there's no reason to suppose. the median wage in 2010, half above, half below actually will continue to decline. i sometimes joke that shaquille o'neal, the best player and i have an average height of 61. but that is because the topic is that the average. you can't always trust averages

hit the median as a better mechanism because half are above and half are below and that's where the median wage figure episode important. you see it continually declining and on top of the 23 million americans either unemployed or underemployed have a pretty good patient whether or not in the aggregate demand and people don't have the money to turn around and buy with the private sector could buy. >> host: is there any connection painting those tax cuts and the great recession of 2007? >> guest: there is in the following way. those tax cuts were sold to a display of creating a better economy, creating a stronger economic growth and more jobs. and upwards they were sold as a form of trickle-down economics. one thing we have learned from those tax cuts is to trickle-down economics doesn't work. it is bunk. doesn't trickle-down.

we just went down. job growth even before the great recession, job growth between 2001 at 2007 was rather anemic compared to the job growth under the clinton administration, which is proud to to be a member. those cuts actually had no effect other than enriching the already very rich. so when republicans say to me, the week to revive job growth is to give more tax cuts to the wealthy and more tax cuts to corporations, you have to scratch your head. it didn't work before. there's no reason to support it would work again. corp. said on a $3 trillion of cash right now. they don't know what to do with the cash. the recent they are not investing in additional jobs is not because they don't know. it's because they are concerned about their bottom lines. they're not going to invest the money and additional jobs in the state of workers dimmers.

>> host: is the word working and labor secretary come into that 90 to passman to conceive a child in blue, the drop of private sector jobs began to turn around in 2010 and a slow increase in private sector jobs and that a client in private sector jobs in operation in 2010. what does this tell you? >> guest: well, all things being equal, the dirt jobs are slowly beginning to come back. i hope we stay at peace in the first year. i don't agree to light into a recession. it also says much of the track on the economy has been a decline in public sector jobs. you know, just simple mathematics. you just look at the fact that so many states localities have had two players so many teachers come in so many firefighters and police officers that so many

private-sector contractors with government has had also to reduce force that you see where a lot of hard job losses are coming from. so again, the claim that what we need to do right now is simply whacker budget deficits doesn't make a great deal of sense. undoubtedly stephen in the future, we have got to get the deficit under control. but right now when you have such high unemployment and so much underutilized capacity, this is the wrong time to cut public deficits. it's a mistake europe is making. they been raised in a sturdy economics at a time and have high unemployment. spain has 25% unemployment. they are lacking public budgets. the or is not going expand employment if people don't have money in their pockets. >> host: the latest book is titled "beyond outrage." join the conversation number

ways. it's a call, send an e-mail or join on time. sue was on the wane. i keep saying treasury -- labor secretary, robert reisch. >> caller: hi, mr. reisch. i saw you and i appreciate your book and i wish people would really listen to you. you're a professor at california berkeley and you seem to know exactly what you're talking about. every common person not to know if the people have money to go to stores and restaurants, do you know, it is going to be a big problem in our country at the middle class don't have money to spend. i was reading under local paper in weekend, illinois that incentive tying assays for our schools, we went and bought international buses. whether it's safe to buy a bus here or there, why are we buying

american? thank you. just goes to, i think people don't know whether they buy american or not. i think almost every product and services are combinations of stuff coming from abroad. i mean, you buy an iphone and the design of the iphone is not in california. most of the inside of the iphone comes from japan and china, southeast asia, all over the world. same is true of most cars, almost everything we buy. many services are here because that is the source of the service. even services to the extent that they involve technology, some of that is done abroad. call centers all over the world. it's very difficult in the global economy to separate what it says and what is an period and that is why it is so important in terms of national competitiveness that we invest in our people, our education,

childhood education. we invest in roads, bridges, with which we communicate and connect with one another. if we have the right infrastructure, the right capacity here to add power to the increasingly international and globalized economy, we will do better and better over time. now they now appear bright that we face very, very fierce headwinds. and so, i am part company with a lot of people and a lot of republicans who say again, every public dollar is bad and what we have to do is just chop the public that said except for national defense. the state and local and federal spending on education and training and infrastructure is critically important in terms of building productivity of american to get good jobs in the global economy.

>> host: darrell has this question. professor reisch can you talk about the wage inequity going on in this country? >> guest: we have not seen, darrell, and anyone else who is concerned about is that we ought to be concerned. we have not seen this degree of calm and traded in commonwealth by most measures in over 100 years. some measures the 1920s, but it seemed many who said it was really good day of the robber barons. concentrated wealth is coming from a couple sources. one because our economy -- so much is dominated by wall street and financial wall street is where two thirds of the growth we just came between 1997 and 2007 before the great crash. you still have stratospheric wages there on wall street. it is not that they are adding so much value to the american

economy. i've yet to see anybody come up with a convincing case for why wall street is paid this much is he paid. they are paid a lot because they take a little percentage of every transaction we have gigantic amounts of money being transact their wall street today, which give up the giant casino. secondly, to some extent we have a winner take all economy in terms of ceos who are being paid 300 times with the average worker is being paid. 30 years ago, it was about 45 to the average worker. we have seen a ratcheting up of ceo pay. a ratcheting up of the page -- for that matter, also entertainers who are at the top of a leak and professional athletes. it is ceos, that corporations and wall street that accounts for much of the extraordinary concentration of wealth and income in this country. and i think it's dangerous for

the economy is such a syndicated, steve. also dangerous to our democracy because i have not seen so much money from again to corporations, wall street and wealthy individuals surge into our politics to the point where average americans really can be heard any longer. that building not too far from where we are sitting this today making a decision whether it's going to reassess and read this one of the most grotesque decision the supreme court has ever made and that is citizens united against federal elections. >> host: that is the headline from the "chicago tribune." as of june 12, $122 million spent in pack or super pac money, which obviously pales to what we signed 28 or 2004. accounts to romney campaign. >> guest: it does not account

for romney campaign directly. you talk 122 million super pacs from social welfare organizations that are allegedly -- we know it's just purely fiction. they are allegedly separate from his campaign through the supreme court has opened the floodgates and the interpretation by the d.c. court of appeals of the citizens united decision completely open the floodgates that there is now no limits on the amount of money individuals contribute. admit romney is super pack of 16 individuals to contribute more than a million dollars each. at one -- they put in $10 million. i mean, what is a normal citizen going to think? what are we going to tell her children about how our democracy was in the election of 2012?

i hope this is sort of -- dynamo, and chairman of the citizens group called common cause the are the last 40 years of dedicated itself to get the money out of politics. >> host: genes as individuals have been a lot to contribute whatever they want. don't sell us alive. >> guest: well, money is the equivalent of speech, but even after hockley and folio, there is still limits on what people could contribute to campaigns. presidential campaigns for almost $5000 each. what has happened, even after we have it think a fairly good piece of legislation coming out of washington with regard to mccain-feingold is that those limits had been eroded by both the supreme court and lower court decisions that the election commission and the irs,

which basically are turning a blind eye to the growth of super pac and the so-called fiction organizations that don't even have to -- they don't even have to disclose who has contributed. the u.s. chamber of commerce is basically turning into a slush fund. i mean, they're getting millions of dollars in their goal is to have something in the order of a hundred million dollars or more from let's assume from the corporations. but the court rations don't want their customers and shareholders to know who is contributing why. and so they are hiding behind his notion for social welfare organized nation that is the so-called charitable and dictation. i mean, who are we kidding? post our guest is robert reisch, former labor secretary in the clinton administration, faster at you see berkeley. he taught to president clinton in office? >> guest: i typed them occasionally. he's lost a lot of weight.

looks great. we met when we were both at oxford university in 1968 as graduate students. >> host: your first impression of him. >> guest: we were heading over to oxford. in those days i don't know why we did it, but we took an ocean line in october of the -- the north atlantic was pretty choppy so i retired to my little cabin, thinking i would never recover it was so seasick. there was a knock at my door and there was this fellow, kind of a tall gangly guy with a southern accent of chicken soup in one hand and crackers and the other. he said i heard you were feeling to well. he did not say at that time i feel your pain. that came later. we started talking and i was impressed with 10 in many ways. one with his knowledge and the csm for politics.

he was clear he was going to be governor of arkansas and maybe more. at the age of 22 that's saying something. most had no idea what they would do in the next three years, let alone the rest of our lives. he loved and loves politics and it is people and now is evident from the first conversation we had. >> host: was go to charles in fort collins, colorado with robert reisch. good morning. >> caller: good morning, mr. transport. i was listening to paul krugman and he made a point by saying name one country that came out of the recession or depression using austerity measures. that is one point i like to make. >> host: but i do not point animals come back with a follow-up. >> guest: paul krugman is absolutely right. there is no country that i'm aware that came out of a recession or depression by cutting its budget.

some of the other day -- i was debating, somebody from the cato with tutu said i don't know about houstonian economics frankly. i am not an expert, but no modern economy, no economy most people have studied has come out of recession by cutting its budget. the united states in 1934, 35, 36 was starting to come out of the trough of the great depression and in 1937 franklin d. roosevelt mistakenly listened to a lot of the deficits he said we had to cut the budget and we also have to hold on the money supply we are pushed right back into the depths of depression. it wasn't until essentially we had no choice but to spend huge amounts of money going into the second world war, mobilizing the entire country that we really had enough velocity to get enough gravitational pull of the great depression. right now, europe is still using

austerity economics and it is crazy. and again, intuitively the craziness is obvious. i mean, if you're cutting your public budget at the same time you have high unemployment, at the same time you've got a lot of fat reason not to use in store fronts that are idle or bacon, then what's going to happen? u.s. demand to which means you have fewer jobs. you have less revenue coming into your, or spirit that means your entire deficit situation is going to get worse. you see it's a matter of sequencing. we do want to get the long-term budget deficit now. you need to spend enough. if the public spender you have to spend enough to get the economy going again. then when the economy is growing again, you need to start cutting the budget deficit. what i said around this town and

bonuses he is that we need a trigger. making the trigger is unemployment and 3% economic growth. over the trigger is, we need to trigger for commencing major deficit reduction. but the trigger is got to be related to jobs and growth. >> host: charles for a follow-up. >> caller: speaking of the triggers and things, i look over the history of america and our tax rate during times of prosperity and what i found is looking over history is on our tax rate is above 40, even higher is that america is doing it fast and when tax rates are down, i saw 125% when america was doing its worst. >> guest: that's an interesting point that charles

had because if you look at 30 years after the second world war, you see tax rates on the top, and i ain't charles may be referring to tax rates on the top income earners were never below 70% come even under dwight d. eisenhower. nobody would ever dare call the top tax rate 91%. that was to get rid of all the deductions and tax credits was still over 50%, probably 54, 56% on the highest income earners in those days. yet the economy in those decades on average were faster than the economy has grown in the last three decades, particularly after tax rates were reduced on top income earners. so the point is not that we need higher taxes on top income earners. the point is that if we want to get the budget deficit down eventually and also we want to have enough money to invest in

education infrastructure into everything listening for everyone else, then the top earners have got to be doing their fair share. >> host: we wouldn't be today if the $280 billion to the stimulus had gone to infrastructure? >> guest: well, i think we probably be better off if those tax rebates had gone to infrastructure because we put we learned about is the temporary tax rebates are saved. people are rational. they know it's temporary. if they are in debt or worried about having a enough money for the future, they say that money and that's rational for the individual, but not for the country because if everyone is saving uribe kaibito and it, and stimulate economic activity. generally speaking, infrastructure investment carries the bigger hunch in

terms of getting jobs going and the economy growing and tax rebates. >> host: that may go back to robert resch.org. you say i hear at least since 2010 we've been witnessing a quiet slow-motion coup d'état to repeal every bit as progressive legislation since the new deal and entrenched the wealthy and powerful. because specter earlier point about government spending. and yet critics including tammany slaves say the economy did not turn around until world war ii. new deal programs created new infrastructure, but did not turn on the great depression. >> guest: the new deal programs to start turning the economy around until 1937 when roosevelt himself turned around in terms of policy and budget deficit. my memory is that world war ii spending was the government program. so contrary to many conservatives say the new deal

didn't work for government spending doesn't work. they get us out of the great depression. what got us out of the great depression probably was government spending on a huge scale and i'm not recommending another war, believe me. i'm just saying in terms of the principal come the government is the spending of last resort when there so much underutilized and under employment. you to work at history. the other point you just raised on something i just wrote, that spurs on language when i talk about a quiet, secret slow-moving coup d'état. i don't mean that it any billionaire, you know, like the coke brothers who are imploring huge amounts of money into election are intentionally having a coup d'état. this is not a conspiracy. i think they would be appalled to think of this as a coup d'état. the effect of all of this under strict money coming from a

relatively small number of legionnaires and billionaires and big corporations and wall street, the effect if it is to change government as we know it is to remove the capacity of government to respond to average people, average working people and forced the attention of everybody on that bill. and much of the rest of the government around us on who is going to pay for that next set of ads or who's going to pay for the next campaign and where's the money coming from? file, the monies come from a smaller and smaller group of wealthy people. i mean, louis brandeis, the creature is supreme court justice at the end of the 19th century and the last area we had of the gilded age of concentrated income well said and i'm paraphrasing, we can have in this country either a democracy or we can have a huge

amount of the nation's income and wealth in the hands of a few people, but we can't have both. and he understood then and the gilded age exactly what we must understand now because we are in a new gilded age. >> host: stacy on the phone from kentucky. republican line, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i am wondering how you would want to take something that belongs to somebody else and give it to someone else. i'm first of all, i know something you're wrong about. this is not a democracy. this is a republic. and i am not supply-side communism. >> guest: while i'm not for supply-side anything and certainly not a place i'd communism. look, this comes down to a question. i need to me, the emphasis is wanting to make this a great

nation. not just national defense. the essence of patriotism is ever in doing their fair share? doing your fair share -- we had an income tax in this country since the first -- well, since the early years of the 20th century. state income taxes have been around even longer. income taxes are part of the price. oliver wendell holmes, the taxes of the price you pay for civilized society. you know, if you don't like what the point is doing with your tax money, then as i said initially, you have a civil responsibility to be an active citizen in to make sure the government has responded to at our citizens want and need. i think the big issue in washington is not what the size of the government, but the issue is who government dysphoria. except for the people are wall street, oil companies, you know, big insurance companies,

pharmaceutical industry? if government is actually working for a, we will have a government that we'll be proud to support with our tax. >> guest: the latest book is "beyond outrage." book number 13 for you? lines are open for robert reisch. nearly a trillion dollars spent the last three and half years. exactly how much more money is needed? >> guest: i don't know when i don't do gets only about -- only federal spending and state spending. i've long been an advocate of the exam in the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes for a couple of years. i think it is very important to provide employers, as the president wants to do come with some tax incentive to create new jobs. now these are tax cuts. these are tax incentives, not necessarily government spending.

there are a lot of things that can be done and should be done, steve. there is no magic allah, but we need to do them on a scale proportionate to the scale of the problem and that is why i am hoping that the president today in ohio will reveal some additional ideas and sort of bold concepts, even if you can't get through to republican house, he at least needs to come up with some bold ideas that americans can say, well yes i'm that make sense to me and we reelect you. we are going to support you and trying to do that. posted here is what the president said tuesday thinking about the economy in baltimore and the deficit. >> this notion that somehow because the deficit is just wrong. it's just not true. and anybody who looks at the math will tell you it's not

true. and if they start trying to give you a bunch of facts and figures, suggesting is true, what they are not telling you is they've thrown a step in the case of those tax-cut and the prescription drug plan they didn't pay for, all of this stuff with the interest payments is like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big stake dinner, martini, all that stuff and then just sit down, they leave. [laughter] and accuse you of running up the tab. that's what they do. >> host: secretary reisch, is the accurate? >> guest: he's actually really accurate. the latest gallup poll shows 60% of americans do blame the bush administration for getting us into this mess, but 52% also blamed obama for not doing

enough to get us out of the mess. look, the bush tax cuts of 2001, 2003, most of the benefits went to the very wealthy combined with bush's medicaid from the accent is on the road for huge budget to fit in complaining that with the stimulus package, which was in a few absolutely necessary. any time a government was suspended last resort. if we have not had any, we would be in a much worse position today. in fact, many think it should have been larger. that all created and contributed to a very large budget deficit. the number one problem today is not budget deficit. the number one problem is joblessness. people working part-time who want full-time jobs. jobs coming back to slowly and economic growth but still sputter and the recent economic

growth is coming back so slowly and jobs are coming back so slowly. the reason is that consumers don't have enough money to turn around and then. nor as conservatives like to say because there's not enough tax breaks for wealth the americans or for corporations. corporations are doing fine. wealthy americans have never done as well. average americans need tax breaks and the need for money in the pockets to coin a phrase. >> guest: they left no stake for martini. just though. good morning to you. thank you for reading. >> caller: yes, i'm calling regarding the depletion of arguments services future of hospitals for resellers.

it has been my observation as a contractor for 30 years and taxes that illegal immigration is wrote about him and why we don't talk about it i don't understand. >> guest: torquay, undoubted undocumented immigrants have caused some stress on some budget, local budgets. during this recession i'm going to say this recession because pursuant gravitation is a great recessions begin because immigration has declined in all the evidence is undocumented workers have declined. the reason they come to the united states as for workers. if there's not workers, obviously they're not going to come here. the problem right now is not a problem. over the long term we have to come up at the rate of regularizing and customized them and dealing with undocumented

workers. that is not the core of the issue right now. the issue right now is on the demand side. an adequate demand. and steve, going back to what we were singing a little while ago. one of the great fears is there is so much money pouring into the five o. one c. for wealth care organizations and super packs. used to put advertising on the air that tells the american public a set of huge lies. you know, the big lie told over and over again becomes the truth. but people here will get jobs back a t. corporations and tax rakes to the wealthy. the budget deficit is the number one problem. we should start cutting right now. when they are sent a lot of economic nonsense, but they are fed in such great dollars is so much money behind it coming from

organizations or crossroads or any organized nations, you have the situation in which americans are being led into way. poster listen to what romney said yesterday. >> i think you'll see him change course when he speaks tomorrow and where he will acknowledge that it isn't going so well and hubby asking for former gears. decided three years any so, he wants four more years. my own view is he will speak eloquently, but the words are cheap and that the record of an individual as a basis on which you determine whether they should continue to turn onto their jobs. the president's team indicated if we pass the stimulus of $787 borrowed that they hold unemployment below 80%. we've gone 40 straight months with unemployment about 8%.

post of that is a message that romney and his can gain referring to the president today in cleveland on the economy. >> guest: it's ironic that romney accuses the president of saying thanks for not doing things that those words are cheap. that romney has said everything to everybody. it's hard to figure out what he stands for. imus had a chance to run against him but i won the democratic primary. the same one set of things. now he's saying the republican primaries he was saying a completely different set of things. words are very cheap. granted the question that romney had to answer and i hope the president answers today is given where we are right now and given that what has -- the president has tried and republican congress has tried to stop us and not good is out of the great

recession, but what next? what can the president do next? not what this republican house. he's not going to get anything. mitch mcconnell and the senate made clear three years ago of their number one goal to get rid of barack obama. no, what i think obama needs to say to the american people this year is what i've tried to do. here's what they'd stop me from doing in here is what i will do if you give me a congress that is going to cooperate with me. >> host: robert reisch come his latest book is "beyond outrage." his website is proper reisch.org and they can probably wear on twitter?

>> one of the quote from the house staff that i thought was exceptionally inspiring as once you realize the magnitude of difference eakin make in public life, everything else will pay in. >> i think someone from the white house came in dead a quote and those who think that they're crazy not to change the world are the ones that actually do. >> mr. primus and a crisper is talking about shuster lint executable lsa. that and a lot to me because too many times we find ourselves

taking to make things, not focusing on the web thing they should be a top priority. >> and so i started with a mind that of what is it like to be them? and now that i'm in this role, what could they share with time that either i wish i had known along the way for that they will remember when they leave washing and commotion as you mentioned is a very intense, rapid fire? if he lived a few key encouraging messages at a time where you know that it's very easy to be cynical about politics, it can to encourage young people to pursue

>> senate foreign relations committee chairman, john kerry pushes for the u.s. to join the treaty by hauling two hearings on the subject today. the u.n. convention governs how nations is international waters. the committee heard from current military officials this morning included the pressure when the chief of naval operations. in the afternoon, senators welcomed former defense secretary donald rumsfeld who opposes the u.s. joining the treaty and former deputy secretary of state, john negroponte is in favor of it. >> we are very pleased to welcome six individuals with

long and remarkably distinguished careers in defense of america's security. admiral jamesa winnefeld and the joint chiefs of staff, admiral jonathan greenert, paired commandant of the u.s. coast guard. general william adams fraser the third is commander. general charros h. jacoby at the u.s. northern command. and at earl samuel jay locklear is commander of the u.s. pacific command. i can't think of any time, certainly not since i've been here and i doubt even before that police had so many top military leaders come before the senate foreign relations committee of and time. and i thank you all for being

here. i want to make clear why the committee is so interested in this testimony and why it is so important. there are many people and some people who raise questions about the treaty, inevitably as they have any treaty that we've ever passed. but this treaty, particularly has two components that those of us in the country. one is from all the economic components as we will have a hearing shortly with major leaders from american industry, mining industry, oil and gas, communications, others in the transportation who are deeply to their about the legality of their claims should be capitalized and then millions of

dollars exploiting resources from the ocean seabed and that is worth enormous competitive advantage to the united states advantage ms word and ms numbers of jobs. secondly there is a very significant national security component to this. each of them in the runway will have an ability to be able to share with america their individual reasons. they differ in some cases for the support event without passage of this treaty. and in some totowa second time rationale for why this is in america's interest. and the committee this afternoon will have some opponents of the treated area and others who want to come in and oppose it because

they think it's very, very important whether or not we are committed to hear from everybody. so the senate can vote the strongest record possible and then at and wisdom based on facts. in based on that record that is compiled here. we heard from secretary of state condoleezza clinton. secretary of defense, william panetta. i would've heard from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. in addition to support from the witnesses to today, we have letters than emerge ratification of the treaty from general mattis, commander of u.s. central command, general fraser, commander of u.s. southern command, commander of the u.s. european command, admiral mccray then, commander of the special operations command and general taylor, commander of u.s. strategic command.

and i will place each of those records in each of those letters in the record so that people can read them in full. we do want to have an open and honest discussion regarding this. the important thing in building the record regarding this treaty. today we are going to focus on the national security component. at the appropriate time, after the election we will have a full senate classified briefing because it is classified material needs to be digested by members of the senate, but it ain't the appropriate time after the election. as the world's most -- foremost maritime power, our national security interests are tragically linked to freedom of navigation. there's a reason that every

living chief of naval operations has supported the u.s. recessions of locking seat during the time that they were saving it chief of naval operations. they know that the united states needs the treaty's navigational bill of rights for worldwide access for our troops to sustain them during the fight to get back home without the permission of other countries are without the diversion of having to force funds by and to those passages and have a secondary struggle apart from the primary conflict that one might be engaged in. critics say that these navigational provisions are nothing new because they're already protected under customary international law. but most legal experts say most practical analysts of our security will tell you that relying on customary international law puts the legal

basis for actions outside of our ultimate control. i joining, would max buys u.s. influence on the treaty bodies that play a role in interpreting, applied in developing the law of the sea. former secretaries of a commander kissinger, george shultz, james baker, colin powell and condoleezza rice recently wrote an op-ed driving this point home and i just want to quote it. some say it's good enough to protect her navigational interest of customary international law. if that approach fails, we can use threatened to do so. but customary law doesn't provide a strong foundation for critical national security rice. what's more, the u.s. force can be risky, costly. turning the commission to put our vital rates on a firmer legal basis, gaining legal authorities, legal certainty and

legitimacy as we operate in the world's largest international zone. i would call everybody's attention to the full-page advertisement in today's "wall street journal" featuring the five secretaries, all of them cite these reasons for why they believe we should ratify this treaty. the bottom line is this, do we really want to entrust our national security to anon read that of rules, where our security with enhanced by having clarity ahead of time class is there any other area in which we choose to believe in important matters of security sent there because they are a lover have an option not to? the heir to both questions is no. just look at the numbers of treaties we have engaged in with respect to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and other issues. we need to join the treaty to ensure critical navigational rights in high seas freedoms are

dead. nowhere is the nexus between our national security in this treaty more clear than the south china sea. becoming a party would give an immediate boost to u.s. credibility as we push back against excessive maritime claims and other code restrictions and our warships and commercial vessels and those of our allies. ..

they entail a degree of risk, and our navy can't be everywhere at once, no matter what the size of our fleet. as leaders and citizens we owe it to our men and women in uniform to provide them with every available means at our disposal to perform their dangerous mission. i'm not advocating that we replace a strong military with a piece of paper. i would never do that nor anyone that abdicates this. what i'm advocating is common sense and giving the military all the tools that it needs for good general dempsey said it best. this treaty would end a quote, provide us an additional tool for navigating an increasingly complex and competitive security environment. ratification would also give the united states greater credibility and legitimacy as we

seek to hold others to the treaties terms. if we demonstrate by deed, not just by words, america's commitment to the rule of law can strengthen the foundation and the alliances and partnerships that are critical to u.s. national security and global stability. so i -- you don't have to take my word for that but let me quote our current secretary of defense. secretary panetta says, we are pushing for a rules-based order in the region and the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes in the south china sea and the straits of hormuz and elsewhere. how can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven't joined a very treaty that codifies those rules? i think that's exactly right. the law of the sea insures and secures the right that we need

for our military and commercial ships to meet our core national security requirements. now, some will say that perhaps we shouldn't bother joining the treaty because china and other countries and other parties don't always follow the rules. it's true we don't always but it doesn't make sense to be able to force them to our hold them accountable. i will tell you and you will hear the testimony. there are occasions when our secretaries have raised these issues with the chinese from ozzie on to elsewhere in the chinese look at us and say you are not even a party to the treaty. who are you to tell us? the united states is the greatest maritime how are in the world, the greatest maritime power the world has ever seen. we have the strongest navy and our economy relies heavily on our imports and exports that

moved by the sea. as a result we have an enormous stake in ensuring a stable and predictable set of rules for the oceans, joining the treaty helps us do this. so with that, i welcome our distinguished witnesses again. thank you for bringing your expertise to this committee at this important moment and we look forward to hearing your insight. senator lugar. >> thank you mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming our distinguished military panel and foreign relations committee. i want to underscore for my colleagues the fundamental starting point for this hearing. the commander in chief, the joint chiefs of staff, the united states navy, the united states coast guard and individual combatant commanders are asking the senate to give advice and consent at the law of the sea convention. our uniformed commanders are telling us unanimously that u.s.

it accession to this treaty would help them do their job in a time of considerable international threat. we have charged the united states navy with maintaining sea lines and defending our nation's interests on the high seas. they do this every day and even in peacetime these peacetime these operations carry considerable risk. the navy is telling us that u.s. membership in the law of the sea convention is a tool they need to maximize their ability to protect the united states national security with the least risk to the men and women charged with that task. this request is not the result of a recent reassessment by naval authorities or the enthusiasm of a few naval leaders. the support of the military and the navy for this treaty has

been consistent, sustained and unequal. all the members of the joints chiefs support, advise and consent. their predecessors likewise supported the convention. as seven wrote in a joint letter back in 1998, quote, there are no downsides to this treaty. it contains expansive terms which we may use to maintain forward presence and preserve u.s. maritime superiority. it also has the vitally important provisions which guard against the dilution of our navigational freedoms and prevent the growth of new forms of excessive maritime claims. end of quote. now the military is not always right, but the overwhelming presumption in the united states senate has been that its military leaders asked us for something to help them do their job. we do our best to provide them

with that tool within the constraints of law and responsible budgeting. articles and statements opposing this convention often avoid mentioning the military's long-standing support for law of the sea. this is because to oppose the convention on national security grounds requires one to say that military leaders who have commanded fleets in times of war and peace and who have devoted their lives to naval and military studies have illegitimate opinions. those critics who do mention the military support sometimes spin theories as to why this military would back this treaty. one explanation that was offered in 2007 was that somehow military commanders had been misled by their service lawyers,

the former intelligence briefer to the cno admiral. i can attest the cno's are not easy to deceive. these are some of the most talented and politically adept individuals who serve our nation. the suggestion that cno's, service chiefs, other military leaders, are blithely allowing themselves to be led astray by defense department lawyers is nonsense. other critics have suggested that military support for the convention is simply a function of top uniformed officers taking orders from presidents and secretaries of defense. this theory relies on a simplistic understanding of how military decisions are made and it fails to explain why he navy's leaders have continued to support the law of the sea convention long after they have left active duty.

still other critics suggest that the navy's expression that it will be able to maintain freedom of navigation with or without u.s. ratification of the law of the sea means that it is unnecessary or even undesirable but the navy assertions that it will protect sea lanes under any circumstances does not relieve us of the responsibility to give them tools, to make their job less arduous, less expensive, less complex and certainly less dangerous. the navy will always have a can-do attitude regarding freedom of navigation issues, but that should not make his cavalier about the seriousness of their requests for the law of the sea. navy leaders are not looking for a substitute for naval power. they are hoping for a tool that will help resolve navigation disputes with all types of

nations including allies. they are hoping for a tool that will allow them to reduce the share of naval assets that must be devoted to freedom of navigation missions. the ongoing debate and delay in ratifying the convention would need just an interesting political science case. is the united states were not facing serious consequences because of our non-participation. as a non-party, we have little say in the amendments that can rollback navigational rights that we thought hard to achieve. and as a nonparty, our ability to influence the decisions of a commission on the limits of the continental shelf is severely constrained. every year that goes by without the united states joining the convention deepens our countries

submission to ocean laws and practices determined by foreign governments without u.s. input. i thank once again our distinguished panel for joining us today and we certainly look forward to their testimony and a thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much senator lugar. i appreciate it. senator corker and i think senator risch i don't think you were here when i mentioned, we will have a classified racing at the appropriate time down the road and senator demint and i think the senators will be interested -- i want to recognize that our colleague, former colleague and former secretary of the navy is here and we are delighted to have him as part of the proceedings and i think he has a number of friendly admirals, retired, who

are here with him and we appreciate their interest in this. i neglected to mention i think today is the army's birthday. is that correct? happy birthday to all members of the united states army and they think it's your birthday general jacoby tomorrow so we wish you many happy returns, sir. we will begin with, in this order if you will, vice chairman winnefeld and then chief naval operations greenert, coast guard commandant papp, general fraser, admiral jacoby and admiral locklear. >> distinguish members of the foreign relations committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on this topic. i appear today is a career sailor, former combatant commander and at my current position all assignments that have informed my perspectives on

the law of the sea convention. it's also privileged to appear alongside another generation of military leaders as we join in sharing the view that now is the time for the united states to join the law of the sea convention. i have come to my own judgment on this not informed by lawyers or actually informed but not influenced by lawyers. joining this treaty will have positive implications for our operations across the maritime domain. the convention improves on previous agreements including the 1958 geneva convention. it will further protect our access to the maritime domain. it will fortify our credibility is the world's leading naval power and allow us to bear the full force of our influence on maritime disputes. in short it preserves what we have and gives us yet another tool to engage in a nation that would threaten our maritime interests. we have listened very closely over the many years to the rationale for why we should not exceed to the convention including a number of items and

the public debate and we take these concerns very seriously. we read this and we study it and we want to understand it. i would say some say that joining the convention would result in a loss of sovereignty with the united states. i believe just the opposite to beach group. some would say some of these hobbits and the like was said during the convention would open u.s. navy operations to the jurisdiction of international courts. we know this is not true. the 2007 proposed senate declarations and understanding specifically express our right to attempt military activities from the convention. many other nations of the community have already exempted their military activities from the treaty without dispute. some say that joining the convention will require us to surrender our sovereignty over our warships and other military vessels. i can assure you that we will not let this happen and the convention does not require it. if anything, it further protects

our sovereignty in this regard well before we would have to resort to any use of force. others say it will cause us to have to alter our rules of engagement. this is also false. i can tell you joining the dimension would not fire any change whatsoever in the rules of engagement that we employ today including and especially our right to self-defense. still others say that it means her naval activities will be restricted and are beyond areas in which we now operate. rather, if we do not join the convention, we are at more risk than ever of nations attempting to impose such limitations under evolving interpretations of customary international law. that body of law is non-static. joining the convention will protect us from ongoing and persistent efforts the part of a number of nations including those and economic and military power to advance their national laws and set precedence that could restrict our maritime

activities particularly within the bounds of their exclusive economic cells. we attached the term block fair to the zephyr these effort the zephyr tours of the protection of customary international law. is a trend that is real and that could place your navy at a legal disadvantage unless we join the convention. and the nations that would challenge us in this and other ways are frankly delighted that we are not a party to the convention. joining will also give us a stronger moral standing to support partners who are being intimidated over questions of sovereignty that should be resolved easily and tastefully involuntarily under the convention. candidly, i joined my boss, secretary panetta and marty dempsey, and finding it awkward to suggest that other nations should all of the rules that we have not yet at read to ourselves. joining will give the ability to influence key decisions that could affect our sovereign rights and those of our partners and friends in the arctic and

elsewhere in this grows more important each day. the row question to me is whether our country will choose to lead in the maritime environment from the inside or will follow from the outside. senator you know i tell my sons their three kinds of people in this world, those who make things happen, those who watch what happens and those who wonder what happens. i do not want to see a united states or our navy or coast guard wondering what happened when key decisions potentially detrimental to our sovereignty are made in our absence by the 161 members of the treaty. our recommendations to join reflect nearly two decades of military leaders who have studied this problem closely and are of right to the same conclusion that ratification is in our best interest. today i join these officers including every chairman of the joint chiefs and signed in 94 and giving my support to the law of the sea convention and asking for your device and consent. i thank you or the opportunity to appear this morning and i look forward to your questions.

thank you. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. admiral fraser. >> thank you chairman kerry and distinguished members of the committee. i'm honored to appear before each discuss the law of the sea convention. you'll have to excuse me, the little bit of laryngitis but i will get through this. this morning i would like to make three points if i may. number one the law of the sea convention will help ensure the access that the navy needs to operate fully and senator are operating forward is what we are back. that is when we are it her best and that is what we serve the nation has. that is the key to our effectiveness. number to copy a commission will provide a consistent framework with legal certainty to settle maritime disputes member three convention will ensure we remain consistent with their principles and enhance enhancer multilateral cooperation. that i have found an interface with my heads of navy around the world. as the world's preeminent maritime power the u.s. navy

will benefit from the support the convention provides our operations. especially if broad navigational rights guaranteed on the high season inside exclusive economic zones of other nations. or example in the past several years, some nations in the middle east and the asian-pacific region have complained about u.s. navy survey ships operating within their exclusive economic zones. commanders have consistently responded by asserting our rights under the convention and customary international law however our argument would carry much more weight if the u.s. were a party to the convention. joining the convention we give our day-to-day maritime operations a firmer codified legal foundation that would enable and strengthen our military efforts and won't limit them. the convention provides a formal and consistent framework for peaceful resolutions of maritime disputes. the convention defines the extent of the control that nations can legally assert and prescribe procedures and

peacefully resolve differences. it's an important elephant preventing disagreements from escalating into a confrontation or potential conflict. the recent parents with their operations in the west of the pacific and some rhetoric about closing the strait of hormuz underscored the need to be able to use the convention to clearly identify and respond to violations of international law that might attempt to constrain ourccess. is a member of the convention or bailout t. to press the rule of law and to peacefully ensure confidence will certainly be enhanced. remaining outside of the convention is outside of our principles. relating position in maritime affairs. our forces in the u.s. specifically and raving gold lead in maritime force that enforces maritime security in the greater middle east. out of the 26 nations that serve deserve in this coalition only three including the united states are not up to the

convention. this coalition research rights are are on a daily basis under the counter piracy and render assistance to vessels in danger. however america's status as a non-party to the convention is sometimes questioned by our coalition partners. exceeding to the convention on hands or position as the leader of that coalition and a leader in the world of maritime nations in the middle east and elsewhere. enclosing aided by the framework provided by the convention, your navy will continue to be critical to a nations security and prosperity. i appreciate the committee's long-standing support of the men and women of the navy and i look forward to working with you as we address the challenges. thank you senator. >> thank you very much, sir. we appreciated. >> good morning chairman kerry senator graham to distinguish merits of the committee. it's my privilege to testify before you today on how the united states should've stayed to the law of the sea convention

because all of hands because guards operation in maritime leadership. my six previous commandants i urge you to a seed without further delay. having served in six coast guard cutters commanding for them i view things through sailor side. my fictional hero captain jack aubrey of patrick o'brian's master commander book series always positioned himself his ship in battle so he could hold the weather gauge. the ship with the weather gage is upwind has greater ability to maneuver relative to other ships and maintains its position of advantage and is able to dictate the terms of engagement. i can think of no better analogy to describe the law of the sea convention in providing the coast guard with the weather gage to protect americans on the sea are protect america from threats from the sea and to protect the sea itself. since the founding of our nation american prosperity has dependent upon having safe reliable and secure maritime trade. today the convention's

provisions set forth the global maritime framework among other things. the convention's provisions contain internationally recognized sovereign maritime boundaries as a framework reapplied upon to aid mariners in distress to protect our fish stocks, to enter stock traffickers attempting to deliver drugs persons and other illegal cargoes to our shores in per server maritime sovereignty navigational rights and freedoms. india their many bilateral and multilateral law enforcement agreements that we rely upon to stop drug smugglers interdict human traffickers and protect our oceans are predicated upon expansion. these agreements which have been described as the fabric of the law of the sea are concluded, interpreted and enforced under the conventions framework. the convention also provides us with a large exclusive economic zone of any coastal state. our emacs e contains energy and other resources.

beyond the emacs e lies extended continental shelf. it's a new frontier that contains 20 to 30% of the world on tap fossil fuel resources. the convention that contains the mechanisms to seek an insurance or national recognition of our sovereign ecs rights. joining the convention will not only put the sovereign rights on the strongest legal footing but will also bolster our ability to ensure stewardship of our resources. there is no better example of this than the emerging ability to plan and allocate resources depends on part upon the delineation of maritime boundaries, sovereign rights, privileges and freedoms. as we work alongside our partner nations on issues of governance, such as cooperative search-and-rescue agreements oil spill prevention and response of protocols and delineation of maritime claims we remain the only arctic nation that is not a party to the convention.

being a non-party but detracts from her ability to best provide the security and stewardship of our fast resource rich maritime and emerging art domains are for for the convention contains established legal framework for the oceans on my customary international law which can change, the convention codifies this framework and we followed this remark. we demand others to do so yet we remain out side of it. in sailors terms this post is downwind and forces us to tack up into the wind when we should be leading on maritime issues. that is what i'm urging you to seize the weather gage and to a seed to the convention. thank you for this opportunity to testify and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. we appreciated. general fraser. >> general carried ranking member lugar, it's indeed my distinct privilege to be here representing the united states transportation command. i appreciate this opportunity to

testify concerning the law of the sea convention and i joined other senior military officers both past and present who support the law of the sea convention. the united states transportation command is the department of defense's distribution process owner and global distribution synchronizer responsible for planning global deployment and distribution operations. the u.s. transcom relies on unfettered global mobility, unimpeded flow of cargo by air, sea and strategic choke points and unchallenged access to the world's navigational fire military assets and our commercial industry partners to support our forces around the globe. on any given day u.s. transcom has approximately 30 ships loading, unloading or underway and we have a mobility aircraft taking off and landing every 90 seconds. these assets are operated by her military components and our commercial partners.

it is vital that we maintain freedom of the high seas and international overflight routes for military and commercial operations. as these freedoms are essential to our nations strategic mobility. our military conducts activities and operations across air, ocean and sea lanes. unobstructed lanes is paramount for transportation command as we provide support and sustainment to your warfighters around the world. for example, our civilian air carriers and transporters transport almost all of our military passengers and much of our cargo over the oceans and sea lanes. unhindered overflight of these transports is crucial to our mission success. moreover, the vast majority for military equipment and supplies are transported around the world through ocean and sea lanes by our commercial partners.

they conduct these movements typically without escort or onboard security teams. in today's environment we assess our navigation and overflight rights through international law. to better secure our global access joining the law of the sea convention would provide a solid legal foundation to our military and commercial partners and transport the lifeline of supplies and equipment for warfighters around the globe. specifically a session of the law of the sea convention secures overflight operated by her military and commercial partners. the law of the sea convention protects her military mobility by legally binding favorable transit rights to support our ability to operate around the globe anytime and anywhere. are industry partners will be internationally protected as they transit the strategic choke points from the straits of gibraltar to the straits of malacca and hormuz. as we move forward and look to

future challenges the law of the sea convention is essential to our national strategy and security. chairman kerry, ranking member lugar and all members of this committee i want to thank you for your continued support of the united states transportation command all of our men and women in uniform and especially their families. i'm grateful for this opportunity to be here today with my distinguished colleagues at this table in the past of my written statement be submitted for the record and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much gentleman. let me just say that all written testimonies will be placed in the record in full as it delivered in full and we look forward to having it as part of the record. general jacoby. >> chairman kerry senator lugar distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear today. as commander of u.s. northern command i'm assigned responsibility for military defense of our continental united states homeland in nearby waters. as commander of north american aerospace defense command i'm

assigned responsibility for maritime and aerospace warning and aerospace control to the governments of the united states and canada. they saw my command responsibilities principally in the arctic my experience and their changing operating environment, believe there's compelling reason for the united states to a seed to the law of the sea convention for the safety and security of our homeland. and a maritime environment our defensive operations are best served by a clear stable rules-based cooperative international framework that helps our friends and allies work with us, helping us to be the security partner of choice. securities one of the five lines of operations delineated in u.s. northern command theater campaign plan. u.s. accession to the convention joining all the other seven arctic nations would be helpful in supporting peaceful opening of the arctic which is my mission and in dealing with non-arctic states that have shown an interest in resolving

sovereignty, natural resource come infrastructure communication, navigation military presence in public safety issues in the arctic has human activity increases. for maritime warning mission that accession will help us establish the global operational relationships that are critical to information sharing, recognition of patterns of activity and quick identity nation of safety on the security and defense issues. we are grateful for everything the members of this community of done to ensure ability to defend our citizens here at home. i'm honored to be here and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you are good general locklear. >> chairman kerry senator lugar and members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the subject of strategic importance on how it relates to the asian-pacific region request the commander of the united states pacific command i join my colleagues and my other combatant commanders in

recommending that the united states accede to the law of the sea convention. after careful reflection i am fully confident that are a session to the convention will advance u.s. national security interests in the command responsibility progression of this region is as per, we maritime. covers have the planet. it's home to three dozen nations, over 3.6 billion people, the world's largest economies with significant part of our national economy, the world's largest military as well as some of the most important sea and their lines of communication. as the united states military executes are rebalancing of the pacific, a seating to the convention is essential to locking in a stable legal framework of the maritime domain that is favorable to our national interest and preserves our access to this critical region. and as the pacific power the united states must continue to lead the effort and maintain

security in the region which has defended freedom, enable prosperity and protected east there in that area for more than six decades. joining the commission will reinforce the united states the international leadership in the maritime domain. the convention specifically codifies the rights, freedoms and the uses of the sea that are critical for our forces to operate in the waters of the asian-pacific region. as the populations and economies of the asia-pacific region continued to grow, competing claims in the maritime domain by some coastal states are becoming more numerous and contentious. some of these claims if left unchallenged will put us at risk for operational rights and our freedoms in key areas of the asia-pacific. nowhere is this more prevalent than in the south china sea where claimants have asserted broad territorial sovereignty rights over land features, see space and resources in the area.

convention is an important opponent component of the rules-based approach that urges peaceful resolution of the maritime disputes. more with the convention codifies an effective talents maritime state rights, a stable legal framework that we help to negotiate that is favorable to our interests and that we should leverage as we check on the states that attempt to assert such maritime claims. currently the united states is forced to rely on customary international law as a basis for starting our rights and freedoms of the maritime domain and because we are not a party of the convention are challenges are less credible than they might otherwise be. by joining the convention we place ourselves in a much position to command adherence to the rules contained in it, rules that we have been protected from the outside since the 80's and before. thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important commission as it relates to this region and i looked forward to your questions.

>> thank you -- thank you very much at my thank you offered testimony. let me begin, i want to try to clear up something that senator lugar opened up in his opening comments. some in our very diverse media platforms that we have today, whether it's an editorial or a blog or whatever, have tried to suggest oh you know, these guys in the military are just coming there because the administration is told him to come there. they are going to say what they have to say that we can sort of discounted. so i want to get right at that right up front if i can. are each of you -- i believe when confirmed you agreed before the senate that you will live up to sort of

individual advice that is in your conscience and so forth. but are you appearing today, any of you, under any kind of covert shin or are you here because you believe in this treaty and you're expressing your personal view to the senate as the best advise that you can give to the senate to perform our function? >> i would invite my colleagues to speak as well but nobody twisted my arm in any way to be here today. i am here because i believe we should ratify the treaty. >> the reason to have given for the treaty for reasons that you believe. what they run through the list of the order you testified or however you must do it. >> senator i am here to give you my best professional military by some the treaty as i support the treaty fully. >> yes sir as i said my opening comments as a practitioner and a person who has been out there operating on the seas for nearly four decades i believe this and more than anything else i

believe in it because we have young lieutenants are commanding control both ends law enforcement boardings and they need the clarity and the nudity and the predictability that this convention provides in terms of making the determinations on a daily basis on jurisdictional issues and other things. >> chairman, i am here here to math because i want to be, especially because of not only the extensive career that i have had and been on the receiving end of certainly the support that operators like transcom have provided but also because of my study of this convention, and engaging our commercial partners and the need for us to be able to deploy, sustained and return home are warfighters whether they are supporting humanitarian operations are responding to another -- i will

provide my honest assessment. >> chairman kerry i am here to support the law of the sea based on my professional responsibilities and my experiences as a commander in every theater and i am fully committed to this approach. thank you. >> you senator kerry, the men and women of pacific command, they live this issue every day. they are confronted with the aspects of ambiguities and being a part of this treaty. i'm here because i support this treaty. i support with the framework gives the military commanders and those that work under me our ability to make decisions that will be in the best interest of this nation. it will be in the best interest of ensuring that we can follow the rule of law and not have miscalculations and in directions we would not want to go as a nation so i'm here to support this treaty and both

professionally and i personally supported. >> i thank each of you. i had no doubt thought it was important to have those statements on the record and i appreciate your candid answers. admiral winnefeld, you made a statement in the beginning of your testimony that you talked about the displacing of this notion about giving up our sovereignty. in fact he said it's the opposite. we would be growing our sovereignty. preliminary studies indicate that the extended continental shelf, which we -- it's not fully defined yet and part of the reason as i understand it is to have that clarity about our extended continental shelf. but right now the estimate are that the continental shelf we would have exclusive rights to could conceivably be as high as 1 million square kilometers, an

area twice the size of california, nearly half of the louisiana purchase. so what we are looking at here, are we not come as the opportunity for us to in fact gained exclusivity and gain clarity with respect to the rights of a vast area of additional land mass in the united states. is that accurate? >> yes, sir. >> and can you sort of explained -- some people say what the heck, we have the strongest navy in the world and we pay a lot of money for it, nobody's going to stand up to us. we are just going to go out and do what we want to do and need to do and if somebody gets in our way we will enforce it. what is wrong with that? >> there are a couple of things specifically relates to the continental shelf notwithstanding the benefits which will be covered in a different setting before the committee. we would have much more control over, as you point out, the extended continental shelf or as of today theoretically absent

a clear delineation of the shelf somebody could come in and prospect for resources that the 201-mile.away from our coastline which if it is defined away we think about to be defined under the convention, and now there comes the question of how we would have to enforce that under existing customary law or the full force of the convention behind him. >> well what is wrong with the approach of people who say we will just go in and kick them out? what the heck? >> of the president tells us to that we certainly would be willing and able to do that but i think we would rather play legal approach before we got to the potential use of force. >> admiral papp can you stay to this question added sovereignty? >> absolutely certain of almost of us and the theme of this is looking at national defense i would suggest the national security is only part of that as

defense and it's also economic security, or mental security energy see and others that come into the whole situation national security. when we are talking about the extended continental shelf and the determinations on where it might be, we need that clarity and i have a slightly more nuanced view perhaps that my colleagues, because the coast guard is one of the five armed services that have the responsibility for law enforcement, u.s. laws on our waters and on the high seas so we look at it from a law enforcement perspective. use of force is one of our last resort and abiding to the rule of law so we have two think on a daily basis how we conduct our law enforcement operations and we need the predictability, the stability of what those determinations are based upon which the convention gives us. >> senator lugar. the gentleman, you have

discussed to areas that i want to touch upon in these questions. one of them was the growing complexity of the arctic situation. this may in part because of the developing of ice close or the ambitions of other countries to create sea lanes to have commerce in the arctic well beyond as we said before and it does raise points that you made that it's not really clear this determines the law-enforcement naught not of sovereignty but simply of indiscretion as the very people involved, or a rescue missions, for people who get caught are in a situation of who does what and how all of this will be worked out. i'm hopeful that one or more of you are doing some scholarly work that is going to be of help to explain what the

circumstances are for ac which either expand or constricts or so forth quite apart from at what the claims may be in terms of sovereignty of all of the boundaries. but i want to talk specifically on the pacific because i had an interesting visit last week and some of us visited with the president of the philippines who came over. it's a very good time in terms of our relations with the philippines because of the growing of their economy. president aquino is a straightforward honest president of the philippines and furthermore, the philippines having rejected recent years now is very concerned about definition of where their rights are as far as the chinese. the philippines joined vietnam, indonesia and other countries in

wondering precisely who is going to enforce what and for a variety of reasons in part because of these laws of the sea questions have come into the orbit of our diplomacy and in a way that we have not seen in the last decade. now let me just ask anyone of you, how are we going to work to define who poems or governs or commands wide in the south china sea in particular, and in that large area between china and the philippines with their extraordinary resources and very little definition of who has what and for the moment it great deal of reliance upon the united states police to bring some definition to this. if we don't have the law of the sea, the question is, how do we

define it and what are we prepared to do and what are the american people prepared to do? it's one thing to talk about enforcing this and going to war over it but at least in the old days this required a declaration because people really wanted to know. can anyone give me some idea of where we are headed in the pacific and the south china sea particularly? >> yes, sir, i can. in the south china sea you have a think a great example of how the law of the sea should play out correctly. because of globalization, the things that move in the oceans and move in the south china sea, half the energy supplies of the world move through their daily and one third of our economy

moves through their daily and all the things we have talked about so there are competing claims from the various coastal states in their and you know we can talk about china but they're a number of countries that have excess of lives and they are into areas. what is in territorial disputes and the others other said maritime disputes. so what the law of the sea would give us, gives a framework on territorial disputes which the u.s. takes no position on territorial disputes between the philippines and the chinese or any other excessive territorial claim that the law of the sea would give a framework for them to be able to have that dialogue in a peaceful way. our perspective is that we don't want coercion, we don't -- we want things done peacefully and we want them done and a framework that allows that to happen and my understanding is that the law of the sea allowed

that vehicle and in the asean nations in particular. the other side is excessive airtime claims which are really -- clearly laid out in the law of the sea and these are critical to us so we can maintain our unimpeded access to those areas for the future that allows us to provide if you want to call it a security deterrent that allows us to -- we have seven in the world in five of them are in this region and ensuring that our allies and perspectives are looked at properly through a rule of law that allows us to continue to operate freely is important so this is why the law of the sea convention is important. >> yes, sir? >> senator there is one other nuance. i've been watching this and one

of the things we have seen china doing is and is an indication that they they're operating under the rule of law they are in fact many times their maritime patrol vessels more or less their coast guard vessels which are less provocative rather than sending large navy ships out there. once again portraying themselves as following the rule of law and acting within the convention. we have no means of disputing that unless we are parties to the convention because i am involved with the chinese and north pacific coast guard for him and whenever we address issues like this their first response is that you are not a party to the convention and it puts us in a difficult situation to deal with and it makes our work much harder. >> senator if i may make a comment. one of the things i would like to pursue and the south china sea is one part of the ocean. i organize, train, equip and deliver ships to general locker and others and we are looking forward to what i call the dependable predictive behavior

by the elements in these maritime crossroads such as the south china sea. and each interaction ends up to be a debate or a confrontation, it becomes unpredictable and then you get be unprepared if you will end you get this debate which is okay if everybody is agreed upon with the customary international law is but it evolves and becomes domestically derived in some locations. that is kind of what we have right now in the south china sea zoe to say to ourselves ourselves how do we preclude this? will? will we should talk and so we perceive things like the military maritime consulted agreement talks with china for example and there are others. i host had said maybe every two years in the international seapower symposium. having something like the law of the sea convention as it looks that we all have agreed to do is

sit down and say okay let's talk about the protocols that we are all going to agree to or what is the basis of this agreement would be very helpful. >> i appreciate that in and each of you know that we have the so-called pivot of our national defense toward the south china sea, towards the pacific. that is why it is very crucial both in terms of what we are talking about today as well as our overall national attention to foreign-policy. thank you very much. >> yes thank you senator lugar. senator hard on. >> thank you and let me thank you all for your leadership and your service to our country. yuval indicated that you support the ratification of the law of the sea treaty. we have been at least in discussions of this for almost 20 years so this has been an issue that has been around the united states senate for a long time. i would like to get from you and assessment as to whether this is something that would be nice to get out of the way and done or whether this is an important

issue as it relates to our national security. >> i can start off, sir. i think it is an important issue relating for national security. summit pointed out that there are no operations that we have been unable to conduct because they have not become a party to the convention and that in fact is true but as we look to the future we see some of the erosions of customary international law that have been referred to by admiral subfour and papp. we would rather not wait until that becomes a crisis for us and we would rather get the treaty ratified now so we have a fundamental basis and international treaty law for us to do we need to do and so we believe it is an issue for national security mostly in the future. >> is there any disagreement on that or further clear indication? >> if i may, senator the arctic

as mentioned earlier by senator lugar is a new area. i don't know what is customary affair and we are going to be defining our behavior and protocols up there. therefore i would say this is not burton and he. in regard to the arctic, that is an area that is emerging. issues that are currently being thought of were not 10 years ago so it's an emerging area of great interest to the united states. as i understand it we are the only country that orders and does not ratify the law of the sea. >> explain a little bit more as to how that disadvantages us as these discussions are taking place. >> senator i'm the commander of northern command and it's in my area for responsibility. the arctic is fast changing environment. it is harsh and there are few assets available. working together is really at a premium so opening of a new frontier, the danger and

uncertainty and also opportunities so the idea that the strongest, the fastest, the most aggressive party can find the customary international law cannot he approached it in the of the eight arctic nations desired to take. it would empower me as i provide leadership on behalf of the united states in the arctic, to start with that rules-based framework, the firmness of the treaty law and order to start sorting through the uncertainty that we face up there and as i said, there is a large premium working together in the arctic right now. >> thank you for that. i want to get back to china for one moment because i think back a decade ago when we were looking at china and saying we certainly should be able to manage our trade issues with china would be a major problem for america and now we see how this is developed. the maritime interests in china seems to be expanding. they seem to be more of old and

they have been in the past, some of which we believe are not appropriate under international law. can you tell us ratification of the law of the sea what put us in a stronger position vis-à-vis china as it relates to its maritime ambitions? >> i will start start and turn it over to admiral locklear. one of the things we have talked about is the concern about the rules of law and one of the areas where china has been asserted this in writing national laws that would restrict maritime activity and their exclusive economic zone. some of that maritime activity is very important to us from the military stance and perhaps in a classified briefing later in the world the kindle -- later in the year we can go for that but without being a party to the convention we really don't have a leg to stand on if we tried to clear rights in terms of our ability to operate in that exclusive economic zone.

that is again an essential future source of friction and it's already a source of action and we could get worse and we would like to see a fundamental underpinning of the ascession of the treaty to back up our rights to do what we need to do from a military basis. >> i fully agree. it provides a solid fix and a favorable legal framework for us to first protect u.s. navigation and over flight rights as well as the sovereignty of our ships and aircraft so that is the first thing it does. us being part of the convention, it aligns their international legal authorities with our allies and our partners and their friends which is important. i think it would strengthen our standing to support our allies who are dealing with some of these issues particularly in the south china sea and it would, and they are trying to find a mechanism to align their maritime claims with

international law and so it would improve our overall support in standing as we try to get them to resolve an ever increasingly complex environment. we have to look forward i think you're not in the rearview mirror. the complexity of the maritime environment because of command for resources because of the amount of goods 10 years ago the amount of things afloat on the ocean across the sea lines in that 10 years has quadrupled because of the oboe station of the economy so we need to make sure we are able to work these -- of these disputes very solid fix stable legal framework rather than resulting in everyone of these issues being a standout that could potentially lead to the path we don't want to go. >> in the 1990s when this treaty was first brought to the senate there were concerns we shared by some of our allies and modifications were made and our

allies went ahead and ratify the treaty and the senate followed suit. from your testimony here today, am i correct to say that you believe today is more important to ratify the treaty than it was a decade ago, that circumstances on the sea continue the traditional challenges that the law of the sea would help america and promoting its national interest and security. is that a fair assessment? is a more important today than 10 years ago because of emerging issues? >> a decade ago there were not as many nations who asserting their claims in the maritime environment and the way they are today and those excessive claims continue to grow. so i would say definitely compared to 10 years ago it's more important today than it was. >> thank you senator cardin. before i recognize senator

corker on your question about the arctic i just want to comment. i believe the russians are sending their fifth mission into the arctic to do plotting the summer and the chinese have been up there in a very significant way. does that sound accurate? bsn at her that does. a. >> in this will be part of our classified briefing for all of our members but it is quite significant what is happening there without recourse in any legal way. is that correct? >> that is correct senator. >> senator corker. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you each of you and i do believe each of you are here assessing your own views and i know sometimes we can have follows where one part of our government wants something to happen and another part might be jeopardized and that is our role is to balance all of those rules but we thank you for being here and certainly for your service. my friend and colleague senator lugar asked me about china and