increased spending. our increasingly precarious fiscal situation did not arise from a dramatic decrease in taxes but, rather, is being caused by a dramatic increase in federal spending. there is a continued effort to -- >> i have a chart that shows the latest tactic used to convince people that exploding government spend something not the disaster it appears to be. this is ho called the rich guy chart. as john stoss l has pointed out, people like free stuff. the problem with free stuff from the government is that nothing is free and to quote john stossel, "it is an uncle sam scam." stossel was specifically discussing the ability of people to exploit a tax credit for electric vehicles in order to acquire golf carts but the principle applies to any instance where the government

supposedly provides something for nothing. this is where the cartoon of the rich guy behind me comes in. goodies from the government are a lot less appealing when there is a price tag involved. and many people would like to decide how they are going to spend their own money. the left's preferred solution to this little quandary is to have someone else foot the bill. to president obama, that someone else is, in his words, the rich. which includes all of these small businesses that are formed in subchapter "s" corporations and other pass-threw entities including partnerships, l. already c.'s and so forth, small businesses that are vital to ou. economic recovery. unfortunately, that's just as elicit as the cartoon i'm using to illustrate my point. while many of us may not wile away our leisure time down at

the club playing wist with robber b barons, a lot of us know about businesses in small communities that employ us and apply goods and services that the consumer wants and our economy demands. when liberals are talking about this guy in the top hat with the mondaminicle -- monicle, they are really talking about the hard working business owner. so when president obama talks about increasing taxes on the rich, he's really talking about increasing taxes on around 940,000 small business owners. who are already in the top two tax brackets. a lot of people who would not pay the obama tax increase work for someone who would be hit by it. what we have seen is that president obama and his allies want to increase the size of government and, in part, they want to fund this expansion with higher taxes on so-called rich people. now, i want to conclude my

remarks with a question. if we are getting more government, what are we getting less of? i want to go back to the chart i displayed earlier of government spending as a percentage of g.d.p., this one right here. as you can see. we can see that government spending is going up, but what is going down as a result? what does the area in the top of that chart, which is diminishing, represent? this is a subject that lends itself to prolonged discussion, but for one answer, we can go back to mr. leonhart's piece in "the new york times." this is the same piece from august 24, 2008, and contains a quote from then-candidate obama critiquing his friend, warren's argument. president obama said -- quote -- "i do that i what the argument

may miss is the sense of control that we want individuals to have in determining their own career paths, making their own life choices and so forth. and i also think you want to instill that sense of self-reliance and that when you do will help determine outcomes." -- and that what you do will help determine outcomes." well, let me just refer to the obamanomi cs chafort -- the obamanomics too chart. if president obama was in the midst of an internal struggle over the appropriate role of government back in 2008, that struggle is over. self-reliance lost and taxing the heck out of people in redistribution won. it runs through the theme of his revisionist fiscal history, and it is the ethic underlying the insatiable appetite my friends on the other side have for taxes and spending. this in and of itself is not really anything new for liberals and progressives, so once again,

i'll quote mire friend, president -- my friend, president ronald reagan n. my response to the president's plan to tax the heck out of people in the name of redistribution, there you go again. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, one of the foremost threats to our economy is the fiscal cliff. this is an issue that my republican colleagues and i have been talking about for several months now calling for more transparency and the sequestration that will occur at the end of the year, a replacement of the defense

sequester, an action to prevent a massive tax increase on the american people. senate democrats who have only recently acknowledged the looming fiscal cliff are now threatening to go over the cliff unless republicans agree to increasing taxes on america's small businesses during this difficult economic period. now, think about that. senate democrats are willing to put our economy at serious risk and our national security in jeopardy unless republicans agree to a massive tax increase on america's small businesses, and i want to point out this is from "the washington post" over the weekend, and this is the headline from the news story. it says democrats threaten to go over fiscal cliff if g.o.p. fails to raise taxes. that's the headline of "the washington post" story. of course, the story goes on reporting in there, they quote senior democrats saying that they're prepared to weather a fiscal event that could plunge the nation back into recession if the new year arrives without

an acceptable compromise, which, as they have defined that to be a major tax increase on small businesses in this country. so you think about the impact of that, what that means to people across this country. we have had now for the last three years a complete failure in the senate to produce a budget. we're now faced with this fiscal cliff which as i said consists of the sequestration, the across the board cuts that would occur early next year if nothing is done to prevent them, the tax hikes, we're going to reach the debt limit. all threaten our economy and an already anemic recovery. it's hard, i think, mr. president, to overstate the magnitude of the tax increases that are going to hit our economy starting next year if we don't act. over the next ten years, this tax increase would result in nearly $4.5 trillion in new taxes on american families and entrepreneurs. what does that mean to the average family in this country?

the heritage foundation recently published a study that estimated the tax increase per tax return in every state. i will just give you, for example, my state of south dakota where the heritage foundation estimates that the average tax increase per tax return would be $3,187 in the year 2013. now, i would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who i think many generally believe in keynesian economics, demand-driven keynesian economics that the average family in south dakota can do more to stimulate our economy and create new employment by keeping their 3,187 and spending it as they see fit, not as washington sees fit to spend it on their behalf. now, tax-mageddon is a very apt description that's been applied to this fiscal cliff when you consider the impact of these tax

increases not just on individual families but on our entire economy. until repeatly, we could just speculate about the impact of these tax increases on our fragile economy, but the magnitude of the damage was in dispute. well, not anymore. last month, the congressional budget office gave us the most definitive estimate yet of the impact of the nearly $.5 trillion of tax increases that would hit in 2013 when combined with more than $100 billion of spending cuts that would occur under the sequester that i mentioned earlier. the congressional budget office projects that the combination of the massive tax increases and the sequester will result in real g.d.p. growth in calendar year 2013 of only .5%. think about that. .5%. we're right now growing at somewhere they think, anyway, in the range of 1.9%, 2% this year, but in the first half of next year or all of next year, i should say, the real g.d.p.

growth would amount to only .5%. and the picture is even bleaker if you consider that c.b.o. projects that the economy will actually lose or will have a decrease in g.d.p. of 1.3% in the first half of 2013. so you have got this congressional budget office saying that over the entire year in 2013, the likelihood is that it will grow at .5 percent if we don't address the fiscal cliff, but in the first half of next year, the first half of next year, we actually see a decrease of 1.3% of economic growth. now, according to the c.b.o., again, a contraction in output or a reduction, i should say, of 1.3% of economic growth in the first half of next year would, and i quote, probably be judged to be a recession. probably be judged to be a recession. that's according to the congressional budget office, again, which is the nonpartisan, authoritative referee that we use around here to evaluate the impact of the spending and debt

tax issues. just this morning, the chairman of the federal reserve board of governors, ben bernanke, testified before the senate banking committee, and here's what he said, and i quote. fiscal decisions should take into account the fragility of the recovery. that recovery could be endangered by the confluence of tax increases and spending reductions that will take effect early next year if no legislative action is taken. the congressional budget office has estimated that if the full range of tax increases and spending cuts were allowed to take effect, the scenario widely referred to as the fiscal cliff, a shallow recession would occur early next year, end quote. that's according to, again, the chairman of the federal reserve board of governors ben bernanke, in his testimony just as recently as this morning. you talk about a shallow recession occurring next year and the endangerment of the recovery that's underway if we have this confluence of events happen at the end of the year. he went on to say and i want to quote again, these estimates do not incorporate the additional

negative effects likely to result from public uncertainty about how these matters will be resolved, end quote. in other words, mr. president, the economic uncertainty that's associated with all these things happening at the end of the year are impacting the economy today as people are looking at how they're going to make investment decisions and that our economy is likely to experience negative effects from that public uncertainty above and beyond the direct impacts that the c.b.o. has incorporated in its analysis. so let's be very clear about what the fiscal cliff means. we're not talking about a slight slowdown of a few tenths of a percent. what we are facing is the difference between positive growth on one hand, which will mean more jobs and higher incomes, and a potential recession on the other hand. we can and must provide americans some certainty as to what their taxes are going to be next year. now, the house of

representatives has already agreed to hold a vote to extend all of the existing tax rates before the august recess in order to avert the fiscal cliff. they're going to act on this sometime before we go out in august to extend all the rates at the end of the year, so there is certainty about what happens next year for those who are making economic decisions. unfortunately thus far, the senate and the senate democrat leadership has only agreed to hold a vote on a plan to raise taxes on nearly a million small businesses. this tax increase on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000 a year will raise taxes on more than half of all income in america earned by s corporations, sole proprietorships, l.l.c. partnerships and other pass-through businesses that pay their taxes at the individual rates. now, just a point of clarification, that applies to a lot of mom and pop businesses in this country. we're talking about that

restaurant owner, that electrician, many of whom are organized in the fashion in which they -- their income flows through to their individual tax return and they pay at the individual tax rate. and so the joint committee on taxation has estimated that the number of businesses that would be impacted by that is 940,000. so almost a million small businesses would see their taxes go up as a result of the fiscal cliff be and tax rates expiring at the end of the year for those who are making more than $200,000 and individuals or families making more than $250,000 a year. according to the national federation of independent business, the small businesses most likely to be hit by the democrat tax increase employ 25% of the total work force, so we are talking not just about the small businesses who are going to be faced with higher taxes but we're also talking about a huge amount, a huge portion of the american work force in this

country. 25% of the people in this country, employees in this country work for those small businesses who will see, according to the joint committee on taxation, their taxes go up as a result of the president's proposal. so we essentially have in front of us three choices. we can let all the tax rates expire, which we know is going to plunge our economy back into a recession. we can do what our democrat colleagues want to do, which is to raise taxes on successful small businesses and entrepreneurs, slowing our economy even further and risking, according to the congressional budget office and the chairman of the federal reserve board, a recession, or we can do what the house of representatives will soon pass and what i would suggest, and that is we can prevent a tax increase from hitting anyone and give the lackluster economic recovery at least a chance to gain some steam. that's what we ought to do, mr. president. we ought to do what the house of

representatives is going to do, and that is to extend the rates for a year so that people in this country have some certainty as to what their tax rate is going to be at the end of the year. i hope that my colleagues here in the senate and the senate democrats will realize -- senate democrats in particular the severity of the fiscal cliff and come to the table to prevent this massive tax increase and the unbalanced and troubling cuts that are going to occur to our national security if we don't take steps to avert this fiscal cliff. we've got to prevent the dangerous cuts to national defense that are scheduled to go into effect under sequestration by finding savings elsewhere in the budget. in order to do that, we need a detailed plan from the administration as to how they plan to implement the sequester. members of congress on both sides of the aisle have called for more transparency on the sequester from this administration, but they have so far failed to produce a plan. mr. president, that is simply unacceptable, and i will continue to work to see that a requirement be enacted so that the administration will finally

be transparent with the american people and give all members of congress a clear idea as to where the cuts are going to be applied. mr. president, our economy is weak. we know that growth in the first quarter was a mere 1.9%, expectations for the second quarter have been downgraded. we have witnessed now over 41 straight months of unemployment above 8%. we we have 23 million americans who are unemployed or underemployed, americans who have been unemployed for a long period of time. we have a weak economy. and the amazing thing about this debate is that two summers ago or two years ago, i should say, the president of the united states said that raising taxes would strike a blow, strike a blow to the economy. that was at a time when we had 3.1% economic growth. we now have, as i said, according to the estimates, 1.9% of economic growth for the

first quarter of this year in expectations for the second quarter have already been downgraded. so with 41 straight months of unemployment above 8%, 23 million americans underemployed or unemployed, and the weakest recovery literally since the end of world war ii, now is not the time to raise taxes. who in their right mind would think that it would make any sense at all to raise taxes when you've got an economy that is growing at such an anemic rate, particularly given the fact that two years ago when we had more robust economic growth the president said at that time that it would strike a blow to our economy if we raised taxes. so here we are with economic conditions are worse, circumstances that have deteriorated since then and he's proposing a tax increase on a million small businesses that will impact and have a ripple effect all across our entire economy and hurt job creation in this country at a time we cannot afford that.

i would just point out one other thing, mr. president. there was another study, analysis that came out today done by ernst and young in which they analyzed the tax hikes that would occur on small businesses next year and came to the conclusion that it it would cost 700,000 jobs in our economy, that it would cost us 1.3% of economic growth which is, again, consistent with what the congressional budget office has said. and that it would reduce wages to people in this country by 2%. so you now have the ernst and young study out there which suggests not only does this impact the small businesses out there who are going to see their taxes go up, but it puts at risk and in jeopardy jobs for hard-working americans and a wage base that would actually shrink in if in fact we drive the car over this fiscal cliff. mr. president, we can't afford to do that. and it is irresponsible to have

people out there saying that they are so anxious for -- to prove some point or to win some argument on raising taxes that they are willing to see this country run the risk of plunging into a recession and raising the number of people who are unemployed in this country. it really is. i mean i have to say when i saw some of the remarks and some of these stories and some of the reporting about statements that are being made by our colleagues on the other side and members of their staff with regard to the fiscal cliff, and -- and the -- the willingness on the part of many of our colleagues to suggest that this country could go through and endure even more difficult economic times than what we're already experiencing, even higher unemployment than what we're already seeing was really, really pretty remarkable and truly unfortunate and i would

hope folks would walk back from that position, walk back from those remarks, and enter into a discussion about how we might be able to provide the necessary economic certainty for our job creators and small businesses, how we can get people back to work, how we can grow and expand this economy, frankly extending the tax rates should only be the first part. the short-term solution. the long-term solution is to get tax reform, comprehensive tax reform. i think people on both sides of the aisle agree with that, and if we could enter a discussion how we could reform our tax code so it broadens the base, lowers the rates, does away with loopholes and deductions coupled with entitlement reform we all agree has to be dealt with or we're going to continue to see a country on a fiscal trajectory and this unsustainable over time, will lead to the situation that we see many european countries dealing with today. that's what we ought to be focused on. we ought to be providing

certainty to our businesses, extending rates at least for now, until such time hopefully next year when we all agree that we need to sit down and solve this tax mess that we have in this country, this tax code that's become way too complicated, come up with something that's more simple, more clear, more fair, and something that makes us more competitive in the global marketplace because right now we're losing -- we're losing to a lot of countries around the world simply because we have a tax code that is just -- makes american businesses noncompetitive in the international marketplace. tax reform, entitlement reform, comprehensive energy policy, regulatory reform, it's not that hard to fix this if we have the will, the political will to do it. but we can't start by saying to small businesses in this country that we are going to raise your taxes next year, run the risk of -- of plunging the country into a recession, and

increasing the number of people in this country who are unemployed. that is the exact wrong prescription. we ought to be providing certainty, extending the rates and getting into a discussion and hopefully action on legislation that would reform the american disoard disoad to make us more competitive in the world, do away with costly overreaching, excessive and burdensome regulations that are making it more difficult and more expensive to do business in this country, an energy plan that makes sense, that relies upon american source he ofs of energy and a spending plan, a budget, something the senate hasn't done now for three years, an actual budget. lo and beholiday --, behold, go figure we could do a budget that puts us on a more sustainable fiscal path by reforming entitlement programs that will save social security and medicare for future generations of americans. that is the long-term prescription to what ails america but it certainly is in the short term makes matters

much, much worse when we talk about piling a tax increase on the very people that we're looking to to create jobs and to get this economy back on track. i hope that this congress will come to its senses about this and that we will vote down any proposal that would raise taxes on hard-working small businesses and entrepreneurs in this country and instead give them the certainty that they need for the months ahead until such time we can deal with the issue of tax reform. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. thune: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: 11 years ago i introduced the dream act to allow a group of students with great potential to contribute more to america. the dream act, in order to qualify they'd earn their way to 0 legal status and they had to come to the united states as children, be long-term u.s. residents, graduate from high school and agree to serve in our military or complete two years of college. these young people literally came to the united the united ss infants and children. they grew up, went to school with our kids and they're the

valedictorians, the athletes and even the rotc leaders in schools across america. they didn't make the decision to come here. they were just kids. their parents made the decision. this homeland security secretary janet napolitano said immigrants who were brought here illegally as children lack the intent to violate the law close quote, and it's not the american way anyway to punish children for the wrongdoing of their parents. it's been 11 years. i'll work on it as long as i have to to get it done. it is that important. but the young people who are eligible, would be eligible, can't wait any longer. many have already been deported to countries they never remembered and with languages they don't speak. there are still some at the disk of deportation. that's why the obama administration decision a few weeks ago to stop the deportation of young people eligible for the dream act was the right thing to do. the administration says we'll allow the immigrant students to apply for a form of relief known

as deferred action that puts the deportations on hold and allows them on a temporary basis to live and work legally in america. i strongly, strongly support had decision. i think it was a humane decision by the president of the united states on behalf of these young people. when the history of the civil rights era that we've lived through since the 1960's is written, this will be an important chapter. the administration's deportation policy has bipartisan support. two years ago republican senator richard lugar of indiana joined me in a letter to the president asking me to do just this. last year senator lugar joined me and 22 other senators to sign a letter to the president asking the same thing. what do the american people think about president obama's decision on dream act students? well, it turns out 64% of likely voters, including 66% of independents support the policy compared to 30% who oppose it. earlier today my colleague and friend from iowa, senator

grassley, gave a speech on the floor about this decision by the president. at one point in time senator grassley was a cosponsor of the dream act. you wouldn't know it from his speech today. he's changed his position on this bill like so many other republicans. let me take a few minutes to respond to specific points. he claimed the president's policy to not deport the dream act students is going to hurt the american economy. i couldn't disagree more. granting deferred action to dream act students make us a stronger country, giving these talented immigrants a chance to be a part of america and its future. studies found the dream act students can contribute trillions of dollars to the economy, given a chance to be part of it. we're not talking about importing new foreign workers into the united states to compete with americans. we're talking about taking young people, educated in our schools at our expense, trained and ready to give something to america, and giving them a chance. they're going to be tomorrow's doctors and engineers and

teachers and nurses. we shouldn't squander their talents. in all the years that we've invested in educating them by deporting them at this productive point in their lives. senator grassley claimed president obama circumvented congress to significantly change the law all by himself. end of quote. i don't think that's how it happened. the obama administration's new deportation policy is lawful and appropriate. throughout history all governments and our federal government have to decide who to prosecute, who not to prosecute. it's called prosecutorial discretion. it's based on law enforcement priorities and resources. every administration, democratic and republican as well, have stopped deportations of low-priority cases, as they should. just last month the supreme court reaffirmed the federal government has broad authority to decide who to deport, just as anthony kennedy appointed by president george h.w. bush wrote the opinion for the court and listen to what he said: a principal feature of the removal

system is exercised by immigration officials. discretion is the enforcement of immigration law embracing human concerns, unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who committed a serious crime, so said justice kennedy. the administration's policy isn't just legal. it's realistic and it's smart. today there are millions of undocumented immigrants in the united states. it is physically, literally impossible to deport them. so the department of homeland security has to decide priorities. should the highest priority be to deport those who are most dangerous to the united states? i think even the senator from iowa would have to concede that point. and the obama administration has made that their priority. senator grassley calls the administration's deportation policy -- quote -- "an amnesty." well, senator grassley, that's just not right. the dream act students will not receive permanent legal status

or citizenship under the president's policy. they have temporary renewable legal status. temporary renewable legal status. during his speech today, senator grassley read a quote from the interview the president gave last year to support his claim the president had changed his position on the dream act. but he only read part of the quote. here's what senator grassley read. the notion that somehow i can just change the law unilaterally is not true, the president said. the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books i have to enforce and i think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the dream act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow by myself i can go and do these things. it's just not true. that's what senator grassley read. here is the rest of the quote: what we can do is prioritize enforcement. since there are limited enforcement resources and say we're not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who's been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the

dream act passed. that's what the president said. i wish senator grassley had read that in the record. the president has done what he has the authority to do, as our chief executive officer to exercise prosecutorial discretion. i personally discuss this had with secretary in in a napolita. she assured me the department of homeland security is going to follow the president's lead but have strict enforcement of fraud. if any young person commits fraud in this process there will be a price to be paid. senator grassley should know that and shouldn't question it absence evidence to the contrary. it is sad we have reached this opponent that so few republicans will stand up for these young people. there was a time when senator hatch was the lead sponsor on this bill and i was begging him to cosponsor. and then it reached a point where he only voted for it and then it reached a point where he voted against it. senator grassley has voted for this bill in the past too. in 2006 when the republicans last controlled congress, the

dream act passed the senate out an amendment to the comprehensive immigration bill, 62-36. 23 republicans voted for it. but unfortunately, the republican leaders in the house refused to take up that bill in 2006. well, republican support for the dream act has diminished over the years. i have to say i noted, mr. president, the lack of volume and firepower criticizing the president on this dream act decision. i think many of our republican colleagues realized the american people do support this 2-1 and it is the right thing to do. mr. president, i'm going to do what i've done 48 other occasions here and try to make this dream act discussion more than an abstract conversation. i want to make sure that people understand who is involved in these decision processes. this is a photograph of maria gomez. her parents brought her from mexico to los angeles when she

was eight years old. started school in the third grade with english as a second language. by the time she was in the sixth grade, three years later, she was an honor student. in middle school, maria discovered art and architecture. in high school she was active in community service, captain of her school spirit club, president of the garden club and she excelled in academics, graduating tenth in her class with a 3.9 grade point average. maria was accepted by every college she applied to. her dream was to attend u.c. berkeley, the only state college in california that offers architecture to undergraduate students. but she couldn't afford it. maria and the other dream act students aren't eligible for any federal assistance to go to school. instead she decided to live at home and to attend ucla. she was a commuter student. she rode the bus to and from ucla two and a half hours each way, each day.

while she was a full-time student she worked cleaning houses and baby sitting to help pay for tuition. she graduated from ucla with a major in sociology and minor in public policy. she is the first member of her family to graduate from college. but she was determined to achieve her dream of becoming an architect. she enrolled in the masters of abg -- architecture program at ucla. she struggled financially. at times she had to eat at the ucla food bank. and because she couldn't afford housing near the campus, she spent many nights in a sleeping bag on the floor of the school printing room. last year maria received her master's degree in architecture and urban design. she wrote me a letter and here's what she said. i grew up believing the american dream and i worked hard to earn my place in the country that nurtured and educated me. like the thousands of other undocumented students and graduates across america, i am looking for one thing and one thing only. the opportunity to give back to

my community, my state and my country and to the country that is my home: the united states. i ask my colleagues who are critical of the dream act and president obama's new policy, would you prefer that we deported maria gomez back to mexico at this point in her life, a country she's not lived in since she was a small child? she grew up here. she o'overcome amaze -- she's overcome amazing odds to be successful. this determined young woman can make america a better nation. thanks to president obama's new policy, maria is going to be able to work. i hope that she'll be able to be licensed as an architect in her state. but a future president could change this policy so maria's future is still in doubt because we haven't enacted the dream act. maria isn't the only one. there are tens of thousands just like her. the dream act would give maria and others like her the opportunity to be our architects, engineers, teachers, doctors, soldiers.

today i again ask my colleagues to support the dream act. the president's new deportation policy is a step in the right direction, but ultimately it's our responsibility. he's done his part. we need to pass this humane, thoughtful bill and give people like maria gomez a chance to make america a better place to live. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of senate resolution 483 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 483 commending efforts to promote and enhance public safety on the need for yellow corrugated stainless steel tubing bonding. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate

will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i understand s. 3393 introduced earlier today by senator reid is at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill tor the first time. the clerk: s. 3393, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to provide tax relief to middle-class families. mr. durbin: i ask for its second reading and i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the measure will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, july 18, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders

be reserved for their use later in the day, that the majority leader be recognized and the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: today the majority leader filed cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 3364, the bring jobs home act. if no agreement is reached, the cloture vote will be on thursday. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m.

also to put the pressure on other subjects. they have different objections to it. senate republican leader mcconnell said that basically would take away free speech rights, first amendment rights for people who want to donate money to different causes. senator mccain, who was very active in campaign finance reform said that this bill that heavily favors labor unions why

they wouldn't be subject to the same new rules that corporations would be. for many different reasons they said they couldn't accept the bill. >> last week the senate considered a small business tax package that went nowhere. this week it's campaign finance bill. what's next in the senate? >> well, just a little while aago, senate reid filed cloture on another -- including the senator from michigan. this is a bill remove provisions currently in the tax code that encouraged people to take jobs offshore. this bill would remove the tax centives or breaks for outsources and create new what they call insources. creating more business in the united states. >> there's also a lot of talk about extending the bush tax

cuts. what's that debate about, and when might that come up in the senate? >> the first thing that has to happen is a cloture vote, again. on the insources, outsourcing legislation, and senator reid that will happen on thursday. but he also it may take a better part of a week to debate that bill. after they come come to some resolution on the insources bill, it looks as though they're going to move to a new piece of legislation senator reid has just introduce napped could be to extend the tax cuts for how households that earn $250,000 annually. that would extent the 2000, 2003 and 2009 tax cuts that help middle class families. republicans for looking their opportunity to have a vote on extending all of the bush era

tax cuts including those that help millionaires. >> why are see seeing these political messaging bills? >> these are the final weeks leading up to the august recess which will be five weeks long and again about august 6th. after that congress will be out for five weeks and they'll be gearing up for the political conventions and the fall campaigns, so the next three weeks will be their last opportunity to really try to distingish themselves, you know, from each other republicans from democrats democrats from republicans in is where they kind of make their stand in the final weeks. >> nancy is the senior congressional correspondent at bloom berg. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> if i'm president, job one vote will be for creating jobs. let me say that again, my agenda is not to put in place the

serious of policy that get me a lot of attention and plus a. applause. my policy will be to create jobs for american people. i don't have a hidden agenda. [applause] i submit to you this, if you want a president who will make things better in the african-american community, you are looking at him. [applause] you take a look. >> republican president issue candidate mitt romney and vice president goad biden spoke at the naacp convention in how's ton. >> close your eyes an imagine, imagine what the romney justice department will look like. imagine when his senior adviser on issues is robert bork. imagine the recommendation for who is likely to be picked adds attorney general for the head of the civil rights commission or those incredibly important

positions of justice. >> watch all of this online at the c-span video library. >> there has been a hostility to poverty. since the war on poverty, lyndon john was the best president that looked at poverty issue and spent money on and talked about the social service programs. richard nix son is the father of minority business development. inside his minority business establish small business administration minority business develop agency and use the word economic justice. the former president of bennett college for women julienne regularly writes in comments on politics, education, and african-american economic history. and live sunday august 5th, at noon eastern your questions, calls, e-mails and tweets for the author of "surviving and

thriving: 365 facts" on c-span2 booktv. seventeen months into the conflict in syria over 17,000 people are estimated to have died from the violence. on monday university of oklahoma middle east center director talked about the ongoing violence and explains why he thinks the u.s. should not get involved. he he'll look at various factions to bashar allah sad. this is about an hour. >> this program for the center it's a great pleasure to welcome all of you and our speaker professor joshua from the university of oklahoma. he's the director, the center

for the studies at the university of oklahoma. , and the author of "syria" which is a daily news letter on syria. i've known professor for a long time. we first met when i was teaching at princeton, and he was a grad student. and working on sir yansz. professor london has won the best teacher prize at his raised over $1 million for a new [inaudible] in iranian studies, which is very close to my heart. and helped bring the government funded arabic program to the university of oklahoma.

he has lived four years in syria, and spent most recently since 2005, summers in syria then the last time, i believe, he was there was just before the revolution began. doctor traveled frequently to washington, d.c., very much in demand, and it was very hard to get him. so joshua, many thanks for accepting our invitation and coming. with that, . >> thank you so much. you very kind. ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be here at the center and to talk to you today. i would particularly like to thank thank who has been a wonderful to me and the model of charm and intelligence.

i have two parts to this talk today. the first part, is looking at larger context a little bit of the history, and evolution of my own thinking about syria. the second part will deal what should washington be doing. let me begin with the larger regional context, almost a year ago, i wrote an article, seven or eighth months ago i wrote an article saying that the regime was comed but it was going to be long and bloody. i expected bashar to be in power in 2013, and the reasons for it being doomed, it's minortarian regime. it's the last in the, an area where every area was a regime

after world war it ii. it was going to be long and bloody ironically in a sense. let me draw that for you a little bit. after the first cold war in the we have the mishmash of class difference, which made state building extremely difficult. in many ways the colonials powers drew states rather haphazardly in which different communities were forced to get along. they had a hard time building nation building. it's not uncommon, but it's certainly describes the in comparison to north africa. sunni arabs are the overwhelming majorities. there are other parts and egypt and so forth. they don't have power. they're not -- all minorities the colonial powers helped minor

toy power in the case of the syria enabled to get to where they get power. in lebanon you had the mar knits who were the privileged over the rest. it was about unseating the power by the muslims. it was about many other things to. i'm oversimpling. there was long and bloody. they did not want to give up power. they don't like the idea, they in iraq they were put into power by the british and rolled over the minority -- [inaudible] whichever you wanted to say and put the shy hides on top and none the sunnies to the bottom. for eight years the sun sunnies

have been fighting to back to regain the stump of authority. that's being dismantle by the shy hide minority. that's what we're seeing. the sewnies are fighting. there are car bombs that go off in baghdad. the death toll as high as it is in syria. casting down, excuse me, you're going have to -- [inaudible] casting down the minority is a long and bloody process. reversing the order. we can take israel palestinian which in some ways fits the model and others don't. the jews were -- the muslims thought they were going to be able to take over palestinian. they went to war. they lost. we know how it ended for them. jews were able to gather and the solved the problem by becoming a

minority. and today, the palestinian are defeated and the jews are try yum fainted. the palestinians don't like it. they're fighting back. they want a hunk of that land. but it's that's the long and bloody. it is in some ways a zero sum game because people in the region l have not figured how to rule happily and share power happily. not in iraq, not in lebanon, not in palestinian and the question is how do they do it in syria. were not put into power by the french. they were overrecruited by like mad for the syrian army. by 1955, '56, we believe there were 65% of the commissioned offers were that. within a decade they became the majority for the officer and

they able to carry out acue and take power in '66 and with that, power of the army, came power over the state. the last was 1970 when they took over and thes a sad family ruled. now the minortarian element is the strength of the regime. so weakness it is a strength in many ways. unlike new mubarak? egypt who allowed his children to go off and make money, they have been preparing for this day for 40 years and they put their sons in the military. they have prepared their every major ministry that is important. and the particularly imedges the security is dominated by family. in contrast to the rhetoric of nationalism of the party, thes a

sad understand that syria was not a nation in some ways. they went for family values. they put their family in charm of everything. they understand that it would take a village to rule syria. they relied on traditional loyalties. and that meant family first, and if you look at thes a sad family they're plugged into major security. then they use, of course, tribe and village affiliations and ultimately the sect. now of course, they couldn't rule alone they needed to make alliances with sunnies. at the core of the success of the assets was making alliance of the sunnies. we've seen it u unravel only very recently with defections. it's been unraveling for a long time. i think the logic of the uprising is a sectarian lock i think. there are other lock i thinks

going on. at the heart it's sectarian. it's driving this. and the sunnies are slowly abandoning the regime and they are being stripped down to the basic core. these traditional loyalties. and when they are completely stripped down, i think the regime will fall fairly quickly. it's going to take time, and the strength is that they are fright end. they have their backs to the wall. they're going to fight like the other minorities throughout the middle east. like the christians in lebanon. like the sunnies, like the palestinian. because they don't know what the alternative is. they're fright end. they have convinced themselves they face a blank future. and that's the loyalty. that's why no major figures from inside have defected so far. that may come at the very end. but it has come yet. sos a sad's success was that he

relied on traditional values and he solved syria's major problem, which was had become a republican. we have to remember that syria had about 20 from 1949 to '70. twenty successful, some unsuccessful many change in government. many people say, it's the arizona sad's fault that sir imra is not a nation today. it's because he destroyed politics for 40 years. there's a lot of truth in that. what many people reluctant to say is the sunnies who dominated politics and admitly syria was democratic there were elections in '43, '47 and '54 that went not perfectly but fairly well. but the first one in' 49 resemid

today. they faced a crisis in government. i'm going to do a few minutes to do a little bit of history. he prime minister and everybody was dpon straiting in the streets. not like the beginning of the arab spring. all of the were demonstrated a new government down with the government. now he faced dilemma and he could have solved it through politics and the parliament which was to form a national you knowty government and allow the main opposition partying to form a government. he would not allow it. because he thought they were traitors. he said to the person he made prime minister. who writes in memoirs.

he believes that the lebanons want to unite with iraq and them and foreign a greater syria. and he wanted to unite with egypt and the other arabs but he didn't want the traitors they were working with the british and so forth. and you get the major split down the center of sir syria and everybody thought they were traders not nationalist. they were going out of the country and making deals with not foarners. 're arabs. let me put it in ashort. he refused to allow the broadening of the government. he put the army on the street to break the heads of the demonstrators and arrested many. as soon as i had tried to fire that chief of staff, he took power. that was the failure of politics

in democratic politickings in sir yab the major parties could not work together. it repeated itself over and over again until they took over and used military might. it speaks a load about syrian politics that has been federal government fragmented, loss of distrust and the closest he said he never formed a real politicking party. it was about the man and he kept the closest associates. he made them fight each other. they claimed bitterly. he wouldn't trust anybody. that's been an almost of the syrian politics. see the same traits being plaided played out. [inaudible] that is the greatest danger in

the policy. let -- there are also, of course very important class divisions, rural divisions, the opposition was always weak. let me turn now to those of the major problems that syria has faced. with the uprising thes a saturday regime that is failed. it's never going to be able to put syria back together again. all the numbers have gone the wrong direction. economic failure, terrible. poverty means $2 a day or less. egypt is 40 and yemen is higher. there are terrible poverty tickets out there. but with food prices screaming

up. the lower classes were being hammered. with the population explosion unders a sad was designed for a country of 8 million people in the early '70s. socialism take away the freedoms from the people but give them jobs. do nothing jobs but the jobs some security. basic products and give them security. that was the slogan. and that worked. until syria ran out of water, the government couldn't pay for the all the subsidizes more and more people became so expensive. liberalization didn't work because the country wasn't really to open up. the corruption became terrible. the upper class became rich but most suffered.

the country was waiting to explode. he did not have any answers, he refused to really open up the system. he kept his father's model which was to keep a few intaints around him and disregard the rest. he had the option when he first came to power of resending the death threat against the muslim brotherhood and draw them in. he was fright end. he was frightened of decentralizing. he wrote in wick i can leak the biggest question was decentralizing. we make to name nor nibble. nimble. he says in an e-mail we can't do. because of the muslim extremist will get power at the local level and they'll want power in the center. it froze him. he saw his people as extremist, of them and he refused to the

broaden the power. and this was the i did llama of the syrian regime narrow, and brittle and refusing to reach out and talk to people. it leaves us then with a policy problem. that's the failure of the regime. that's i see the problem. it create a lot of danger for america to walts in and fix it. obama has been reluctant to lead in syria. and i think that's been a smart policy by and large. the question is, when does is it not a smart policy anymore. let me try to dress both those issues and look at the reasons why it has been smart. i think that america that i wrote long ago stay out of syria. and? is predicated on america is not good at nation building in the arab world. we've seen it this in iraq and afghanistan. syria is not an easier country.

it has the same divisions. anesthesiology the sunnies are 12% of syria. there are 10% of the minorities. the christians are said to be 10% they're probably closer to 5%, the numbers have been falling quickly. and okay. not good at nation building. u.s. is radio active. in the arab world, the islamic world. democracy is unlikely to be produced in syria any time soon. the only two thing that social [inaudible] over more than 50% chance of locking in an democracy. syria is 21 the mean age is 21

years old. the only other places are gaza and yemen. tunisia is 30. egypt is like even older because they had much better family-controlled policy it's like 24 or something like that. syria is low same age as iraq. and then wealth, syria per capita gdp is between 2 and 3.3,000 a year. we believe at least seven or eight years political scientist were believing that five and six was the medium age. you had a 50% chance of sticking democracy. not democracy unlikely expensive to rebuild. we saw what iraq and afghanistan have cost. the syrian opposition asked for $12 billion in start-up funds once they defeat thes a sad

regime. $12 billion would be nothing. we're spending over hd billion a month in afghanistan. we were spending $6 billion in afghanistan at the height. america is broke. nay don't want to get in it. most important, there's no nation, really. the opposition has not -- people say no nation they get mad at me for saying that. i don't mean the bond between syria. there is a bond. there isn't a tradition of unit foyed leadership and there certainly hasn't been one produced out of the opposition. there's a lot of fact lymph. that's dangerous. if you walk in and destroy the regime and decapitated it as in iraq, the death could go up. the major argument for doing this other than strategic interest and hurting iran is that humanitarian argument. you go in and stop the killing. but what happens if the killing

goes up? it did in iraq. once we destroyed the regime, the death rate went up because civil war started. will america then go into syria to stop the civil war or say, we're tired of doing that and just turn their back on syria if there's no government? that's the danger of getting sucked in. is america prepared to imper convene. in some ways you could argue time is on america's side. in preverse sense, war is a nation build progress excess. there is an organic process to strug ming against your enemy that brings people together. you look at the major nation builders of the middle east

saudi arabia, et. cetera and israel, most almost all of them were at war for ten years before they became leaders of the country. nay became national figures because they defeated, because they unified their country and produced an army that would back them up. in syria there is no person like that. there may emerge out of this bottle, one would hope if you give syrians time, a leadership will merge and you're seeing a whole new civil society being created at the whole place in syria. out of a desert in a sense you have the new committees being formed. you have the coordinating committee. you have the compile groups, you have aid committees, a new civil society is emerging. and it's beginning to coordinate not just on the village level

but between level. ..

you then do leaders will emerge because the will be successful on the above obra and need alliances and set up a hundred militias we see today will get eventually stuck into london and when that one is able to defeat the syrian army, it will be in a position to step into the control of the country of so in the defeat a solid there won't be chaos like there was an iraq. there will be a government in waiting and a national military that can step in to take you providing security for the people to make sure people don't do bad things. that will be the ideal and the rationale for the obama policy. there were other rationales like he doesn't want to do george

bush multilateralism. they said no you don't want to go against the russians and chinese. it was stupid most people would say. should have left the russians in afghanistan. we went against the international community. should have said too bad. we can't go into iraq. not taking the leadership would have been better in the last ten years. listen to the international comanche we wouldn't have gotten ourselves into the expenses that turned out to be not so good for a america. there are other reasons for are doing to stay out. let me wind down by saying i was very strong on staying out. i have begun in many of my closest friends have begun to say this is terrible what has

happened. he's lost and he's going to lose from he's destroying the country. look how many refugees there are. but internally there are hundreds of thousands today. their lives are being destroyed. the cities to the town's to the people it is immense and it's getting worse and russia and iran are backing them and it's partly because america is prevaricated. they argue send a cruise missile into the palace. that will finish the place will collapse like a house of cards and rational will understand america means business and will begin to shift the policy of the whole thing will come tumbling down. now of course the problem with that is that it's wishful thinking. what if it doesn't happen that way?

been you have the headquarters and begin to destroy a lot. where does that and afraid they will cap them and the whole place will fall apart and reemerge happy. so, i'm very torn. i was a big advocate of nonintervention. let the syrians work this out. i still believe the opposition is getting stronger every month. america has provided help, they are providing the arms division of labor and it's probably a good one although there doesn't seem to be enough in the opposition we've seen that recently about the success stories come success stories today in "the washington post" that there was a article in the

opposition with christians and muslims. there is another article by libya, maybe it wasn't so bad after all. the elections worked out, yes it is a chaotic country, but the worst hasn't happened. maybe decapitation can work. the trouble is syria is such a much bigger country. it has problems that others don't have. if the leadership has not emerged an alternative leadership. it is midway. the opposition has been getting stronger. you could say just be patient. give the opposition a little bit more arms. they can do it. fighting has now gotten to damascus. so far, has been one of the

countryside. it started with the poor countries in various known for their poverty because they are the ones that syria has field. the upper class hasn't joined in but increasingly they are defecting and the fight is moving into the cities and when it does the regime will be completely overwhelmed. i'm going to end by saying the arguments for staying out, for not getting sucked in our very strong. i think they are still compelling. the opposition is getting stronger every month. and the trouble is the regime is becoming more violent. it still has support from russia, from iran, and that is allowing it and push hard to believe that he can weather this and a defeated and so the levels of violence are getting ever

more. and at some point you ask where is the tipping point? i'm not sure we have a right. we haven't arrived at the obama elections. it seems clear that we are going to stay out of this for the next several months and hopefully we will see the opposition unified and begin to develop a leadership, better command and control, and that they will begin to do this on their own. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to open the floor to your questions. we won't take any comments. we will just take a question. there is an overflow on the floor, and we will take questions from them. just wait for the microphone. we have the microphone here,

please. thank you. >> from the atlantic council it's great to see you here. >> nice to see you. >> obviously obama doesn't want to get involved until after our e elections but could intervene much if against its own people we've seen reports that they are moving chemical weapons. if there is a mass atrocities, what should be the response and what is the response. >> obviously public sentiment drives policy to a certain degree. these would create a groundswell sympathy and horror at what the regime is doing which is already of course quite developed.

the question is can america improve the situation. this is on known. you are launching out. if you send a cruise missile into its polis and hunt it down like you did khaddafi how long will that take? and then what happens if the death rate goes up? that's the big question. if the rate goes up, then does america say well, we've succeeded in our strategic objectives and we can go home now and with the syrians sort it out which is what we've done in the place like libya. the devotee my fear. i don't know if america has the staying power. the regime is going to ratchet up violence. it's going to come. i don't know if it is granted the chemical weapons. i doubt that.

but who knows. adel level of violence gets worse all the time and it's clear that the internal that he is looking increasingly in this little world where he is convinced that everybody is an extremist and that he is standing for good and the rows in the desert. >> we are taking a question. >> [inaudible] growing support [inaudible] >> you know, i think the minorities in general -- and it's hard to generalize of course have been supportive, and they're fearful of the islamists and that the government has been very successful that people feel

what they i think many have. i think many christians are -- believe this regime can only spell trouble from here on in. they are only hurting everybody in syria because they are not going to win. there's no way for them to win and the longer they stay and syria is prevented from trying to get on to the next step the more damage is going to be done. now i don't think that the jews and christians are going to be part of it when this regime comes down. it has to be fearful but i don't think the other minorities will be. they are worried about their way of life but their way of life under the regime is going to change. syria is never going to go back to those days and it's very hard for anybody to get used to the notion that life is going to change and syria is going to go through a period of chaos and i think that many more people

today of minorities are embracing the fact it is going to have to come through that period and i know many more alights have talked to me about the notion of something needs to be done. internal intervention. >> joshua. can you tell us a little bit about the support that the iranian is provided to the city and keep on feeling of the iranian we know where they stand, but what kind of support to the provide? >> i don't really know. everybody has read articles about the billions of dollars that iran gets but i don't think people know what the aid is. it's clear that iran understands that it is under attack now only by america but by the major states of saudi arabia and the gulf, and it sees syria has the cutting edge of the defense

against a larger onslaught. and of course the west sees c rea as the weak point for iran. they can take down syria and get iran and the policy is a regime change in iran as it is a nasiriyah i think that there is a big domino fear of this domino effect that iran sees that they are going to be targeted when syria goes down and i think russia and china believe the same thing and i think that's why they've meet syria acosta that put off the exterior is that important for either country. what we do see is iran sitting there afterwards, and for china, 20% of their energy imports have invested billions in iran, and i think you would be -- they see this as a great factor of instability that if america goes in and has its way with syria this is just going to keep a dynamic that's bad for china. i was in china not long ago on

the east-west energy, and i was shocked at the response of the chinese diplomats that turned to less and american said why are you pursuing this antichinese policy? we are trying to lift hundreds of millions of chinese into the middle class and we need energy to do it. our entire economic miracle was fueled on energy that comes from the gulf. you put sanctions on libya, sudan, syria, iran every single country we get our oil from using defined and put sanctions on at this raises the price of oil that's causing it to slow down and that is hurting chinese people. now, we immediately turn to the chinese and say we are the good guys and you are the bad guys. you are immoral and we are trying to help the good people of the middle east and hurt the bad people of the middle east and you are helping the that people and hurting the good people. and obviously, you have two

different views of morality. they are concerned about helping chinese and say we are concerned about helping middle eastern people. maybe that isn't quite the way it is but at any rate, we had to have this argument over morality. hooley is morrill and are the sanctions could? the chinese saw this as an antichinese policy. they said america is trying to hurt us. and i think that is what they believe. the and i think that syria is at the cutting edge of what they see as a larger position in the middle east that is going to be undermined by the american action so this goes back to iran at the front end of that in the acc via and they've convinced themselves that syria is very important to them and they are going to subsidize it. syriac about $18 billion of reserves, 17, 16 months ago. nobody ever saw at.

they are still paying the military and some subsidies and other things. it's unclear where they are getting all this money from. it's going to be turning to iran and i think that that is the main place where iran will support i don't think that's true but i think that both are helping with military intelligence and would cover ways they can without putting soldiers on the ground. >> of the center good to see you and good to hear that you are thinking of the kind of detection which my question to you is like any government where the relationship existed events collapsed everything comes down

we are not going to avoid this kind of thing and comparing that intervention in iraq and afghanistan because nobody is seeking troops on the ground means that you are here in washington, d.c. to present the americans sending the troops again to another which is not clear to give something similar to libya. >> i'm sorry. >> first of all one oversight kuran i want to go back to it. just say because mohammed of a new law was a refugee placed in oklahoma city, and friends of ours said can you help him? he is an oklahoma city and there was a ground spree he came for a number of vendors and we had a wonderful time in the city and i am glad to see that you have

done so well coming and i have always been on your side will. i know there are arguments in just a few well guided with cruise missiles with the libya model you hunt and the guy down and kill him and will be over. we will do the rest. you don't know is going to happen. the well laid plans and america feels poor, obama feels like he has other things to do. america is exhausted, tired of nation-building, and it seems like fools there and coming and what is more, hillary clinton keeps on saying we are winning. strategically i think everybody in a washington believes that we are going to fulfill our goals. everybody in the opposition believes that they are winning.

there is no compelling interest to intervene. you can match up more weapons and help them when faster and give them better intelligence and do things like that and you can hurt of course of policy to start the raceme with money and arms. you try to moderate that by squeezing hard for more and more sanctions which is what america is trying to do to shame russia into joining and so forth and get saudi arabia to provide more arms, and get better intelligence and that is the game they're playing because we don't want to get into iraq or afghanistan and libya is different wealth people have convinced themselves. it's possible that you would bomb and the place the pork for quickly and the government will emerge and that would be the best of all worlds as the argument and as compelling americans have decided that they are winning anyway. so with the syrians to the heavy

lifting. going slow as benefits which i outlined that this is an organic process you can't hurry along their divided. you are a member and you were for a brief moment and did you dump it. i don't know why presumably because you didn't like what was happening up there and this is -- i can turn to you and say make me a believer. unite. get along. don't disagree over the most fundamental things like how much is llama is going to have for outsiders' good or bad. the syrians have a lot to do to convince the west to be more interventionist. spec from the overflow it has

announced what is the implication of this? >> people have been announcing the civil war for a long time. it's not an even civil war is going to be against the rest. it's not there yet but it will evolves in that direction. and i guess the implications are that legalistic implications before taking people to the world court because the crime against humanity. i don't really interest and but there are the legal ramifications because you can take people for crimes against humanity more easily if there isn't a recognized government even if it is seen as a civil war. >> in the front. let's wait for the microphone.

>> i'm from damascus from grew up in the neighborhood a very good question how do you explain although christians made up about 8% of the population there was a christian prime minister since our knowledge is subjected to you think that the fact that you're married to a woman that belongs is affecting the analysis in any way? thank you. as the nec let me take the second part first. [laughter] >> this has been a running theme. i am married to an alibi. my father-in-law served in the syrian and navy for 40 years he became a major general or something like that. he shaheen that when he was a

young man. there was no education in his village until 1947 when his grandfather built and in fourth grade he was able to begin school and he got into the navy which is what they did and his proudest picture is in the living room him being hand shaped by 1960 and alexandria because he was graduated in alexandria there was no naval academy and syria coming and was the unification he was an arab nationalist and has been ever since. he retired about 20 some odd years ago. and has been pretty much enacted drinking tea on the balcony there is no role for people retire and there isn't much even in the allied areas.

being married to an allied influences me. i'm not going to deny it. i ever stand them. but the ideas were performed well before that. my ideas were formed growing up in the road and from living and teaching during the civil war when i watched christians and muslims kill each other in big numbers and people that were sophisticated then i watched the iraq war when everybody said we love each other we are going to get along just knockout the regime and will all be good. it didn't happen. living in syria 1981 committee to in the university of damascus i watched syrians every room in

my dormitory was divided. we talked about them like this all the people visiting would be from the same or from the same village. people would come and visit from different sectors but they would change the conversation. if they walked into the room i can tell you what the conversation with changed dramatically and there was a world of different communities. and that is what made me so worried about syria because yes this regime held the country hostage. there was never any illusion about the fact that they've ruled by force. and threatened to turn as he did he threatened to turn syria into 100 afghanistans if he was taken down and the country did break apart along the sectarian lines

and it's paying incredible price for its content of solutions that the ravee heartland in my first article i wrote at the beginning of april of last year was there is no soft landing for syria and then my second was deeply sectarian regime coming and most of my syrian friends attacked me bitterly. they couldn't believe i was saying these things about their society because i didn't believe the society was secretary and, and it wasn't because i'm trying to protect our lights i don't think so much although i do feel for them. i understand them and i understood. but, you want to shall to

somehow avoided this kind of terrible destruction to the society. i was fearful. the minorities have had their foot on the next of the majority for 40 years there's no doubt about that. you are praying there would be a soft landing and that is the really -- it's not that i'm married to an allied all will that clearly has made me more sensitive to the minorities i suppose but i'm very pessimistic about the future of syria and that is what made me so tentative about wanting to jump in coming and i wrote my dissertation, and i saw how the golden vision of seeley and the nation that was democratic until the stupid allied's came and ruined it is a wrong vision. it wasn't like that. the sunnis ruined it for themselves first a don't want to

blame it on sectarian things but there isn't an innocent syriac out there that's waiting to come back. i guess not would be this sort of underlying sense of pessimism of nation-building in iraq, lebanon and syria is what really informed my reticence about jumping on board and the revolution. >> this is the question. >> al qaeda is going to try to make as much out of syria as it possibly can. there is no doubt about it. al qaeda was present in iraq. america's of the devotee that attacked them was al qaeda and he's doing the same thing. he is not being original. and, i didn't believe the americans when they said and i don't believe shay assad when he

says it. there are al qaeda in syria. i don't doubt it they are not the major factor. they are not a dominant factor. people say that if we intervene there would be no al qaeda because syria is going to get radicalized. i think the syrians will find there's with time. i don't know if america can stop them from radicalizing. we didn't stop the rockies and if a was an argument might for going into iraq that we were going to stop the war montara by creating democracy in iraq. i was our main goal to lead to major argument. we didn't stop them or create democracy. i'm not going to be labor that. it's there but it shouldn't be the overall. a lot of people are trying to use it as a reason not to get involved in syria. the gentleman in the second in

the back. yes. >> what are turkey's goals in the crisis and are turkey's goals likely to be realized? >> i think that turkey has gone through a big education and they knew little about syria and that is all good much like american reaction he wanted to stand for reaction and he succeeded in the victory. he wants to make this larger economic zone for turkey and shift power from the south and the gulf of to the north and the middle east and have turkey be in the center and that is what he was doing. seeley a scriven look for him getting into this terrible arab spurring he got mad and he had to side with democracy the same way that america has to side

when push comes to shove because the national religion, and i think he did that once he got his feet and, he realized how dangerous it is and that is what all the neighbors have been doing because there's lots of courage. still the very powerful organization and the heat turkey and they are hurting other currents. they are not united at all in the park because many of them are worried they will gain influence. there are alloites of syria some people put in as much as 20%. i don't know if they are syrian alloites although there was on and turkey as well. they tend to sympathize with directly into syria you open up the issues in your own home country. it is a lose lose situation in turkey they only can get more kurdish problems and secateurs

and problems and lose their money. let somebody else do it. we will come in behind america but we are not going to go in first. >> i will try to keep my answers brief. >> my question is if we leave the united states that interference see extremists in the country especially now they would see the opportunity that's secular and a very diverse and by having the have side would have organizations like al qaeda in other organizations that have no support. if they don't give any support they won't survive. you do have a crisis and i think america is trying to pick

winners and i think this has been one of america's very difficult problems because we did what you're doing and syria in afghanistan in the 1980's which is to go 50/50 with of the saudis sharing program of funding the mujahideen to bring down the regime that we don't like. we ended up with al qaeda in afghanistan and that has changed in the u.s. and the regime so your question is important in the sense it does govern the thinking of america is going to do it and they have been sent to syria to say do not let the as honest extremists we have to pick some winners in a stumble several months ago was that clinton announced that all funding would go to the syrian national council to do that

which would mean that america would be able to pick the winners and wouldn't go straight to the muslim brotherhood it will go to the al qaeda saudi arabia might like to fund. that broke down because the national council had its target at. they all began to stab each other in the dying and so americas plan fell apart in its hands and it became -- the weapons are not getting enough of numbers that they hoped. i don't know where saudi arabia is on this and they all talked about having a sort of tag team group of that policy probably is not coming together the way the american ones, which is leading the doors open for people to find who they want to which is what america was worried about in the beginning.

that is a concern. obviously christians are going to bring about that. its plan to make syria worse in the short term. he's going to kill lots of people and destroy the place and isn't going to be there even chile. he's going to lose and then where does that leave the questions? the christians are going to deal with muslims and they are going to deal with some islamists coming and syria is going to be much more responsive. we've seen that in egypt and tunisia. the christians are going to have to suck it up. i don't see any other way. they have to decide whether they can live in a new syria and have faith that they are types that are easy going. they've always stood and they are not granted beat sidey

arabia. they are not granted be to iran. they are bred to be more like turkey even if they are not there and be more like turkey and christians will be respected as the arts and for pcs christians of these sort of successful -- bedle the pingree of the because many yourself john, western names and they always attack you for being not a red enough's. but if you can stand that, it won't be so bad i don't think. and who knows. turkey's of a lot of their problems by ethnic cleansing. if there had been 20% christians as there were before 1920. 20% christian out of turkey and the others either killed them or kicked them out and a lot of serious christians have already gone through on expulsion. they are frightened obviously for good reason. they got to be space and it was able to win the elections and lead democracy in part because there were no questions. if there'd been 20% that voted

they wouldn't have succeeded they would have been biting their nails he's an islamist. i don't know if that is true that you can see it. it would have been a difficult problem and syria has that problem because there are alloites and christians and others. they have a reason to be. look what happened in iraq and turkey. it's been bad for christians in the middle east. their fears are not completely fabricated. but what can you do. christians are going to have to. it's better to do it faster. >> join me in her thinking. >> thank you. [applause] thank the woodrow wilson center.

next the committee for the responsible federal budget

officially launches their campaign to fix the debt initiative. the new bipartisan effort cochaired by former senate budget committee chairman judd gregg and former pennsylvania governor ed rendell aims to build support for a debt reduction plan to be passed by congress and signed by the president by july 4th, 2013. speakers and with a former vice chairman of the federal reserve board alice rivlin and former that commission co-chair erskine bowles. this is just over an hour. >> i ron the committee for the responsible federal budget and i'd like to welcome all of you for joining us for the launch of the campaign to fix the debt. as you can see i'm joined today by many leaders parties from the business sector former members of congress experts who are all working in a variety of ways to help us move the country towards serious resolution for the fiscal challenges that face us

it's exciting because the drugs are coming together with members of congress and importantly outside of washington to build a whole campaign to really put this country back on a sustainable fiscal path. the campaign to fix the debt is going to bring together ceos, business leaders, former members of congress, budget experts, economists, but most importantly, voters across the country to lend their support and create a safe environment for people here in washington to put together a package of will ultimately put in place a plan to fix the debt to help strengthen the economy and and to do so in a way that will bring the country back to the proposition that it was before whereas you know if we fail to act, the consequences will be immensely serious. i want to talk briefly about the campaign is going to do. we will continue to work as members of congress to build support in a bipartisan way for a debt deal. there will be launched very aggressive social media campaign to bring together people all

across the country who really want to focus on this issue in a way that they can become active and have their voices heard. it's building networks across the country of supporters to help get this done and partnering with all sorts of groups both in washington but are around the country. a lot our partners are here today. there's one group that started it is called the can kick back and there's so much energy popping up in the country. to be joined by the leaders of this campaign i'm going to turnaround to the co-chair to fix the debt governor ed rendell and senator judd gregg working with erskine bowles, alan simpson and all the members of the campaign. they will be talking about why this issue is so important and what it is we can do to really help the country come together and fix the debt. the last point i want to leave everyone with is this is not going to be easy. we know that putting together this is going to be difficult.

but narrative's recently have been all about how the economy is broken, the budget is broken and washington is broken and that may be true. people across the country and members of congress want to come together and work on this issue one of the things about the countries that regularly it is our greatest challenges that inspire our greatest moment so the people here and working with really believe that as difficult as this will become this is a campaign that we cannot afford to lose and that is why they are here joining us today taking time out of their busy schedule to get involved. thank you so much coming and i will turn it over to you, governor rendell. >> we just came from the first meeting to fix the debt campaign steering committee coming and was a good meeting and set out a few basic principles. our core principles or there has to be a significant debt reduction plan that has to include number one.

it has to be a bipartisan plan. it has to involve multi trillion dollars in the next ten years. it protects the truly needy in this country. as said this is a unique group. it's an unprecedented bipartisan coalition of the lawmakers, business of its leaders and budget experts. and their goal is first and foremost to galvanize the public support to produce a significant comprehensive debt reduction plan that can be passed by the congress and signed by the president no later than july 4th and 2013. we think ideally it should be passed into law souter to the consumer. it's to create an environment it

becomes not only good policy to vote yes on a debt reduction plan, but good politics as well. and we believe we can do this by going after public opinion and generating public opinion and support of america's home towns. so people in america's hometown's do deliver that message to people inside the beltway but we want to act and act now. they have missed the mark. well, for a number of reasons. a number one because this is an unprecedented coalition. number two, because we are all dedicated to getting this done. number three, because the consequences of inaction we believe has become clear and much clearer to those people each time there is a budget fiasco like raising the debt limit. the consequences of doing nothing are becoming abundantly

clear. and also because the year of the debt denial is over. the conversation now is not should we fix the debt, the conversation is how we fix the debt. the american people as is often the case are way ahead of the policy makers. they understand that we need this to get done. erskine bowles can tell you about his travels in the country and the tremendous amount of public interest and the support for this concept. it involves just finding the political will to do that. they find in the mind of has to be done. it's finding the political will to get it done. it's our job to interviews washington and the political will to make sure once and for all and remain a great nation. if that is my honor to introduce in all of his public career

someone that has reached across the line and found the devotee to find real solutions to real problems. >> thank you for outlining effectively while the purposes are here it's great to be joined by some of the extraordinary individuals across the community of america. these are all do worse appear and they are all here to do something about the debt and get in on the control. adam smith over 20 years ago bought it pretty well. the great nations are in paul first, acting badly and we have a government that says the area of the debt to give it ideas and resources which it can use by the decision makers we are not the decision makers but it can be used by the decision makers to move us forward in endorsing this issue of the fiscal crisis and fiscal problems. if we don't do this if we don't

get the fiscal situation now of control we all know that we are going to pass on to our kids the nation that is less prosperous and the standard of living drops dramatically and we don't have to look much further than across the pond so to say to see what's happening when you don't address the issue with the american complete of the situation over the european situation the european union we are in more serious shape than they are. the deficits are higher. the accumulation of debt is a growing faster we better take action. what we are going to try to do here is support those folks in the congress that willingly do that by giving them ideas and initiatives and one of the strongest ideas and the some symbols proposal was the vehicle that already has credibility and

updated it to the day taking in consideration of the gang of six has done and the president and speaker of the house did, taking the consideration of the super committee bringing those ideas into the process and producing the vehicle which will give people which is a very constructive effort and to all these extraordinary people undertaking this, time is running short. we do have a major decision point coming up with of the fiscal cliff occurring and the mother of all of the lame ducks in december in order to make good decisions at that time. >> i'm bob zoellick just left the world bank. it's a pleasure to deal with governor rendell and senator gregg to yield on the work

senator simpson and erskine rules did. about a month or two ago i had a visit from the foreign minister of australia, very good friend of the united states named bald car. the united states, he said, is one budget deal away from restyling its global pre-eminence. the asia-pacific is saying it's time the united states is in up to it and you better listen to what we have to say. 200 years ago alexander hamilton the first secretary of the treasury. he and the other founding fathers by doing so secure a country to finance the louisiana purchase and make the strongest country in the world.

the world economy has stumbled. of the european situation is a caution and a warning about what can creep up on you pretty fast if you don't act. some of the task of trying to get control of a budget and debt that is out of control is not only an issue for future generations and maintaining the legacy but it's a question of whether the united states will continue to lead in the world. the issue that we are facing is one where we hope this group building on the work that is building before can provide a resource for the decisions that ultimately the congress and the president have to make thank you. thank you for bringing us

together. i'm proud to be part of this group. it just a few points. one is we have a fragile economy as bob said not just in the united states but particularly around the world. number two, neither party in my view to impose his view on the country or other parties we have to have cooperation. number three, this is not physics. this is not calculus, this is arithmetics. and right now in my view i speak only for myself on this point, neither party has a governing strategy. both parties have a tree big political strategy of the fiscal matters but not the governing strategy. just to underscore one other point the governor made it coming and jed made it coming and that is that there are people that might have made the

point on capitol hill who are already working together to be a fit of folks on capitol hill. we have people that would understand this problem. but the ones that are trying to work together don't get support from their leadership. in most cases from the white house coming and they don't get support from their party's. so, what's happening? i think we have got wings out there floating in the political system and fuselages missing. they have to rally and have to support people but are willing to work together. to me, the rallying point is right here. erskine and ellen did a great job to believe and to be driving back when the appointed erskine and i had a satellite radio and i heard every commissioner speak we of a cliff and we were going to be dropped off unless something happens. the speaking for myself why

don't we substitute simpson-bowles so that if nothing is done this becomes the default position in june or april or whenever the deadline is. thank you for the leadership. it's great to be with you. >> stand it's been about 40 years when i started a long-term unsustainable debt of this country and today is not planned to be an exception i can assure you. the last 30 years when congress is reigned during the 90's coming and i would like to make the case i think there is quite a good opportunity at this time there is a rapidly growing awareness on the problem in several sectors.

for example, former public officials who rarely agree about anything. we serve a large number of public officials from eight previous administrations, and we asked them about the debt situation. the result that i had never seen before in the survey 100% of those bipartisan officials said he strongly agreed the fiscal situation was unsustainable. what about the think tanks that also rarely agree? our foundation went to six of them last year and asked what did they think about the sustainability of the situation coming and what was their plan. all six agree even though they cover the whole ideological spectrum that indeed it was sustainable.

frear, the business sector. some of you may recall tom friedman said and the business sector these guys are missing in action. today my has put together an understanding of the ceos joined on the platform by david on the business roundtable and i think major progress is being made. finally, let's talk up the public level. recently, we had a survey 1,000 citizens in this country about the situation i saw much of the survey to encourage me about the possibilities. they seem to much more fully understand the problem than they used to and they will get just a few i hope not too boring statistics to read 83 -- 93% of

democrats, and nearly 80% of republicans told us they believe that these long-term debt problems must be solved and must include the tax increases and spending cuts so while ma washington is mired in ideological and almost theological argument about no revenues and no entitlement cuts and so forth, the public is saying i want to compromise. we want you to compromise it was mikey that said just do it and writing we are at the level where we just want to do it. thank you. >> i am the ceo of honeywell. as a member of simpson-bowles, i was shocked at the size of the

problem and the inescapable with the of the problem as the baby boomer generation retired. one of the things that really struck me coming and we talked about this earlier, is in ten years we can find ourselves the position where our annual interest bill is a trillion dollars a year. we were talking earlier about how do you represent a trillion dollars as but if you expect the million dollars a day since jesus christ was born 2011 years ago, you still would not have spent a trillion dollars and that is going to be aware annual interest bill if we don't do something. but the uncertainty of the problem is causing people like me to be extra careful when it talks about making hiring decisions and investment decisions. if we don't do something we can find ourselves in the position where 2% gdp growth and 8% unemployment is the case the next five years. we don't want to do that. we don't want to hurt a fragile

recovery. i agree that the same time it's important that we address the long-term both a simplified tax system that collects more and a simplified entitlement system specifically medicaid and medicare that spends less. if we don't do that we will never resolve this issue. there's a right as to both of their positions and what we need to do this work together to address this as an american problem. and we can't have people continuing to level when pluralism or just indulging in the joy of simultaneous asphyxiation when we have a problem of this magnitude that we need to address. diebold on bald zoellick's point because i thought of as a good point out the rest of the world views this. 100 different countries in my tenure. you get to see a lot of people changing and a lot of countries changing and you see everybody working harder to compete every day.

the competitiveness of the world is improving every day. we are not keeping step. this is one of the biggest things we can do to improve the competitiveness in the country and get us back on the path i think we rightfully belong. that is that we have to solve the debt first. there's a lot of people on the world and some people even think that we no longer the have the political will to act. as a once great country we have become the path of the plan because we can no longer do the tough things in life to make the decisions that we need to. i don't believe that. i know this group doesn't believe that. i can also represent the most ceos don't believe that but we have to exercise that political will would actually act to make the tough decisions >> i'm at the brookings institution, and i may have served on more debt commissions than anybody. [laughter]

>> we are calling this effort fix th calling this effort fix the debt. but i think what we really need this fix the economy and restore a vital high growth u.s. economy that is capable of leading the world. fixing the debt and growing the economy are not antithetical. they are necessary to each other. we can't grow the economy without fixing the debt because we are unsustainable situation, and we can't fix the debt without growing the economy. so, what i was proud to serve with erskine and alan simpson and david cody on some symbols -- simpson-bowles also served with my friend pete domenici on a different task force that we call domenici rivlin.

what i learned from this double the experience is, as somebody said earlier, it is the arithmetic that drives the problem. if you have a bipartisan reasonable sensible group looking at what do we do, they come to the same conclusion. we have to reduce the rate of growth in the entitlement programs especially the health care once coming and we have to reform our tax system so that it raises more revenue in a better way so those are the key. it isn't very complicated. it is doable, and it is now to convince the american public and our legislators we on a track can lead to any good to grow the economy and to fix this problem. thank you. >> ..

believe this is a major life threatening problem for the economy. there are many views about what to do about it. everybody on wall street can do matt and understand how big a problem finance second thing i want to say the financial markets you can like them or not. certainly the trend is in the latter direction at the moment. you can't deny the importance. they are the critical lubricant of any well-functioning economy. and we fortunately have

historically had the best functioning capital markets in world. we want to keep it that way particularly in terms of how they view our debt. you've heard a couple of mentions made about places where the markets have gone awry, one place where the markets almost went awry, the number of the in people will remember was in 1993 when bill clinton arrived and the bottom market said not so fast. we need to deal with deficit, interest rates went up. he was known to describe traders with four-letter words. a deficit reduction package was put in place. he sustained a low inflation of growth and even more as the '90s wore on. europe was mentioned and we have seen the consequences in europe when you get off track. many people say, rates are solo in the u.s. right now markets

clearly don't care about it why should we? a couple of things about that. one thing, we have all these problems, but most of the world has worse problems and we have the flight to safety incredible as you might seen if you study the numbers. markets are not quite as fast acting and responsive as you might expect them to be. they are not perfect. it's like the boiling the frog. you go along feeling fine and you're boiled next thing you know. greece were close to germanys until a four or five years ago and now you see what's happening in greece. i don't think we should take any comfort that we have historically long-term low treasury rates. i think it can change in an instant. many fears people have is that it could happen. the last thing i want to comment

about is the fiscal clift. among the many things the market hates is uncertainty. maybe almost the most it hates uncertainty. we saw some of that during the debt ceiling debacle last summer. which produced the second sharpest drop in consumer confident in the history. only to katrina and not as -- bigger drop that occurred into the innovation of kuwait and 9/11 none produced a sharper drop than that. it went down 8% it only come back recently. i think we have to be mindful about the long-term picture and how we operate in the short term. i would like that leave this on a positive note and say i think as an example of president clinton in the early '90s as example of what happened when paul came in and cleaned up a far bigger mess and the

sustained period of growth we had after this. a there is hope, everybody agrees that we let if fester it gets more difficult and harder to fix. thanks. paul on the executive chairman. first and foremost, i'm an imeerp. the company i started in 1975 has grown to be 70 offices in 25 country. if never occurred occurred to me in building the global company. we were positive the american ingee knewty could compete. it would never occur to us the single greatest long-term threat to compete was fiscal solve sei of the united states. that's quite a shocking thing to wake up to. i think there's a sense life was gone. we would be okay. as business people knew about deploy your cash, training people, creating jobs, the

issues realitied to long-term health care cost or tax policy. all these things are derivatives of a root cause and gets back to the debt. the crisis is real. and it is unsustainable and we're heading all over the country to a $7 trillion mess in december. that level makes it hard to run a business. to solve the problem requires political wealth. we live in a highly polarized and hostile political market. we need to stop transcribe losing the debate. we need to start talking about the substance. we need to not confuse advocacy for government. we need to get beyond and extending partisanship. i'm here as citizen of the country. we are citizens of the country. the campaign is about galvanizing broad support to get all to help create the political

will to get it down and take control of the economic destiny. william jennings bryan said it's not matter of choice it's a it is chance. it is achievable. anything i have learned how many thousand of hours around the country is that people have been up here have been put rationale well meaning people to get together and solve the problem. it's not easy. we don't get a free pass. everybody is part of the problem. we have all put in the election, the people in government who have contributed the problem. nobody gets a free pass. but you can't stand back and watch. right. that would be reckless. we don't. we owe this country better. we owe our citizens and children better that than. to to be sitting back and pass sieve is like being an accomplice to the crime. s there is an urgency i'm proud to be part of the campaign.

i agree with the statement they travel around the world, people were stunned last year when we fooled around the debt ceiling. that was something that shocked the world. america the greatest economic country in the world can't get the political will to this. we have a problem. we have the opportunity to be great. this is the country for the people. we need to take back control of the destiny. there's no greater stake than to get a debt deal. that's what this campaign is about. thanks. >> good afternoon. i'm al simpson. [laughter] , you know, we've had william jennings bryan quoted adam smith, we had alexander hamilton, so i'm going to quote my hero, al simpson, i talked to al a few minutes ago. he texted me and how is it there? he said it's so hot. he said it's so cold out here.

i saw two guys walking down the street with their hands in the pockets. i really talked to him. al would be here, but he's had some surgery done on his legs, and he gave me some notes to speak from as he always does. i just i want to make a few short quotes. i'm the tenth of the ten people you've had a chance to listen to. i'm proud to be part of the bipartisan effort to put our fiscal house in order. but more importantly, i'm really delighted to have a chance to work for john and ed. i worked with them both many times in the past, they are my kind of readers. they know how to work. they know how to work hard and get something done. that's what we've got do in the days and weeks ahead. i think i would be amies if i also didn't say if i'm proud to be here on the stage with people who have been in the vanguard of

this effort. real pioneers people who shoulders i stand on people who supported the effort and saw end where we are today long before i did. people like pete and sami al jundi and al lis i wish pete was here. those kinds of people have recognized the problem for a long, long time. i do believe, and you heard me say it before, our nation does face the most predictedble economic crisis in history. it is crazy. fortunately for all ever us, it's also the most avoidable economic crisis in history. the fiscal path we are on is not simply not sustainable. and these deficits of over a trillion dollars a year, they are a cancer. and a cancer is going to destroy

the country from within if we don't get the politicians here in town in both parties to wake up and decide now is the time to act. we have to have a comp hencive long-term fiscal plan that reduces the deficit by at least $4 trillion. $4 trillion is not a number we made up. $4 trillion is not the maximum amount we need to reduce the deficit, it's not even the ideal amount. it's the minimum amount you need to reduce the deficit to stabilize the debt and get it on downward path as the percentage of gdp. our commission a commission of alice, dave, and al and i served on, our commission came forward and -- actually this whole commission came out of an idea

of judd and kent conrad had. if they hadn't had the feet to the fire, i don't think we would are had this commission. thank you, judd and thanks to kent conrad for that. the nashville commission on fiscal responsibility and reform did come forward with a plan that does exactly what i think this nation needs to do. but allen and i have always said this plan is no more than a starting point. there are a lots of good ideas out there. i have read the plan that alice and pete put together, it has some better ideas than we put forward. it is terrific. you know, i've looked at work that was done by the gang of six and the good ideas we can all use p. it you look at the idea donees by done by the supercommittee and the president and the speaker and you look at some of

the work done bid biden commission, you can see some really good ideas. and we have enough really good ideas out there. what we need now is to act. we need really action. everybody said who came before me, we do face a fiscal cliff. if we do nothing, and we barrel through this fiscal cliff at the end of the year, you know, we're going have about $7 trillion hit this country right in the gut. and that is crazy, because the effect of that will be somewhere between one and 2.5% of gdp that is enough to put our country back into a recession. that we cannot have. that's why i al and i have spent, you know, i say 90 percent of our time during the last year traveling around this country.

we spent some time here in washington meeting with members of the house and senate from both parties, and we got some great ideas. we visited with the think tanks and gotten some good ideas there. think tanks on the right and on the left. we have designed and hopefully it will be kicked off today this effort to put together a social media campaign, where we hope that we can get as many as ten million people to sign a petition to encourage congress to act and act responsibly now. and lastly, we've been putting our plan in legislative language, it's gone from about 65-page report to senator nun held up to over 600-pages. while i think it's crazy, i think it's probably one of the many reasons i would have been a terrible senator. it does -- we do hope it will

help as a framework for the real decision makers and the house and senate to come together. we had hoped from this effort we have made and the effort we have made putting 0 together this ceo fiscal leadership counsel, which has over 100 members of the fortunate 500 now as part of it. we had hoped that common sense would overrule politics, and people in this town would be harded at work at this now. but it looks like politics is going to override common sense, and nothing is probably going happen until after the election. what the hope of this group is, is that we can provide at decision-makers the kind of vehicle and the kind of support and the kind of support from the country at large where they can come together during the lame

duck and put together a frame work of a policy that will move this country forward. i think if they do, not only will the people of this country rejoice, i have literally met in the last year with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousand of people. people from the right, the left, the far right, the far left, the center, democrats, republicans, conservative, liberals, and if we got an hour with each one of them, at the end of the type al and i spent with them we got a standing ovation, the people get if nape want real solution to real problems. they understand the problems are real, the solutions are painful. that there's no easy way out. but i believe those same people will rejoice and i think steve is right to that the markets will rejoin if we come together

an common sense bipartisan balance plan. and i think if we do that, the future of the country is very, very bright. my ya, thank you for letting me be a part of this. >> we're going to take a couple of quick questions from the audience. we have a time after wards for people to stay. i'm going to turn it over to greg to manage the question. >> time is up. [laughter] great job. you mentioned the july 4th, 2013, the deadline. what you expect to happen until the lame duck. there's the cliff but you don't sound like we're going put it full on? [inaudible] we're not trying to -- [inaudible] we're going to be here as a resource. if i were in the senate, i would suggest they set up a procedure

request ascertainable procedures for them to act or things to occur if they don't act before july 4th on the big issues and the reform and tax reform. >> yes. i'm greg -- [inaudible] i want to thank you for launching this campaign. i have a question really basically a question concerning two elements that were in the room, and i see one is the fact that there's no present existing stock of outstanding entitlement the approach. let's talk about that. it doesn't include the huge overhang that we're referring to. -- [inaudible]

and the wing nuts twisting them, i don't see the logic, the political logic for putting this together and as you're suggesting, and if i am passing something on the math, let me know. if i'm missing something on the wing nuts. are we doing anything to mitt dpait the major contributions for the wing nut on both sides. thank you. >> anybody? >> well, go ahead. you go. >> this is not an absolute direct answer to your very good question. but several of us as far as the coalition concord coalition, bob beings bix by are here. he and i co-chair that now that

kerry is out running for the senate in nebraska. csis is focused on security, and on farm pots, but we believe this is a security issue. those two groups and others incoming pete very prominently and alice are going to have a set of hearings in september. we're going have four hearings, one on fiscal policy, one on entitle element policy, one on taxes and growth, and one on security. what will come of that? we don't know. we are going to get the best witnesses we can kind and get the consciousness raised around the country and get the middle of america as assertive as those on the wings. >> i think you should note, we're not trying to engage in the president issue election at all. what we want is when the election cycle is over, we want to be available for the resource whoever the spt to be able to governor well and the congress govern well. we're going give them a lot of

different idea so they can accomplish that and hopefully the american people who have common sense, quite often exceeds what happens here in washington. understand that need and will be supportive of that effort. [inaudible] >> believe that the get set a big problem. it's a problem of which piece to make it better. how they're doing to or spending whatever. my question is social media campaign, how do you plan to get people from that point to the problem to expressing the hard realities of the solution of the debate. >> i don't think it's that big of job. if you listen to what pete was said 93% and 80% agree we have do both. raise revenue and reduce spending and reduce entitlements the growth of entitlements. i think the stage is set, we

have galvanize those people to speak up. in in politics, if you're an collect elected office holder, you hear from -- i don't want to use the wing nut, you hear from people on the extremes at the highest percentage of the numbers than you do people in the middle. what our job has to be is get the people in the middle to speak up whether it's through social media through traditional letters and mails, we need basically to give the legislative here in washington the permission slip. it's okay. we will standby you. we know it's important. we now it has been to to be do. go do it and we'll be there. i think? is coble. it's not going to be easy. i think if you can get americans to understand how important it is, and people are growing their

understanding literally every time as another bump in the road. i think we can do this. that's our task. >> this morning during a bernankes testimony. schumer asked why aren't you asking to fix our economy because we can't. it was one of the most unbelievable statements in testimony i've heard. it shows how the senate cannot do anything. how do you address that in this process? that type of attitude. >> i think the senate is where the constructive action will be energize the at fairly high level. you have functioning in the senate right, at least the gang of six isn't six at all. it's probably 30 to 40 people. we talked to a group of senators there was 40 people there. chuck schumer was there. they were engaged and interesting and understand some

very significant action has to occur. i do think senate is fertile ground for getting it done. an we're trying to be of help to them a resource for them. >> federal spending has exceeded -- [inaudible] in about four years, meanwhile federal taxization is only reached 20% of gdp. it's never been as high as 24 percent. what percentage would you balance the budget and taxization and spending? >> i can tell you the way we follow through it passenger's side, -- it's not exactly the way everybody up here would you do it. you have roughly the right numbers. in 2020, the forecast were spar spending or it around 25% and revenue around 19%.

if we wanted to get the deficit down to at least 1% of dgdp that meant we had to get spending down around to 21% and revenue up to around 20%. that's what we were able to do in the plan. i believe you can get spending down to 21%. even with the changes in the demographics and even with health care growing at the rate aless gdp plus one. if we can slow it down to that kind of level. somebody asked earlier how do you do it? make really tough choices. there's this nobel prize winning scientist, and his nobel prize project was running out of money. and he turned to the team and said, we're running out of money. now we have to start thinking. [laughter] that's what america is. we're running out of money. you know, we got to start thinking. you know, we have to make choices. tough choices, you know, we have to make the hard political

choices. i just ran university of north carolina for the last five years, one of the things i really wanted to focus on was making sure we ask our part to improve k through twelve and, you know, we produced most of the teachers. i wanted to figure how how we could produce quality teachers, not just more but better math and science teachers. i turned to our team and said surely there's federal programs question look at. there are 82. do we need two or three good ones? you bet. we don't need 72. we do $1.5 billion annual federal scientific research at the university. is all of that high-value added research? it's not. nor as it the 3,000 other colleges and universities that do scientific research put to invest in education. i want to invest in research, i want to invest in infrastructure, but we also have to look at how spending our

money today. and make sure we spend it more wisely. that's why we can bring spending way down and i believe as economy improves, and we go through the measures of debates and simple fying the code and getting red of some of the spending in the tax code, question can great additional revenue. >> next question. >> [inaudible] fist off, i think most republicans and most democrats and almost all independents recognize the seriousness of the problem. and recognize that you can't resolve this problem in a partisan way because the american people do accept action on programs they consider critical to themselves and to the nation such as entitle element programs like medicare and medicaid. or their tax policy. unless they think it's fair. by definition fairness requires bipartisan. i think most people recognize there's got to be a bipartisan

solution. i think republicans look at this way, i hope they do, that's this, if we get a solution like simpson bowels, which recognizes that majority of the effort on debt reduction has to come oned spending side. that's 70%. the revenue side can be accomplished through tax reform along the lines what president region did with chairman with the means committee. which gives you is a different tax law which oriented toward investment and economic growth. and so i think there's very fairground for republicans to step into the debate and be extremely constructive and i think most of the republicans adopt that. again, i'll return to the meeting at senate. both sides of the aisle are there in large numbers very interested and gauged how to get it.name. these are solid folks who want to be constructive and are just looking for different ways to do it. >> thank you. [inaudible]

>> probably key members of the senate on the aisle, and, you know, members of the senate will use any, to kind of get out of a boring meeting. they had three votes during our session. and they ran out to vote before they were all back in there. nobody pulled out. people are really interested. they know we face the fiscal cliff. they know we have to deal with it. >> we know it's going to be a challenge. everies a pebt of tax reform has strong special intros and lobbyist backing it. that's why it's absolutely necessary to galvanize strong uniform public opinion with every area in the area. we will stick around and if everybody wants to talk to us. thank you for coming. [applause]