medicare, talk of using, changing the va system to go to a system of vouchers. the va system as you look at it is probably the most respected hospital system nationwide. they get very high marks for quality of patient care and so forth. the idea of mixing with that system and going to an unproven voucher system is worrisome for what i talked to. i do think that is a policy difference on investment in the va that is different between the two campaigns. >> secretary wayman in an interview recently laid out the naval plan, 15 ships the year, a

very ambitious program, not quite doubling of the navy's current plan which is $14 billion a year which put a spin under the george bush administration and the obama administration. where are you going to put this investment and get the money to build those additional ships? where are you going to get the sailors? talk about increasing the marines and the army, downsizing, the navy has been downsizing for a while. where are you going to get the sailors? >> my understanding is when john lehmann laid out a very specific plan there were two elements the governor has already spoken about. another element being considered.

what was spoken about, first of all fifteen ships the year and second of all the three submarine's a year. so the rest of it is what we would consider. these are objective is. number 2 is how do you move the money around? when you move the money and where you take the additional money that is -- we predict we would allocate to the defense department, it is not at all surprising given the -- i don't care how good a ship -- you know very well, i don't care how good a ship is, you could only have one ship in one place at one time. if you want to have two carriers in the arabian gulf which we do, and you want to have two in the western pacific which right now we do that can sustain.

you know the calculus. you want to have our carrier moving around another place, you have no problem. if you want to have escorts for those carriers and the right number for a battle group you have a bigger problem. if you one submarines you have a bigger problem. clearly you have got to build a lot more ships pretty much to stay where you are in the 300 range and if you don't have 300 ships, you cannot simply be where you are, ships don't fly. >> you talked about -- i don't think he said whether you would substitute the essence. >> i can't speak for john. as i say, we are looking at a whole bunch of options. needless to say if you are talking about an open ocean forget that is what somebody does for you. what does lc s and 4?

a lipitor combat ship. when they came to me with the idea in 2002, he came to me and said we really want to fund this thing. we have our concept, we need what is called a ground water navy ship. really a green water -- not even brown water -- green water. that is to say something that will not be in the open ocean but isn't river -- isn't just going up the river like vietnam. it made a lot of sense to fund a ship like that. what happened is that ship has come to dominate the program. which doesn't make sense. >> the question of how to pay for this. the question is is it something else in the defense department budget or the federal budget? is it in the entitlement? if so which entitlements would you change? how you pay for this? >> talking about increases. ..

which is, what specifically is that force trying to prevent? >> sure. >> sound like world war ii. >> not at all. not when you only have 11 of them. we were putting out more than those every year in world war ii. what carriers do, and i think everyone understands,

the biggest supporter of aircraft carriers is not the defense department, state department. always has been historically. the reason is carrier presence has an unbelievably effective deterrent effect on people. i will give you a concrete example. 1976, okay? you have this nutcase, idi 6 amin who captures a whole bunch of israeli hostages. the is rallies liberate hostages out of invading kenya. what does amin do. he invade kenya. we send aircraft carriers off the coast. amin decides it is not a good idea. 1996, not my administration, clinton administration. we have a crisis with china over taiwan? what do we do? we send aircraft carriers. chinese back up. 1976, 1996. it will happen again in 2016.

>> [inaudible]. question for both of you. sort of been picking around the edges with this. i will go and ask for both of your reactionses to this. we talk a lot about ships. mr. zakheim brought up basing. i think the bigger question behind that, since we're spending so much of this conversation talking about our interests in the asia-pacific i want both of yours opinions on the following. how are the strategic interests of the united states of america protected by the next administration comes into office and labels the people's republic of china a currency manipulator? >> why don't you start with that because i think that is directed first to you and i could pile on. >> and i left out ladies first but it ain't working. okay. >> president obama has not

proposed calling china a currency manipulator. so i leave that to you. >> is that -- >> no. i will also follow-up. >> waiting to pile on. okay, that's fine. that's fine. >> [inaudible]. >> sorry? >> they said governor romney said on the first debate. >> look, i don't have an issue with it. first of all what governor romney essentially is talking about, this is just to clarify, and i'm not going to evade your question, he's saying if china wants to trade we need a level playing field. there isn't a level playing field. t ultimately it is bad for everybody because at some point americans will stop investing in china. and he says he is going to lay on tariffs. so he is saying if you guys want to play this game, we can hurt you just as much as you think you can hurt us. now what will it do to the strategic balance out there which is your question? my guess is that the chinese

will push as far as they can as long as there is no pushback. my best example of that is chinese behavior in the last few years in the south china sea where they kept pushing and bullying and to some extent they still are but when the administration, and i give hillary clinton a heck of a lot of credit for this, when she basically got up at the asean conference and made it clear this was going a little too far they backed off. again in 1996 when carriers were sent to the taiwan strait, they backed off. the chinese will push if they think they can push and they're not the only country in the world by the way that operates that way. but if we, we take that kind of strong action i honestly would be shocked and i don't mean it in the casablanca sense of shocked, shocked, i

mean literally shocked if the chinese were stupid enough to try to make a military issue out of it. >> so if i could just add. i think, you know, this administration, this has pursued trade actions against china, you know, twice as many as his predecessor. so there's, and there is no question that this president has been tough when he needed to be tough with china on pushing them on unfair practices, trade practices. we've also been in constant conversation with them over the last four years about undervaluing their currency artificially and that, that valuation has started to change and has gone up pretty significantly. needs to go farther but that conversation has had impact. but i think we need to step back and look at this more strategically. china is a rising power and we have an interest in how

that rise is managed. we have an interest in trying to see them integrated into a rules-based order. how do we do that? we obviously pursue cooperation where we can and where it is in both of our interests we're also very clear with them as secretary clinton was in the example dov mentioned when they step over a line. you know, we will not accept resource disputes being resolved through intimidation, coercion or use of force. we will not accept restrictions on freedom of navigation or freedom of commerce. we will not accept, you know, gross violations of human rights, et cetera. so there are certain rules that we stand up for. i think china understands that the u.s. has played the role of regional stablizer, this sort of, we have undergirded the stability of the region that has allowed this region to become the economic engine of the global economy. that role isn't going to

change. and, so but i think we have to frame this in a relationship that's trying to get china to be a more cooperative actor and to see it as in their interest to do so. >> by my watch, i think we have about 12 to 15 minutes before we wrap up. so questions in the audience? i had a couple of i wanted to maybe ask you a few brief questions. winslow. >> i don't know if you're allowing non-press questions. >> tell us who you are, winslow and we'll allow it. we let you in. >> center for defense information and government oversight. i'm still confused of the 4% and i'd like also respond to a question but i like to dov to take another crack at it. anybody here with a computer can go to the mitt romney website, click on the

foreign policy submenu and on that you will find at the bottom of that submenu a defense budget, read the second and third paragraphs and you will see very clearly that governor romney embraces 4% in the base budget for gdp and he says there are reasons to do that. and none of those reasons lack urgency. i'm confused by what you said about 4%. i, it's fuzzed up at best. it may be being disavowed. does candidate romney embrace 4% of gdp for defense, number one? number two, given his sense of urgency, what specific numbers are you willing to

talk about first year supplement? as you well recall when governor reagan was elected he had a massive supply meant for the defense budget. there were all kinds of issues about that but he knew what he wanted to do. >> moderator, get to the question. >> the second question is, do you know what you want to do in the first year of office? >> okay. yeah, 4%, i thought it was pretty clear that 4% is indeed governor romney's policy, full stop. >> okay. >> unequivocal. how do you express it? first of all as i pointed out we're actually at 4.2%. so you could move money out of the overseas contingency. >> not in the base budget. >> not in the base budget but the money is there. money is money is money. it is money for defense, so you can move some of that out. >> larger number will come

down under the romney administration. >> well, everybody agrees that as we pull troops out of afghanistan the number is going to come down. that is not an issue. the issue -- >> spending will decline in the first year? >> no. no. defense spending in the baseline budget will not decline. >> okay. >> what you're doing taking money out of, by the way, these vup supplementals don't show up against the budget. they show up against the deficit. so you're moving money back into the baseline budget. now, one issue which i think has to be determined is, for instance, will there be a budget? we don't have a fiscal 13 budget. so if there's a budget, then you talk about a supplemental. if there's no budget, you're talking about in addition to the budget. budget add-on right, an amendment? we can't possibly know that right now because that is up to the congress. another issue is, how quickly is the economy growing? what are your revenues like?

if your economy is growing your revenues are going to grow. under any circumstances they'll grow. that additionally will provide a buffer, or a filler to the spending but 4% is 4% is 4%. if it looks like it, quacks like it, sounds like it. >> host: it is it. your second thing was what? >> number for the first year, that is three months from now. surely you have a number? >> again, i don't know how you come up with that number until you know what the baseline budget is. >> takes two years to put together a defense budget. how long have you been working on it? this thing will happen very soon. >> takes two years to get out of the defense budget but the administration still doesn't know what to do if there is a sequester. >> i can not answer the 4% number because it is not our number but i can say logically, on the question of how do you pay for it.

you have only a limited number of choices. either you increase tax revenues from the wealthiest americans or from the middle class or on businesses. you increase tax revenues. or, you reduce entitlement benefits. you make cuts to social security, medicare, not in the future, but you change the contract on people now, if you're trying to get money for next year, you make immediate changes to entitlements. or, you make very draconian and deep cuts to the other parts of the domestic spending, to the other parts of the budget. so you go after education or health care or other aspects of federal budget. there only some choices you have to pay for this. and my, it is very hard to evaluate this not knowing the answer to exactly what governor romney would do to support this increase in

defense spending, or this sustained level of defense spending, even after the two wars end. >> would you allow me to give the fourth alternative? if the economy grows, revenues grows. that was left out. >> i want to move onto a couple quick issues. we're running out of time. there are some things we would love to ask you about, from afghanistan to iran, to libya i think thighs will come up in the presidential debate next week but at the outset you talk about leadership, america's leadership in the world and i wanted to ask you about that context in sire i can't. 30,000 people are dead, by some estimates by most estimates in the civil war there. and, one of the drivers, although obviously not a major one but one that is critical, has been weapons coming into syria including from russia. even this week the turks forced a plane to land that was crossing into their

airspace. allegedly carrying weapons for assad's government. to you first, how is the president's reset with russia increased american influence in moscow so that when would think the president could convince the russians to act differently? i would ask you, dov, to respond to how or explain how governor romney in his approach to america's leadership in the world would play differently so that america might have more influence in stopping the killings in syria? >> so the reset with russia was simply taking a very clear eyed approach and recognizing that there you're going to have interests that you can cooperate on and interests where you see things very differently. in areas like arms control, reducing the nuclear danger, nuclear proliferation, of course we want to cooperate

with russia. in areas where they agree to supply, allow supplies come through russian territory to support our troops in afghanistan, of course we want to cooperate with russia. iran sanctions, they're willing to help squeeze iran, of course we welcome that cooperation. syria is an area where we have fundamentally different interests and views. syria is the last russian toehold in the middle east and they are, i think very short sight he hadly trying to hold onto the assad regime rather than being part of the solution for what is inevitable fall of this regime. this administration from the beginning as started with humanitarian assistance, to the people. it has put enormous pressure on assad. the president very clearly called for assad to step down, imposed sanctions, imposed other efforts to isolate them. -- him. we added command-and-control assistance, nonlethal

assistance to the opposition on the ground. that helped greatly to enable their cohesion on the battlefield. now we're slowing assistance to the parts of assistance that are free, trying to help them build capacity, provide government services. meet the needs of the people there. and behind the scenes we are focusing or the administration is focusing its efforts on trying to get this very fractured coalition, coalition of opposition to cohere. as the opposition coheres and they have a transition plan and can guaranty the rights of minorities like the alawhites, that is when the situation will flip and that is when assad will fall. i would love to hear from dov, what more would you do? are you talking about militarily intervening in syria? if it's just providing additional arms beyond what

the substantial amount of arms already flowing into the country, how do you deal with the risks that shoulder-fired missiles, for example, that could hit and shoot down aircraft, how do we make sure those don't show up shooting down american aircraft, israeli aircraft and so forth? exactly what else would governor romney do because i think this may be a an important topic. >> as they say i'm glad you asked the question. let me start out saying the reset with russia has not worked terribly well. russia very reluctantly gone along with sanctions on iran. they were the last holdouts. we watered down those sanctions in order to satisfy the russians to get a deal. the european union has got tougher sanctions than we do. they just passed some more this past week. we lag behind them, and in fact, the administration took its time approving sanctions that were initiated by the congress but there they were so

determined to work through the united nations come what may, saying yeah, we worked with the russians. on syria, by the way the other thing the russianses are doing which other people are not noticing. they are selling arms to iraq. you pull out of iraq so quickly. you don't negotiate a status of force agreement. the president should have been on the phone every day to the guy malaki. now you have a near shia dictatorship. the vice president of the country being hunted by the president of the country and now you have the russians selling to them which is where we were in the 1970s when we used to worry about a russian, soviet attack on iran who were then our friend, via iraq who were russia's friends. very interesting. syria, i'm fascinated by the administration's argument while they know who the good guys and bad guys are when they gill them intelligence and give them logistics support and give them communications all of sudden they don't know who they are when it comes time to give them articles. we are not giving arms to the syrians.

that's what we should be doing. the governor has said that. whatever it takes to get them arms. if we don't know who the good guys and bad guys are why are we providing command-and-control support? why are we providing logistic support? how do we know? maybe we're helping bad guys? maybe we're helping the salafists, who can fire with communications and command and support and they get other information from salafists and use our cq to fire at aircraft. it doesn't add up. the fact of the matter is our policy on syria is nothing short of disaster. very nice of the president of united states to tell mr. assad to leave. obviously he hasn't listened. >> i'm afraid we're out of time. i want to thank you both. >> i will bite my tongue for the comeback. we're out of time. >> i want to thank you both. thank you for taking time to come tonight. hopefully you can stick around for a few minutes.

perhaps there are a few follow-up questions and take you to the audience. thanks to mmidill. for hosting us and thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> here's what's ahead today on c-span2. at 3:50 p.m. eastern we'll go live to ohio where president obama and vice president biden will be campaigning today at a rally in dayton. it's their first joint appearance at an ohio campaign event this election cycle. according to the latest "real clear politics" polling average president obama hold as 2% lead in the state. that is live at 3:50 p.m. eastern. and later the newseum hosts a discussion on covering the presidential campaigns with journalists judy woodruff, gwen i've file and candy crowley, the moderator of the

presidential debate. that is live at 7 clin 30. and mitt romney and paul ryan hold a campaign rally at the red rocks amphitheater in morrison, colorado, this evening. they will be joined by musicians kid rock and rodney atkins. watch the event tonight at 9:05 p.m. eastern on c-span2. up next reaction to last night's presidential debate from this morning's "washington journal.". >> host: cnn this morning, obama wins final debate but does it matter is the headline, body of the story. three debates down, two weeks of campaigning to go, a forceful president barack obama put republican challenger mitt romney on the defensive on foreign policy on monday night with analysts and immediate poll giving him the victory in their final debate just 15 days before the november 6th vote. now the candidates hit the road for the final sprint to election day, focusing on the handful of battleground

states considered still up for grabs and therefore vital to both their chances in a razor's edge race. obama kicks off his america forward tour on tuesday with events in florida and ohio today, both live on c-span by the way, where he will be joined by vice president joe biden while romney and his running mate, representative paul ryan, campaign in nevada and colorado. those too will be live on c-span. on monday obama displayed the experience of a commander-in-chief in explaining u.s. policy under his leadership, cnn writes, in attacking views and proposals of romney, a former massachusetts governor with less experience on international issues. romney ended up supporting most of the obama administration's steps involving hot spots such as the civil war in syria and preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, giving the president the advantage in a debate in which his gop rival needed to question foreign policy of the past four years. a cnn/orc international poll

of people who watched the debate showed 48% favored obama compared to 40% for romney, a result considered statistically even under the margin of error plus of minus 4.5%. another poll by cbs scored it a clear victory for obama. at the same time the cnn poll showed viewers thought romney established credibility as a leader which former white house press secretary ari fleischer, a republican strategist and cnn contributor, said was very important. that's from cnn this morning. here is the headline in "roll call". barack obama attacks mitt romney, moderates in final debate. obama stuck, struck an aggressive tone from the start, repeatedly ripping into the gop nominee as unreliable and reckless while romney sought to move to the center, putting forward a moderate image of someone who would use military force as a last resort. first call up this morning

comes on our support mitt romney line. this is jim in new castle, delaware. jim, what did you think of the final debate last night? >> caller: i think obama played rope-a-dope the entire night. romney never really challenged him how he lied to the u.n., lied to the american people, about the whole situation in benghazi which is just disgusting. romney never forced obama to really confront the idea that the whole muslim spring is the biggest problem that we have and he never really backed up the fact that he really does see just, russian expansionism, renewed russian expansionism as a problem. and obama just, he just, just sat there smug and smirking, just sickens me. i think romney could have come off a little bit more to the point that he was. so i think obama, you know, for the undecideds he really

don't understand the issues, i can't understand why anybody is undecided by now. i think he probably did a better job out of the fact he just roped a dope and said what people wanted to hear. so that is my opinion. >> host: from "the hill", role reversal in final showdown. president obama and mitt romney reversed roles in monday evening's third and final presidential debate. the incumbent fought with the challenger's aggression while the gop nominee mostly avoided heated disagreement except to make jabs on economy. if obama looked to lay romney out on the canvas and republican preferred a rope-a-dope strategy, neither candidate was wholly successful. on balance it was stronger night for the president and his rival but there was a scant evidence of a race-changing moment. that is in "the hill" newspaper this morning. here is "politico". presidential debate, 2012. seven takeaways. who won is the first question they asked. there was far from a consensus view who won the

debate in the hours after it ended. two instant polls gave obama a clean edge over romney but the pundit class was to quote, obama, all over the map. obama's aides were elated with his performance which was aggressive from the get-go. they felt he slapped romney down repeatedly and pushed back forcefully on some of the rhetorical flourishes the republican used against the president over the course of the year. it's not a surprise that obama was aggressive. i clearly believed based on what he had seen in polls that he needed to be and he did win on points, scoring some cleaner arguments against romney on pure policy grounds and getting out his precanned lines about the republican as an archaic figure, 1980s calling for its foreign policy to be returned, era of horses and bayonets in the military being over. many republicans and some neutral commentators believe romney held his own in a difficult format. his aides think he passed the acceptability test and that obama didn't disqualify

him and republicans desperate for a win were sighing deeply that romney didn't have any gaffs. that is "politico" this morning. up next is garrison in missouri city, texas, on our support president obama line. hi. >> caller: how are you doing this morning? >> host: good. what did you think of last night's final debate? >> caller: last night i thought it was pretty much even. i'm first-time voter, first-time college student, first-time voter so i've been paying attention a lot to what is going on. last night each candidate came with a lot of what i like. they actually went into specifics on what they would do for the foreign policy which i hadn't heard a lot of before this debate and i think it really helped to lay out some groundwork. >> host: garrison, where do you go to school? >> caller: i'm at prayer very view a and m university. >> host: what do you study? >> caller: i study mechanical engineering. >> host: thanks calling in this morning. from the as muse sin report,

daily presidential tracking poll from monday. rasmussen reports daily presidential tracking poll from monday. is mitt romney attracting report from 49% of voters nationwide while president obama earns the vote from 47%. 2% prefer some other candidate and 2% are still undecided. that's just a little bit. rasmussenreports.com in case you're interested in seeing some of their work. david in portsmouth, virginia, on our support governor romney line. hi, david. >> caller: how is it going? >> host: how did your candidate do last night? >> caller: i think he did well on substance. that is all that matters. >> host: what else is there besides substance? >> caller:, well besides substance you have image. you know, i'm a firm believer of image is not all that important when it comes to politics. i think substance speaks for

itself. numbers, percentages, you know, basically the truth. >> host: david, is foreign policy important to you as a voter? >> caller: oh, absolutely foreign policy is important and i think that governor romney made some good points in the last night's debate. so in my opinion i think that came off with more substantial, you know, substantial data per se. >> host: david, what's your enthusiasm level in this election? >> caller: i feel pretty good about it. i think that, i think that governor romney, you know, being at 49% right now, that's, that's a pretty good shot. so i think that, you know, i think we'll be looking for a new president. >> host: that was david in portsmouth, virginia. this is from our facebook

comment page. obama won. mitt lost. the lying just can't win. that is from elizabeth. ellen nor, romney endorsed president obama last night i for once, agree with mitt. hilda in lakeside california, a supporter of president obama. hi. >> caller: how are you this morning? thanks for taking my call. >> host: what did you think of the debate last night? >> caller: i agree with the person who said mitt romney didn't -- president obama. he put his arms around him. hugged hill and agreeded with all his foreign policy after for two years trashing everything obama had been doing in foreign policy. last night he said i agree with everything you're doing, president obama. you're awesome. so i agree with that. for those romney undecided people, only question i have them ask themselves is, why is mitt 30 points behind in

his home state of massachusetts? and why the -- manufacturing company in freeport, illinois, so angry with mitt romney, the job creator? romney go to free point and help those people save their 170 jobs if he is such a believer in wanting to save jobs that are being shipped to china. he got a real life scenario right there. he could show the whole world that he really wants to save american jobs and help those people in freeport. they have been begging for him to come there and help him. that's a real story in realtime. and by the way, obama did help people in freeport. he did that china thing to keep their tires from being going over there and he saved the 1,000 jobs in freeport. all you have to do, people is look at freeport, illinois, and you can compare the two men, romney don't care about these people freeport and obama saved a thousand jobs in the same city. there you go, america. you don't have to guess

anymore. you got a real time --. >> host: california. here is some of our twitter comments. gina says, too much about middle east and israel. one of the greatest threats to u.s. is drugs coming across the border. and mike says, romney flip-flopped to the left so far last night that it looked like we were watching a democratic primary. maverick says, 30 more minutes mitt romney would have been endorsing barack obama. jeff said the potus showed poise and class. john in north carolina. mitt delivered the message that will decide the election, even leftists cringed that obama went about diminishing america. and finally, bill says, obama wins hands down, but i don't believe debates matter to most. >> host: matthew in pikeville, kentucky on support mitt romney line. hi, matthew. matthew, are you with us? >> caller: yes. >> host: please go ahead and make your comment. >> caller: yes, i was

calling to support mitt romney because all the people in pikeville, kentucky, where we actually produce coal, which is energy, you know, [inaudible] i know we have been out of, just -- we have lost jobs due to shipping our coal and selling it overseas and everything. so, you know, we're looking at over a thousand, thousands of men that is out of work here that has took money from our home state in kentucky and virginia and west virgina. and i think, you know, that being able to produce our own energy here through the coal, instead of, you know, forcing china to be able to take the jobs over would help us in a lot of ways. >> host: matthew, are you involved in the coal industry? >> caller: pardon? >> host: are you involved in the coal industry?

>> caller: yes, sir, i am. i am. >> host: what do you do? >> caller: worked underground coal mining for nine years. >> host: and are you still employed? are you still working? >> caller: knows. >> host: i've been laid off? >> caller: yes, sir. >> host: all right. that was matthew in pikeville, kentucky. thank you for your time this morning. the "huffington post", this is their headline, chief in command it says. and here is "the washington post." obama presses attack in debate on foreign policy in final clash, a cautious romney. the focus of the last of their three debates was supposed to be foreign policy but both romney and obama used their time to talk about the issues most important to voters, jobs, the economy and the budget. they talked about the auto bailouts, school class sizes and romney's tax plan. at several points cbs's bob schiefer who served as moderator tried to bring them back to foreign affairs and national security but sometimes to no avail.

and it goes on to say here, that, that, mr. romney, got more assertive as the evening went on. throughout the debate obama seemed eager and ready to take the fight to his opponent and using his experience to draw contrasts with the challenger at times when romney offered pointed criticism of his policies, obama glared directly at him. romney's central critique the president has been weak in the face of a rising tide of chaos and tumult in the world. when obama charged that romney has been all over the map in his policies the challenger responded by saying, attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the middle east. but obama pressed his case, that romney's world view is as well as his prescriptions for the domestic front are not just wrong but also rooted in the past. here's a little bit from the president last night. >> governor romney, i'm glad that you recognize that

al qaeda is a threat because a few months ago, when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing america, you said russia the not al qaeda. you said russia. in the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the cold war has been over for 20 years, but, governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of 1980s like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. you say you're not interested in duplicating what happened in iraq but just a few weeks ago you said, you think we should have more troops in iraq right now. and the challenge we have, i know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but, every time you offered an opinion, you've been wrong. you said we should have gone into iraq he despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. you said, that we should still have troops in iraq to this day.

you indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with russia despite the fact that 71 senators, democrats and republicans, voted for it. you've said that first, we should not have a timeline in afghanistan. then you said, we should. now you say maybe. or it depends. which means that not only, were you wrong but you're also confusing and sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies. so what we need to do with respect to the middle east is, strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. and unfortunately, that is the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign and it is not a recipe for american strength or keeping america safe over. >> well of course, i don't concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that i have said. they don't that to be accurate but i can say this, that we're talking about the middle east and how to help

the middle east reject the kind terrorism we're seeing and the rising tide of tumult and confusion and attacking me is not an agenda. attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the middle east and take advantage of the opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. but i will respond to a couple of things you mentioned. first of all russia indicate is a geopolitical foe, not -- >> number one. >> excuse mere, a geopolitical foe, i said in the same paragraph and said iran is the greatest national security threat we face. russia does continue to battle us in the u.n. time and time again. i have clear eyes on this. i'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to russia or mr. putin and certainly not going to say to him i will give him more flexibility after the election. after the election he will get more backbone. number two with regards to iraq you and i agree there should have been a status of forces agreement. >> host: this picture in the "washington post" this

morning. this is one of mitt romney's grandsons. as they pull out you can see he is shaking hands and talking with president obama. next call, comes from cleveland ohio. good morning. what did you think of last night's debate? >> caller: i thought the debate was interesting last night. but what i would like for people to understand that the role, i know there are people who are voting for mitt romney because they feel like his business experience is valuable but the role of business is not to number of employees, increase profit. profit is the role of business, not employees. the goal is to reduce employees and keep wages low. that experience that he brings is not going to be useful in terms of growing jobs. and also the government's role, you know, always talking about how the, you know, government does not create jobs. i would like to know why he is vying for a government job? i mean the presidency is part of the government. so that is oxymoron in

itself. >> host: so, how closely have you been following this campaign? living in ohio you probably haven't had a chance but how closely have you been following the campaign? >> caller: very closely. not just this campaign but many campaigns before this one. i do watch politics intently. living in ohio we've been undated ads from both sides which has been almost irritating at this point but what scares me about governor romney is i have no idea what he really briefs or who he really is and that's frightening. i would like to know how he stands truly so i could make a real decision. but with him, he is kind of forcing me to choose the other side because i don't know who he is. >> host: what do you do for a living? >> caller: i work in health care. >> host: what kind? what kind of profession? >> caller: i work at a hospital. >> host: okay. all right. what do you think of the health care act that got passed a couple years ago? >> caller: as a hospital worker i think it was absolutely necessary because i seen people come to the

hospital not be able to pay their bills. i seen how not having insurance has actually broken families. i've seen people be turned away because they didn't have the funds to support that. i think a lot of americans because maybe they don't see it up close, don't understand the importance of having health care, and i think as a human being we ought, people ought to have health care as a right. so i was in support of the bill. >> host: last night's debate was ostensibly on foreign policy. >> caller: it was. >> host: you brought up the economy and we talked a little bit about health care as well. any foreign policy issues out there that move your needle? >> caller: well, i think, look, foreign policy situation is very difficult right now. the truth is, the, our economic situation was not just our economic situation but it was a global situation. and a lot of what we're seeing in terms of the arab spring and other things, this is all what's happened over in europe with all the protests all this stuff is connected. i think it is unrealistic

for people to believe that in four years we could fix a problem that was really not just an american problem but a global economic problem. in terms of foreign policy mitt romney also scares me, again i have no idea what the man really thinks. so first he says, he would increase our involvement in wars. then he basically mimics obama last night. so i'm not really sure where he stands and that is a little frighting to me because, you know, presidency, there is a lot of power there. i have no idea, no sense of what direction this man would take our country in. >> host: if you can hang on just a second i will get vince in santa rosa, california, on the line as welling on our support governor romney line. vince, what did you think of last night's debate? >> caller: i thought romney did a fantastic job. he laid out his plan for the future of america and he, he pointed out what he would do in a romney administration about helping college kids, and also college kid and i

believe that he, he has the right experience for the right time. >> host: so, what's your main issue, vince? what's the issue that moves your needle? >> caller: on the economy. i think we need a president that has the right experience and the right knowledge of how to get jobs in this country to move us forward. >> host: now, normallea you heard vince say he had a clear message last night. >> caller: right. i'm asking people to look beyond the words and look at behaviors and past actions. even if you're looking at his words, again, one minute he says one thing. another minute he says something else. in terms of college, you know, romney's plan actually takes money away from education. i have heard romney on, when he was out there many can inpaing tell one student who

asked about, college loans and that kind of thing he should maybe borrow money from his parents. so, that is really not an action as far as i'm concerned. someone truly will support funding education. he is saying it now but what was he saying few months ago? totally different story? >> host: vince? >> caller: well, i believe that romney has a way of coming across where he lays out his plans. then sometimes i don't think people give him enough credit because i believe he does care about education. but he has a different way of coming, like, a platform that, that he will sit down with colleges and lay out a platform that everybody can understand because the school systems are not,

they're, there is something wrong with our colleges and our k-12 system that needs to be restructured. >> host: vince, what are you studying in santa rosa, california? >> caller: political science and also computers. >> host: so, where do you go to school? uc-santa rosa? >> caller: santa rosa junior college. >> host: thanks for calling in normella. a from cleveland. >> caller: thank you. romney for president. >> host:. all right. we have the facebook comment from joe. joe logan says, romney appeared much more presidential. neither one has a lot of experience in foreign policy but it's clear that obama hasn't learned much in the past four years. that he has had the opportunity. next call is from valerie in bowling green, kentucky, on our support president obama line. valerie, you're on the "washington journal." what did you think of last night's debate?

>> caller: actually i thought last night's debate was really informative. president obama showed up. he really gave me more confidence than i already have, being that i moved from michigan four years ago when it was just really out of whack. everybody, all the plants there, the auto plants were closing, ford, general motors, chrysler. i have family members that work for those plants that were fortunately, at retirement so they weren't really affected by it. people were losing jobs. i had a business there. i had to shut my business down because most of my clientele were the teachers, auto industry workers and thus far, so on. basically i feel as though president obama has really laid the foundation for the auto industry and workers. i moved from michigan to bowling green, kentucky, to find work, to open another business. my boyfriend, i met here. he works, he is general motors employee. he moved from alabama to

bowling green, kentucky, to work at the corvette plant here. and a lot of his coworkers have moved from kansas city, louisiana, and reading solidarity report from general motors, bob king. uaw president, stipulated in that, in an article was written where mitt romney said let detroit go bankrupt. so if that was the case and president obama had not come in and made the necessary decisions that he had to make in order to save all the jobs that people have, you know, have today, where would our economy be? and then just four or five months ago, they just opened 200 new jobs in louisville, kentucky at the ford plant. it goes on and on. then the president talks about how he is implemented plans to get our own solar energy going and get us back on the map in that

retrospect. basically there's a plant right now being built. i don't know if america knows, there is plant, a huge acre plant being built in clarkeville, tennessee, a solar plant. and that construction started, maybe about two years ago. my daughter's husband was one of the workers that worked on the site doing the work there. they moved to clarkeville to do that work. i think from my perspective president obama has stood very stern and strong in reference to my livelihood, my family's livelihood. i have a niece and a two nephews that have been employed over a year 1/2 ago in detroit, at a chrysler plant, which they're coming back to life because my town, my city, was a ghost town, pretty much. but now, just visited there about a month and a half ago. i see, that things are coming back to life there. so, basically, i support president obama. i would hope that america would, keep him in office to,

realize that he is really trying very hard to get us back where we need to be. >> host: your tigers going to the world series. >> caller: there you go. getting ready to get there. i'm going to go to the game. >> host: valerie, how many employees at the corvette plant? >> caller: oh, sweetheart to let you know we have a beautiful new corvette rolling off and that shows progress as well. >> host: but, is it fully, i mean have they laid people off down there? >> caller: oh, no. they're employing more people. actually they will bring about 120 more people into bowling green, kentucky, by the first of the year. >> host: to work in the corvette plant? >> caller: there you go. they have opened, just passed their contract and opening up where employees work for the company can also, you know, refer a member of the family or friend or something to come out and work with, to come out and work. so --. >> host: you get a discount? >> caller: great thing. yes, yes definitely. >> host: thanks for your time this morning.

this picture in the "washington post." this is ann romney's hand-holding a watch during the last night's debate. and in "the washington post", a boost for romney is the subhead. without any glaring missteps monday by either candidate the three presidential debates appeared to help romney, inject aggravate tall burst of energy into his campaign after a lackluster summer for the challenger. his an aggressive performance in the first debate, contrasted with obama's list lessness. and romney largely held his own nearly two weeks later in the town hall-style forum in hempstead, new york. obama on monday was harsh, even condescending at tiles toward romney, a former governor of massachusetts with no foreign policy on his own. responding to romney early in the debate, obama nighted that he understood his rival never executed foreign policy. he explained as if to a

child the modern navy has aircraft carriers where is planes land on them and ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines, to rebut romney's criticism that federal spending cuts threaten to reduce u.s. naval power to levels not seen since the early in the last century. room any used his last appearance with obama to argue the broadly that the president has left the nation weaker abroad than it was when he took office. in pardon mishandling the economy and fiscal matters at home. here is governor romney talking about president obama's image. >> i think from the very beginning one of the challenges we had with iran they have looked at administration and felt the administration was not as strong as it needed to be. i think they saw weakness where they had expected to find american strength. and i say that because from the very beginning the president an his campaign some four years ago he would meet with all the world's worst actors in his first year. would sit down with chavez and kim jong-il and with castro and with president

ahmadinejad of iran. and i it i think looked thought, that is an unusual honor to receive from the president of the united states. and then the president began, what i have called an apology tour of going to various nations in the middle east and criticizing america. i think they looked at that and saw weakness. then when there were dissidents in the streets of tehran, a green revolution, holding signs saying is america with us? the president was silent. i think they noticed that as well. and i think when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and israel, that they noticed that as well. all of these things suggested i think to the iranian mullahs hey, we can keep on pushing along here. we can keep talks going on but we're just going to keep on spinning centrifuges. >> nothing governor romney just said is true. starting with this notion of me apologizing. this has been probably the biggest whopper that has been told during the course of this campaign. every fact checker and every reporter looked at it.

governor has said this is not true. and, when it comes to tightening sanctions. look, as i said before, we put in the toughest most crippling sanctions ever. and the fact is with while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure the sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a chinese state oil company that was doing business with the iranian oil sector. so i will let the american people decide, judge, who is going to be more effective and more credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions. and with respect to our attitude about the iranian revolution, i was very clear about the murderous activities that had taken place and that was contrary to international law and everything that civilized people stand for. and so, the strength, that we have shown in iran is shown by the fact that we've been able to mobilize the world. when i came into office, the world was divided.

iran was resurgent. iran is at its weakest point, economically, strategically, militarily, since in many years. and we're going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure they do not get a nuclear weapon. that is in america's national interest. that will be the case so long as i'm president. >> we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they have continued to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer. that is number un. number two, the reason, mr. president i call it an apology tour, you went to the middle east, you flew to egypt and saudi arabia and to turkey and iraq and by the way, you skipped israel. our closest friend in the region. but you went to the other nations. and by the way, they noticed that you skipped israel. and then in those nations and an arabic tv you said

america had been dismissive and derisive. you said on occasion, america dick eighted to other nations. mr. president, merge has not dictated to other nations. we have freed other nations from dictators. >> live now to brief proform that session in the senate. they're meeting twice a week on tuesdays and fridays this month while members are campaigning in their home districts. they will return for legislative business on tuesday november 13th. this is live coverage of the senate here on c-span2 the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, october 23, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john d. rockefeller iv, a senator from the state of west virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 1:00 pm on until 1:00 pm on we asked c-span viewers with a fall of the final presidential debate. here's what some of you have to say. >> i was excited until watching this debate. what i saw from obama tonight was presidential. what i heard was real of leadership. i appreciated the fact that he was straightforward, was candid

about his own position coming and what i heard from governor romney wasn't apparent and that didn't interest me. >> i think governor romney won hands down all of these debates. >> i'm so proud of president obama. when mitt romney is asked a question he looks like a man that can't take pressure. >> mr. romney has seen to me to be wishy-washy. he made a statement about the president having backbone, but then later he states that he wants to work with china. he wants to deal with pakistan. >> i just want to say something about the moderator in these debates. it seems one-sided knifing to the dhaka i think. i believe in governor romney and

i hope people open their eyes and take notice of what is going on in the country. >> mitt romney actually answered the questions. he didn't tiptoe around them. everyone keeps saying he is tiptoeing around them and he's not. he's straightforward and keeps saying the same thing over and over again. he is consistent where obama has not been consistent. >> i felt the debate kind of lack all of the question that mr. bob schieffer was asking because he got so much away from the foreign privacy which i thought they started talking about the domestic economy, and i just try to tie that into what the questions were and i don't think -- they kept going back to the economy. >> i felt that governor romney had done an excellent job today. was very presidential command of the main point at the end of the comment, our family has felt that we are not being protected

as a nation, that our borders are open, and the issues that were discussed tonight on foreign policy i felt romney is going to get my vote for sure on those points. >> i thought governor romney was comfortable talking about the economy. i thought president obama was clearly comfortable talking about foreign policy and he did a good job of the foreign policy in the current economy. >> i was disappointed in the president. i was looking for him to lay out his strategy in foreign policy. and i found him to be the jimmy carter of our generation. >> i am thinking that obama won this because i don't know, rodney sounded more like obama and less like himself kind of backing down a little bit.

>> president obama and romney both failed to say anything about what they are going to do. >> obama did very well tonight. i think out of all three presidential deviate's this by far was his strongest. he was extremely presidential. he was direct come to the point, very straightforward and assertive. he called out mitt romney on his equivocations with such collis and being so polite that it was almost admirable to watch our president continued to defend his policies of the last four years. >> as we follow the candidates on the road to the white house, watch and engage with c-span. our road to the white house coverage continues today. following last night's

i regularly watch washington

journal. i watched the call shows in the morning and whenever there is a hearing that is of any significance, i will tune in. i also watch c-span online. c-span provides a source of unvarnished information to us that is rare in today's spin- oriented society. we can't regularly get the kind of information that we need to make decisions for ourselves. we often have to hear it from c-span is you get the information directly from the policy makers so that you can make up your own mind about who is right and what's good for the country.

religious violence is the focus of monday's u.s. institute of peace panel discussion in washington, d.c.. speakers including muslim and peacekeeping scholars talked about the tension between freedom of expression and religion and countries in the emmet stuff a rest in the middle east and africa. this is two hours. [applause] >> thank you comedy of it coming and good morning. it's a pleasure to be with you today. a delight to be here at the united states institute of peace. they've done such great work in the world. i am dr. suzan and thank each of you for being with us today and those of you that turned in online and on the air and i want to express certainly my appreciation and gratitude to you and our wonderful co-sponsors to the united states institute of peace. and to acknowledge susan

hayward. it's wonderful to continue with you and for your conceptualizing and coordinating today's event. i am really pleased to be here to discuss civil society perspective of religion, violence and coexistence and also the civil society as a topic of interest to us. together with usit we have a distinguished panel of experts who we have the pleasure of working with and will address a critical set of issues that have tremendous impact not just on u.s. foreign policy but on the way in which the world views religion and its role in society all over the world. the internet fell one youtube followed by the violent protests around the world serves as a stark reminder that the relationship between religious extremism and violence, something that we need to

supersede with understanding, respect and coexistence. it also reminds us there is more work to be done in improving our understanding of religious dynamics and engage with religious actors. they make up today's panel acknowledging that devine officials cannot do this work alone and we are working together in partnership and want to continue to do that, so we rely on consultations and these partnerships with civil society leaders and faith based organizations. they help us seek deeper analysis and more effective initiatives and coming from the community i can tell you how welcome the that is. and today's conversation allows the government to hear fresh perspectives from scholars, civil society leaders how to preserve our fundamental freedom, how advancing the same kind of peace, security and coexistence. thank you. it also gives us the opportunity to hear expert opinions on the role the media plays in this arena.

so, we want to meet our panelists who are here today. we are delighted to have with us today is usi manal omar that serves in the africa program under the post conflict peace and stability operations. regional the program manager for the middle east for great britain where she was in the humanitarian crisis and in lebanon. she's also a key civil society voice on gender and peacebuilding and has been recognized as one of the 500 most influential muslims. woo! i got it, give me five. since the understanding and the

university. manal omar has also visited egypt and tunisia and i look forward to hearing what's been done in these important countries. also next to her is professor marc gopin of george mason university who's been part of our working group and he is a professor of world religion, diplomacy and conflict resolution and the director of the center on world religions, diplomacy and conflict resolution. professor gopin is also a subject matter expert on diplomacy of religion, political and military figures. he's been working on religion and peacemaking in the arab-israeli conflict for more than 30 years. also in expert on peacemaking strategies for complex conflicts in which religion and culture play a role. recently he worked the afghan religious actors involved in peacebuilding and conduct research of values, dilemmas as

they apply to international problems and globalization, clash of cultures, development, social justice and conflict. i have been so fortunate to work with him as a part of the religion and working for them policy working group, one of the five working groups that was established by psychiatry plant in's strategic dialogue in the civil society. and so it's an a pleasure but only to have you as an expert but also as a partner and a friend. last we are joined by hoda elshishtawy. i got it. legislative policy analyst for the muslim public affairs council. and we are thrilled, hoda that you have stepped in who couldn't be with us due to a family emergency. hoda completed her master's degree in ethics, peace and global affairs, which focused on islam ethics and conflict resolution from rutgers university school of international service.

she also has experience working with programs involving dialog development, and collaboration and conflict resolution. she served as a female muslim ambassador to public schools and an interfaith initiative that highlights commonalities of the abraham mcfate. each of our panelists will provide opening remarks dreaming the issues of religion, violence and coexistence for the context of their area of expertise which will be followed by a question and answer session. i'm looking forward to all that you have to contribute today and for all that we have to hear today. and last but not least, we are thrilled to have susan hayward, senior program officer and religion meeting senator innovation with conflict resolution and reconciliation project, specifically targeting the religious sector.

she also coordinate an initiative exploring the intersection of women, religion, conflict and peacebuilding and partnership with the berkeley center of georgetown university. she works on the ground with religious factors involved in peacebuilding in burma, colombia, iraq and sri lanka. with that you've met our distinguished panel. we are eager to hear from them and with that i'm going to turn it over to see sam, our speaker. again, thank you for having us here. we look forward to a wonderful morning. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much to the ambassador and to david for opening up here. we are very glad to have all of you here to the u.s. institute of peace here in the room and those who are watching us on the webcast. and as we are giving presentations and launching of the modern reader discussion appear after the presentation i ask that if you have questions you shot them down, because we

will have an opportunity as the ambassador noted to open up the dialogue to the audience, including the audience who is watching over the internet. and you can use the hash tag on twitter irs@usip. as noted by in a program officer in the religion of peace making at the institute that works with -- works to analyze and understand of religious factors and conflict zones and work with religious actors to try to build a just and sustainable peace and to transform religious drivers and violence. in places like pakistan, iraq, sri lanka, burma, nigeria and columbia we worked with religious and government institutions and civic organizations to transform religious drivers of violence, to deepen and extend into religious coexistence and to leverage the power of religious resources for the work of creating sustainable peace. we consider religious freedom to be an important aspect of our

work and we should note that one of the reasons we are orienting this discussion about religion, violence and peacebuilding around issues of religious freedom is in part to mark international religious freedom david is happening october 27th leader this week. in this sense, we are walking hand and foot with our state department colleagues to see religious freedom as an aside for them in ensuring the protection of all people to practice their faith or their lack of faith openly and without fear of reprisal. we see this as important to creating peaceful and just societies. but we also know that the relationship between religion, violence, human rights and peace is complicated because religion and societies are complicated and dynamic. after all, even the adoption of strong legal norms protecting religious freedom such as we have here in the united states does not guarantee that

religious bias will cease to exist. the conflict between religious groups will disappear or that particular groups often religious minorities will not face social and structural discriminations. particularly when the human rights of the freedom of expression is protected as it should be up to and including the protection of the speech that can drive religious violence and tolerance and discrimination which we saw in the timber. it's complicated. and many local communities and global communities struggle to chart the right course in this complicated fray. our program, working where we are around the world is painfully aware that in the turmoil and the trauma that marks the environment of conflict and the nation democracies and countries facing significant political turmoil and transition, religious influence in shaping social attitudes and behaviors with respect to violence, governments and attitudes towards other groups is often heightened. and of course, religion

heightened influence is not always for peaceful ends, particularly when the media is added to the cocktail that can incite violence, locally but also across the international borders and are increasingly shrinking world. again as we witnessed in september, 2012. our program also notes from our experience on the ground that in most cases, government and policy alone does not and cannot address religious dynamics that shape civil society. in fact in many instances, civil society organizations may be those best positioned well suited to transform religious and social drivers of violence and discrimination. whether they are working independently or in partnership with governments seeking to strengthen coexistence. so for this reason we are very glad to host this panel and launch the discussion about the role of civil society can and does play already a around the world in fostering the religious coexistence. we seek to highlight what may be

a little-known story of religious and secular actors and institutions working together to meet the diverse communities together and we will seek to make recommendations about how to strengthen the conflict of civil society efforts to foster religious coexistence about where and when these efforts can be done in partnership with government and the intergovernmental organizations. so, we will begin with a presentation and then open up for discussion and i am going to ask that we start with hoda and make our way back up. >> thank you so much, susan. and thank you to debra usip for putting on this incredibly timely even. when we talk about religious freedom in 2012, we must view the issue through the 2012 lens. the international freedom community needs to shift the culture to a more nuanced understanding of how truly connected our globalized world has become not just in terms of

how we streamline the reporting news to the masses but also in terms of an ever increasing pluralistic world. what happened in benghazi whether as a result of the amateur in a sense of muslims are not was a wake-up call to the international community on the rights and responsibilities of our freedom of religion and expressions. the freedom of expression and religion are not stand alone issues. when discussing freedom of expression, we are inherently talking about expressing religion freely. when we as the international religious freedom community go out and engage civil society organizations of broad we need to start by clarifying and understanding what free expression and religion mean to all. it's important to understand with this ritual that mentions a that any miscommunication of these values are avoided. it's incumbent on government and civil society organizations to start this dialogue of defining the freedoms as a starting point

to beginning the difficult discussion how we uphold and support these values worldwide. recently, in our organization, the muslim public affairs council and human rights first released a statement condemning hate speech while protecting freedom of expression. and i have some copies here if anyone is interested. in this document, it is affirmed that hatred must be fought through non-lethal means through better speech. and responsible speech. the problem lies when media choose is to highlight and promote sensational voices. when we lose or can't hear voices of the mainstream we miss out on the bigger picture. take for example the report about the attack on the embassy in benghazi. we were inundated with images of angry protesters surrounding the embassy filling the streets with shouts and violence, but where were the reports of the libyans who were carrying the ambassador trying to protect him as they were taking him to the hospital? where were the images of people

around the arab world who work mourning the loss of the ambassador while holding roses in his honor. while we miss out on hearing from the mainstream voices, we lose the nuanced understanding of the situation. i'm not denying the importance of a vibrant marketplace of ideas. but civil society needs to hold the media accountable for highlighting only one extreme narrative. we've got to push back against the media's often one-sided portrayal and work to find mechanisms that give incentives to highlighting peaceful over sensational voices. there is a sincere effort to countering this kind of hateful narrative that seems to be getting so much attention. a civil society organizations such as the muslim public first council have been working on primm lotus coexistence through freedom of expression. after very violent reaction and sada reaction for instance of

muslims have released a series of videos and arabic, english, so moly, pashtu and farsi at the same time condemning the violent reactions to it. these videos featured leading american muslim scholars highlighting the examples of the past and how he handled heat speech between releasing videos and now in september and now we have had over 1 million viewers of these videos. these youtube videos show that civil society organizations can effectively use media, social media to promote coexistence highlighting just this one example shows that civil society organizations can take ownership of supporting pluralism by supporting the media. the videos are also a conversation starter. they go beyond the kumbaya movement and delve into dealing with free-speech, hate speech

and freedom of religion. when the media, even under laboratory full - the religious ideas and discrimination, the responsibility to pushback falls on the civil society and government. there are plenty of challenges that arise when the governments get involved and there are plenty of opportunities as well. governments must recognize that the old ways of advocating for the religious freedom are outdated. government to government diplomacy has got to be shifted to a more people to people diplomacy. and we have got to recognize that this reflects the times in which we live. on the international religious freedom advocacy became popular in the early 80's the focus was on certain persecution of the minorities around the world. today the international religious freedom community should be promoting a more pluralistic theology of advocacy. international religious freedom communities have got to reflect the diversity of the world and therefore they must be more

pluralistic nature. promoting and highlighting the conversations that don't just affect the christians, jews and muslims, that hindus, buddhists. we are living in an increasingly borderless world, so when a young man like himself to the allied himself on fire and tunisia it isn't surprising when there are subsequent protests that come up in egypt, libya or syria. it is one example that highlighted the historic the oppressive middle east and north africa. the international community witnessed the correlation between the lack of freedom of expression and the oppressive nature of religious persecution on all communities and all groups. the arab spring was all about being able to express one's belief, whether politically, socially, economically and religiously. our government was kind of cut off guard with the revolution but it shouldn't have been. one needs to be more aware and realize the direction our world is taking.

the arab spring will send a government inspired movement. on the contrary, it was spearheaded and led by young people who utilize the media to create change and strengthen the voice of civil society. refreshingly, media coverage of the arab spring promoted the mainstream voices and the synergy of all communities coming together to stand for peace, justice and coexistence. so when we talk about opportunities and possibilities for an impeachment during a time like the arab spring and after, it is imperative that the government ensure that the media and civil society organizations are included in those conversations. for too long, relevant religious institutions were ignored or engagement purposes. we as americans are now learning their value to the conversation for upholding freedom of expression and religion. as long as we promote and develop a culture of diverse inclusion in these conversations, we might just find the answers we need to

promote religious freedom and coexistence through expression. so in terms of recommendations for the government or civil society organizations and moving forward to promoting international religious freedom and upholding free expression, i would stress that we use our position and we use the government to play the role of the container and facilitate conversations and discussions just like this to strengthen the voices of civil society organizations and those that are working to gmp in these positive values. let's be honest at the end of the day we have had a million and a sense of muslims before and we will probably be seeing many more to come. but now is the time for us to be working together and this is the first step in that positive direction to overcoming hate speech and using to counter that speech. thank you.

>> it's a pleasure for me to be here speaking with you and working with ambassador susan and david. these are my favorite people in washington and it is a thrill to be here. i want to reflect a little bit on where we are going in terms of our practice and civil society on a global scale and where some of the research is indicating where and when human society is coming towards and moving towards nonviolence and where things get worse and where things get better. to put all those pieces together in terms of our experience in the field i've been involved in any conflict management situations over the years that involve religious incidence intolerance or expressions of outrage over something that occurred. one of the things that is interesting in the question in

our lives is when he is an incident something that is transformative and creates a massive outbreak of response and when is it something that looks just peculiar? why are there incidents that look like the year central and the change all of the relationships and are very destructive, and other times it looks like it is just a fluke, somebody that's violated a law or does something outrageous and then you move on? because it is very important to analyze the substructure of the relationships between people. what is there an unwritten social contract? what is the binder that bring people together were tear them apart? because and knowing that, and in building on that, which is the basis of civil society work, they are also the role of law then you see whether an incident is going to create a crisis or an incident is just the peculiarity of one person. when you compare that to clear the of the person that made this

film, who in that having this record, just completely irrelevant and strange character in american society, and then think about what it effectively symbolized in the global relations between the united states, the west and the islamic world, but a tragedy a comic strip couldn't have done better in terms of thinking about the origins of the film and then the consequences. well, what's missing? what is missing is a social contract, the hard work that people build together that as hoda just said in a global community is absolutely a sensual and without that social contract everything becomes a symbol of adversarial. and so the real question like for example to get out of the context sometimes is there are

indian villages in india where there were terrible outbreaks of violence in the 1970's and 1980's and so on that are really going back and those villages got attention, but international attention. everybody knew about those rights and was a symbol of the confrontation. because it really is one of the biggest countries in the world and the biggest hindu country in the world. of a billion people, 300 million muslims, and so those incidents were front and center. little known was the thousands of villages where they celebrate each other's ritual. that's also india. but it didn't get in the news because the media does crave trauma. human beings crave drama. going back for review and television people loved drama. the great binders in society, the people that created the contract that move beyond

secretarianism and move beyond the religious differences, the martin luther king, john -- gandi the understand someone will create the instance to tear those apart because these great political powers is even great military power and monetary power in building on hatred it is a great moneymaker. the media likes drama but the issue is you can build your political society on the hatred of the other or you can build it on more pragmatic things like better wages or better health care to read and every society in the world that is struggling with the question and the choice, every politician, am i going to build my nigerian political career on the anti-islam is some or am i going to build on making a wealthy middle class? everyone faces that choice. the key for civil society

particularly low religiously inspired groups in the civil society around the world and all of my friends from nigeria to syria to other places is how are they going to utilize their power as a civil society people to create the social contract, the unwritten social contract between groups that make these kind of incidents into exceptions come into embarrassing exceptions, not opportunities for unscrupulous politicians or others to use that to build their power base? that is the choice. and the question for the united states government and the west and for every government in the muslim and the arab world is are they going to invest in a civil society that specifically builds that kind of a social contract or are they going to act as if no we will just repress it all. we are just going to ignore the religious identity. i will never forget i worked in

syria for seven years with amazing people, shiite, sunni, christian, alawite we were all together in our work and we outsmarted the regime. we was a nonviolent and nonthreatening. we were nice to everyone and we got on television every single time with these panels that represented alawite and sunni and shiite and 80's and everyone together, women and men so that every family at least for one bit of their television they saw the model of the interfaith coexistence. and now we are trying to pick up the pieces because of so many forces that came to work to tear them apart, to put them at each other's throats for the sake of maintaining a police state because this is the danger of the religious identity is that it is easily utilized by

politicians and military and intelligence agencies to destroy people and control people. i work with pakistanis who are facing incredible difficulties of legacy of the cold war where my government and other governments in the region specifically put sunnis against shia for the purpose of political game and now we're trying to pick up the pieces from the disastrous unscrupulous criminal law activities come and look at the difference between the targeting and the killing of the almost killing of this poor little girl who wanted an education and the thousands that come out on the streets to demonstrate in solidarity with her. those peoples were disciples of gandi because the interest of media and drama as the stage this plays out and you have to

get better at that stage. if the symbols of hatred or sources of power for some in the world than you have to create the symbol of solidarity and love, and you have to do it often. you have to put it in people's face. you have to have interfaith councils in public all the time with the priests and the others with honor and dignity of both men and women at the core of our religious beliefs and people have to see that as the authority, then a crazy person comes along and does something else they just see it as crazy. they don't see it as authority. in addition what we have discovered in the field and we were not able to do this and syria but we tried other places and we are doing this in israel and palestine is that at a certain point in the interfaith dialogue and social contract people get tired of words. if they are living miserably and if the poor and they see that

all of this particular group they have all of the money and we don't, then they are not so crazy about peace and love and justice when they don't see the others. so, what you have to do further is something that is difficult bureaucratically for the government's and you have to combine the humanitarian investments and interfaith peace making. you have to bring health and jobs and empowerment to people as jews, christians, muslims and hindu. people have to see that this is a joint effort. people have to see that you are investing in their families and that starts to make a difference. this is what gandhi understand martin luther king understood, and this is what many activists, my friends from nigeria and everywhere you go, the imam and the pastor and nigeria, you go many places it starts out with important symbols like a big hug

in jerusalem they had no budget, but they managed to get a thousand people to hug around jerusalem and made a difference. it made a difference. they surrounded jerusalem with a hug and was a brilliant idea. but when the war and it went further. it went to secretly smuggling food as jews and arabs together and then made a difference to those families. when somebody decided to do something with a pig's head and mohammed, one of the radicals in israel, and there was already a prior existing relationship between a major rabbi and israel and palestine, immediately they were on the phone together and they brought in a chief rabbi to condemn that activity and that prevented the right and the violence. so again, it was an unwritten

social contract between leading people come and they could contain the violence. and in a final key aspect of this it was seen a great deal of research from stevan pinker and others the vile nature of people coming together to know each other and feel sympathy for each other. the vital nature of commerce, people doing business together and growing wealthy together. the vital nature of the law but the western construct and the government construct getting used to the fact there will of law is also the rule of the religious law so that people come to know that there are rabbi's saying this is illegal to do this and specifically against that kind of terrorism. that, too is the astana version of the social norms and decency that in history becomes a solid foundation for the social

contract that then again makes excitement of the violence or a film into a strange sometimes criminal activity. it takes a lot of empathy to understand that in many cultures insulting a profit is the same as somebody defecating on the american flag or doing something that is an incitement. we are struggling in the united states with -- i don't know what group is when the soldiers were coming home something horrible at the funeral, it was a radical christian group. i don't know what the name of it is. but really a tested notion of the freedom of speech coming and we are sitting here and we are tearing our hair out with what you do with fat, what can you do for someone with a funeral for their child? so, we all have our symbols in places where how could you even though there? and yet the more empathy we have and the more we come to know

each other, we know that those spaces of pain and we have worked to get there because we already have a cry your existing relationship to not let people divide us on those insulting and horrible incidents. but on the contrary, to bring this together. so that when somebody makes an outrageous statement in the new york subway system about jihad and muslims, in the country you invest in a counter advertisement. and that becomes the more important symbol and you get in there because you have the relationships. that is what we are seeing in the civil society. >> i'm going to apologize ahead of time because my views on this are often contradictory in many ways. i spend a lot of time debating myself what is the best way forward. one of the things i thought to

start with his five recent trip. before i ended in tunisia i ended in malaysia and ended in tunisia and libya and was interesting to see although some countries the reaction to the film was a very different. and malaysia, the youth kept telling me things like the profits, you know, it speaks for itself. there is no reason for us to defend it hit in fact that in most of the marshalling the is something that is a parody of the song gangam style. much like the muslim community there was a lot of intellectual de constructing of the video how can we put our own youtube out and be able to be proactive and naturally as we saw in egypt and tunisia was much more passionate and defensive, and i think that one of the things we forgot is we are talking about the transitional countries that have been through that, and were

severely destabilize, and at the root of the conversations was the question of everything has been stripped away. we are trying to rebuild our nation and the last thing that we have is our dignity. in the arab spring they brought dignity and this video hit us and made us feel humiliated and everyone was speaking about protecting the right to speak, but no one was protecting the, you know, the right of religion and our own identity. i think the road at a lot of the countries that have been through the revolution is the question of identity and religion is very much intertwined. the other element is it is not just a question of an international but it's very much an internal debate. a lot of people are asking where is religion going to fall in the constitution in a very pragmatic sense where does it fall in myself as a tunisian or libya or e junction? with the video enhancing or in planning a lot of those

discussions that were happening is the reaction that then took gone into a global scale. i actually learned about the benghazi attacks from my libyan colleagues who called meurlin to apologize and were frightened. some of them had actually participated in the protest and said we went to the protest not expecting violence of any sort and we were horrified to see where it came and we really want you -- i was based in washington at that time we want you to make sure people understand this is not libyan, this is not islam. we respect the ambassador stevens and i worked with him when he was a u.s. envoy he was respected and loved and libya with the question remains why the violence. modeling course in libya but we saw in yemen and tunisia and i keep emphasizing the destabilized and traumatized nations. i think the element of how to work with the groups who are

trying to come back and address the issues and understanding that right now on the ground this is one of the biggest issue is the civil society is trying to come together with. in most cases, there's an assumption to receive the funding were to be accepted by the western nations you have to distance yourself from religion. i can't that the exception has been in libya you have seen some groups step out, and in particular there is the network that of some of the most respected in libya that have been very active at least in terms of issuing statements and this isn't just recently even after the revolution in 2011. the network issued a statement to promote international women's rights. so here is a country in the midst of a revolution for freedom and they took a step to say we respect women's rights and the women's role in the revolution. so, you saw that there was a voice trying to break through the mainstream and the recently issued a statement that the

attack on benghazi they are the exception. the religious and civil society have come, you know, well together and people would the date how productive this has been but in terms of development you have seen a lot of religious institutions in the middle east to were able to go into the humanitarian development work. very rarely will they actually go into the concept of human rights or more specifically when you are talking about religious freedom because it is a difficult issue to address. so the question that i met to talk about is that there is an understanding and they are currently is, that anything to do with religion will not be seen as a civil society, therefore you are seeing a lot of organizations, you know, scrubbing any relation to faith and what is the result that has had on islam? to things that happened. one, eight delegitimizes these groups because they are not able to connect with the grassroots. they are not able to connect with the youth whose first responses to connect to things of their faith. the other element is it forces a

lot of the mainstream who were practicing and who don't want to go towards just a secular language to them result towards other groups who might not necessarily represent their vision in terms of nation building so they will seek faith but they are not necessarily the same organizations that they would want to have representing them and so when i was in tunisia i sat with a group of young people that had been training the conflict resolution and they said that if they were to choose they actually feel closer to the secular organizations that are from tunis than any other organization that because these groups reject either reject them directly because they are practicing or reject the use of islam or using the islamic references they are not welcomed within that group. so, by that exclusion, they tend to go to some of the more extreme groups. so it is not necessarily a choice as much as the polarization that is going on in the country is forcing people to

choose sides whereas if we are able to integrate the faith and religion in the elements that we were talking about particularly in terms of peacemaking than you will find the majority of people in the country want to find that avenue and that area for participation. the biggest issue that is coming on top is that divide between the secular and the religious and the framework is one of the things people are emphasizing more than the principles or the outcome. one of the things i wanted to talk about is how to try to overcome that divide, particularly hoda mentioned the role of the government and the international community in convening and that is where an ironic opportunity has opened is that both groups don't trust each other internally in the country and they are looking for the international community and asking for groups to convene this discussion can take place. the nation building will not be effective until that issue is

addressed. some of the issues are coming in terms of engaging and supporting not only by bringing them to the table but by providing them with tools to the religious leaders. i see this in terms of partnership. a lot of programs that target the leaders are already targeting them as audiences are participants said they will bring them into the room and tell them this is what islam says or how it deals with freedom of religion and with women and that isn't going to have the same effect of partnering with the religious leaders to find a way to make sure that the message is heard through the grassroots. i think the other thing is recognizing being wary of the political agenda. for example, with benghazi, the incident was terrific and there was a strong call internationally and locally for action to take place. some even use of a civil society organizations on the street immediately protesting the violence. a lot of memorial's being held for the ambassador in benghazi

the same day so people felt that need to take action. but that somehow got a bridge in the political agenda of let's get rid of the militia and i think it is very important that we are cautious that the issues at hand are addressed directly and not overcome publicly that felipe expands where the incident in benghazi is justified and used for what is going on, two very separate incidents is. you then have the civil society activists and well intentioned so eager to show the west and their own country that extremism is a minority and they force them out of benghazi. so in order to show that extremism and violence was not welcomed, the u.s. did to get rid of them so the ends justify the means attitude and i think it is very important that the international community and the religious leaders are particularly saying let's take a step back and see how our approach is different than other approaches so that the message in itself doesn't get lost and it isn't a matter of the end

justifying the means. in order to do that and i think to be an honest convene her that we need to address our own issues, domestically, had to really sit and talk about extremism from within and talk about the video, you know, how it was made, but other, there are statistics that showed the rise in islamophobia, and unless we are really able to say that there has been for political reasons of our own, for other agendas there has been a rise were there has been a targeting is an issue that needs to be addressed. there are issues that will then even just a simple law acknowledgement of the legitimacy that the united states and the western countries are willing to address the issue as much as they are willing to hold other nations accountable. i think just over the weekend there is an attack in france on a mosque to express concerns over the rise of the debates over the islamic law to prove

the fear of being on known and i think that until we really address these issues we ourselves lose legitimacy as a possible convenient -- con vener. they are acceptable, but what it looks like it's very hard on the ground. and nothing demonstrates this better in my mind than freedom of religion. actually i was surprised how much of an issue it was while i was in tunisia. the very on media within the constitution do you have a clause that allows for the freedom of religion. so when you ask people precisely what do you think everyone says? of course this is natural. they say no compulsion in religion, but when you talk about actually putting it in the constitution, people will say we can't. well if you believe it, why can't you? so the concept is acceptable but the actual mechanism is controversial. i think it is important that we

focus on the approach because if there is an insistence that you put it in then it becomes something that's difficult to implement and without building the proper foundation and having the proper dialogue and working with the communities so that the understand it isn't only something that is being required because of international convention, it is rooted with the islamic free market is necessary for the nation-building process what will happen is the groups we push to implement will then be rejected by their communities and i think that is the greatest fear of all particularly now with the arab spring is publishing the group leadership taking to the streets there have to be mechanisms that are built for people to express that concern and that anger to the point where then you do employment within the constitution or within any legal framework the issue of freedom of religion is understood and accepted and what it looks like is agreed upon.

>> thank you very much to all of the speakers. that was a great marching off to the discussion and some of the things that came through strongly for me were one, the potential and the way in which the different organizations are trying to use the potential social media to foster the religious coexistence and some of these local and global dialogue is pitted some of these issues but the need to strengthen some of those initiatives and as more pointed out, the need to develop this craving for the drama of international religious peacebuilding and the peaceful religious places as much as there is that craving for the drama of religious violence or instances of religious conflict. but again, as i think it cannot in all of the presenters talks, it's very complicated and even in each of these religions and contacts, there is a great deal of pluralism and there's a great deal of contestation within the

religious sector and the political sector, and so entering into those conversations and seeking support in the civil society organizations and religious organizations in a constructive way is always something that needs to be done very carefully, and with as much listening as there is talking and cudgeling. one thing i would point out in the beginning is that we often received at usip working with religious organizations overseas is how can international organizations and particularly western organizations and governmental or does asians -- organizations work with actors and sectors overseas in a way that will not be legitimate the very authority and legitimacy that the religious actors and institutions have within their society because we know that in

working with, particularly western organizations that can sometimes paint religious actors and institutions in a particular way as untrustworthy and opportunistic and so on. so, i wonder what he would have to say from your observations on the ground about examples of how this work has been done effectively by outside organizations to support the religious leaders and not undermine them. >> i think that the key issue is finding organizations that already have the legitimacy and then providing them that support. one of the challenges have been networks or groups formed have often not necessarily been supported as much as created by the western organizations, so understanding that distinction is particularly important and especially depending on the language being used, i was very surprised in tunisia when the majority came up to tell me this was the first time the train on

conflict resolution have taken place in arabic to everything that had been done for the groups that i was talking to had been done in french and english and so the absorption capacity is much weaker so understanding that you support the existing groups -- and the other issue is the capacity building but bringing in more of the convening role of south to south leadership so i think that is the other element is how you connect them and even contact that may not seem to have anything in relation. for example in the stories for india and examples from sri lanka how can you connect from south to self learning rather than just as what you've done in the west and this is how it works. this is what we see in the u.s. and this is why we are able to differentiate between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. for a lot of people they simply cannot really. they see the west as a very different society. so the more you can bring in the learning people have been through it in recent history i think the more people come the

more traction you will be able to have with the message. >> the other thing to add is i simply think it is a long history of be in human interactions globally well beyond government, the philanthropy being something quiet. in other words, i think that the -- there's a long history of the philanthropists and private donors been quiet because they want the work to be prominent and not in their presence and that is an issue for many people in governments. they want to be acknowledged, they want people to see that this is our activity there's a good space for public diplomacy. very important work the governments can do when they do public diplomacy. but helping civil society is not necessarily one of them. that's where it may be better to be quiet and respectful and to not overemphasize your presence, and i think that's -- i think it

has been my experience among the various european governments and others that i have worked with is that the quieter the ambassador is, the more he becomes a very trusted partner. i don't mean other ambassadors in the world. because the quietness almost demonstrates their seriousness. i was in relationship to a swiss ambassador in syria and literally i was afraid for my life at the time, and i didn't know because i -- jewish origin and i monopolies state and severe enemy with israel and i was always a little bit worried that it turns out i was mostly paranoid. was the syrians that were in danger, not me, but i was afraid, and this ambassador made me feel comfortable all the time. he didn't even tell me how many other things they were doing. they were doing many things to try to improve the civil society to try to help people and they were just quiet about every activity. and that is great diplomacy.

and that is great effectiveness of the government. so, i think their quietness and respect and the enabling and making prominent the voices in that space and light manal said you identify this woman and afghanistan that's all for the running extraordinary programs for women and educational programs and working creatively with imams u.s support her but you don't ruin her reputation by making people think that she is a tool of somebody else. ..

we were in egypt last year, and the sort of comment is group comes and they hated the religious people and they have an intention of what they're going to do and they speak to my class. then the religious militant comes in and he says what's your agenda? revenge. revenge. we are going to get them. you can see, you know, the makings of what's going to be a very difficult -- there needs to be a conscious cultivation of interfaith communities, and of secular and religious alliances for poverty, for women, for health care, for jobs that are specifically binding people together. and that creates almost a notion of religiosity and secularism. that's what i fully support what you were saying. is this is where we find from

syria to palestine to many places, that's what most religious people actually want. they want a safe space for their family, a prosperous space. they don't need religious -- but they don't need secular people to insult them, either. and we can be helpful in encouraging those kind of spac spaces. >> i want to go back to something that you said in your presentation and that we discuss over bagels this morning, which was the sensitivity of religious freedom as a policy in some of the context in which you work. and what you said about it might be something that can be written into the constitution at this point that this could be something dialogue about with civil society and nurtured as a foundation on which laws can be established later. but there's a little bit of cart and horse problem because there's a lot of fears among some that if you don't have it written into the constitution at

this point and might be something that is never established in law down the road. so how would you respond to those concerns? >> thank you, for giving me an opportunity to clarify. i think you'd have to find a way to ride into the constitution. assembly feel he would have to find ways to write protection of women's issues and minority issues into the constitution. the idea is not to have a given. when you think of women's rights, when you talk about minorities rights from everyone as an individual agrees it will what it will look like the begins to divide people. so unless you're the full conversation, people will reject it within the constitution. i think that most of these countries were talking about, the transition process is very quick. when you look at south africa, it took them eight years. look at libya, they had an eighth month -- eight month program. tunisia, theoretically thinks they're done. i think they're going to press the reset button have to start over next week. theoretically they think they're

done on the constitution. this was very quick. none of those dialogs took place. what will happen, for example, in the case of tunisia, if you go to referendum people will vote no. no one understands why religious freedom has been introduced in the constitution. all they understand is that if the muslim decides to stop being a muslim, then government of tunisia will sanction and support it. that's the limit of the conversation. they are not understand the full range of what religious freedom would look like. similarly with women's rights. that's the danger. and so when you put that position and again in a system where you going to referendum, you are putting yes or no, everyone come and i guarantee this, the same debate with in iraq over and over. when iraqis themselves would say conversation is here trying to have the -- they don't belong in baghdad. i hear that over and over in cairo and tunis. in fact, they do balad base people they do understand the full breadth of the conversation. when you come you always lose. you can't have secular law versus religious law.

it's a lose-lose situation. but when you deconstruct it and you're able to say this is the whole breath of religious freedom and it protects you to choose your own interpretation, protection to be able to follow your religious them protection you as a christian minority, it's -- and people understand what it means in their daily life. i think it becomes acceptable within the constitution. but how it's being presented now is international conventions require. u.s. will not support you, you will not get funny. even if that's not true, no one has to make a statement, that some people on the ground understand it. and so there's an immediate rejection of its. although everyone agrees with the concept. >> and i would just add here, probably breaking the rules now, but i would just add that for some of the context, conflict contacts from the elephant in the room are these discussions is always prophet isaiah and. and the negative roles that some groups have paid, particularly

mission groups in tying conversion to development and humanitarian assistance. so religious freedom, often in negative ways gets associated with the activities of some of these groups. and that's what creates some of the sensitivity. to these discussions as well and that needs to be part of a larger dialogue and discussion with these groups. >> the other role would be, there is a tendency of western constructs to be very narrow in saying this is either a legitimate form of rights or it's not. that's not the way that this played out historically in all the different countries that have experimented with human rights and democracy. people come up with their own formulas in the end that are a move forward but are not necessarily your move. so for example, i would love to see a struggle for the right to interpret, freedom of interpretation. which may not be the same as freedom of religion. people have to struggle with the language because people works on

this for hundreds of years your what rights meant to them and how it worked in their society. there's still major differences between germany and the united states on not see symbols, for example. what's that all about? so we have this radical notion of freedom of symbols here. that germany decided no, that's beyond the tale. okay, you know, you could say do they not have rights? free speech, because they decided nazi symbols are beyond? now i can no. -- no. between religious and secular people to arrive at the most nonviolent possibilities. >> i was just going to say marc and manal hit the nail on the head in terms of when it comes especially to writing the constitution, it's imperative i think to define these terms,

what exactly does it mean for freedom of religion. and rather than it being sort of a negative thing, it will hold you back from this. it will protect you, as a minority it will protect as women. it will protect you as a part of the majority. and forcibly than a world where perception becomes reality and so when you do have this idea that if you don't vote yes on religious freedom, then you won't get certain funding, then that's where the problem lies. that it is important i think for civil society to be engaged in these conversations with government when they're running these constitutions to help define and to make the definition broader so that all groups in all communities are included. >> one more question for me and i'm building off of a twitter question that came in earlier. and going to open it up to all of you so prepare yourselves, people. and the question goes back to something you mentioned, marc,

about a piece being a part of the conversation in syria. and the question that came in from twitter is, how can outside organizations also help mediate or moderate the discussion between nonbelievers, those who don't affiliate themselves with, outside the faith communities and words communities which we now is a very contentious issue in much of the world. so what did it look like? what was the texture of the conversations and how did you create the space for atheists to be a part of the interfaith conversation in syria? >> yeah, that was -- all public displays of what i call a social contract are based on prior relationships. so you cannot discount the fact that their specific people, the great connectors that are talked about in social networks, who have already those relationships with believers and nonbelievers et cetera come and they're the

ones that convene in such a way that makes it possible for people to come together and have some good arguments. and good argument can effect much of our work in syria was framed as the spirit of debate, or the role of public debate because the idea was, i'll never forget an official telling me, we have no religious conflict here in syria. i say oh, boy, let's wait. this was a year before everything broke out. the idea of debate, debate is actually the nonviolent engagement in conflict, if you think about it. and we want to model what debate was that was nonviolent. this is especially important for men. we know that globally the more that women are involved in leadership and the less there is. one of the issues with men and violence is the difficulty with debate nonviolently. the, expressing differences in public without the use of anger or force, et cetera.

so that's what we were modeling. and it was a more angry state when it was atheists versus the others because, because nonbelievers everywhere feel deeply threatened by the organized nature of religiosity, and they're very afraid of the future so it gets very angry. but if you moderate, but i was just aghast. i was just the guy representing judaism, that's all. [laughter] i happen to be from the outside but i was almost like a syrian jew at that moment. so it was an interesting role but i was not there to moderate this societies issues between believers and nonbelievers. that would've been totally inappropriate. just to clarify. >> if i could just add, what's really inspirational is the younger generations have acknowledged the fall the polarization within their parents generation. so you have a lot of that happening naturally. for example, you know, a group of young activists who would

probably be defined as secular, but much more approachable than their mothers generation, which actually have in their bylaws, you cannot be a member for example, of a feminist organization. was talk about how she very interested in reaching out to the more conservative. i asked her why and she said she was sitting in her final examination in college when two of her friends, not necessary good friend but two friends were wearing the scarf, the teacher came up to them and said you must take office guardedly. basically their entire school was in jeopardy. so they decided to leave because they felt the ever under moral kind of road and that they couldn't do that. as raising a secular home she's more concerned with these two girls were just denied education. so there was any hope of them, even if the scarf is oppressive, if there's any hope of them ever having a chance in the future it was with him to complete their degree. she could understand the logic. i think you're seeing that more. is what i call focusing on other

principles. the framework, religious, or secular is not what's relevant to its the principle. i think you can really unite people around the principles right to education, the basic rights will bring people together. another story is a group of young egyptians who started a youtube campaign and it basically showed the breakdown of communication. one of my favorite videos is this timing is a secular person goes to visit one of the muslim brotherhood's. so he said what do you want to drink? so they show bubbles of the vote think i can't ask for it. he will say the caffeine is forbidden. if he asks for water then maybe he can expect me to do something. he's having all of these stereotypes of the brotherhood guy. me mother brother guy said i wish it didn't asking that question and that is going to asked me for vodka and what am i going to do? they spend 10 minutes not talking and then they leave. so at the end this is what a missed opportunity. i got a very powerful, egyptian youth making this.

what a missed opportunity, stereotypes, they never and engage in the dialogue. >> so not going to open up to all of you. we have a microphone over here, and i just ask that you can buy yourself and your organization, and please if you have a comment, due at a question. we want to see this in the form of a question so panelists can respond to. >> do you want me to go first? hi. i'm steve. i just a few weeks ago retired from the state department. so -- i just a few weeks ago retired from the state department, so i'm getting my mind around what it's like to be out of government. still thinking about the

problems that i saw was in government. and i have sympathy with -- you may recall the issue, the statement just before the rioting i'm sure to try to head this off. to put it mildly, this was not a successful statement. didn't head off the riot, and it was offensive here at home. was apologetic about the first amendment. i don't recall, it said something about accusing freedom of speech or something like that. what, because i was once in a situation with, when pastor jones was getting ready with great, you know, fanfare to have one of his incidents with the

koran. people came running to me saying the same thing. here, we should put out a statement. thank god we didn't. we decided the draft just wouldn't work, and it wouldn't have. but what do you recommend government say the next time somebody decides to be provocative, and it will happen, and upload something crazy on youtube? what should we be sending? we have no responsibility for what any kook, i think is a good term, might want to upload to youtube. but i'd be curious of what government should be saying. thank you. >> i think i might have an answer for that. so, i think president obama and

secretary clinton did an excellent job of responding to the youtube video by basically not responding to it, saying that they recognized the hateful message that came out of it, but they were moving beyond the video. like you said, governments don't have a responsibility to comment on every single thing that is uploaded to youtube or the internet. that may be deemed as hateful or offensive to some people. but we were getting with other issues. we were dealing with the reactions to that. and so i think in this instance it's probably best for governments to rely on those strong civil society organizations that do have a relationship with communities to put out statements or to work with the community to be like, listen, i understand that whatever message came out might've been offensive, but

this is the way to react or not react. or hear something more appropriate, or responsible. here's some responsible speech to counter that. for example, i know, you know, the ads in new york, they were brought up. the government doesn't have to comment on that. and so what have a civil society organizations done? they have put up counter ads. in fact, our organization is to counter ads in the new york subway, and here in d.c. in a system. and so i think this is the perfect opportunity where you do see that working relationship between government and organizations to combat. you know, incidents like this. >> i think it's a good opportunity to remind to anything i say is not own personal opinion and not the opinion of u.s. institute of peace. but what i did want to share was that what i hear on the ground, and i think it's important for

government officials to understand how with percy. i think it's 100% right perception is reality. and for the majority of people in the middle east, there's very few who can understand the government can't get involved. this is the strongest government and the world. you can't tell someone not to post and you too. you can't tell youtube to stop. especially because they come from governments that are highly -- have high censorship. just that i do is not within governments hand, no one can believe are understand that. i think the second issue is people perceive a double standard. what people say to me, do is limited. it's not all over satellite channels, is not allowed on cable. you can't limit this so that the second statement at often here. and i think the third thing is people always ask me if an anti-semitic message would be allowed in u.s. i agree, the proper way in civil society, if you really want for people to understand that dynamic of freedom of speech versus freedom of religion,

there has to be an understanding of what the roles of government and civil society can become and a proactive one to be really able, to people to begin to appreciate the complexity. but at the end of the day there is also a responsibility to protect. and i think particularly when you have with the case of the koran burning compared u.s. soldiers on the ground and someone who is on the ground consistently working with embassy staff, it puts us in danger with these statements. so that is that also kind of very delicate balance of responsibility to protect your people on the ground if you're involved in these countries and these statements are made. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm the president of hope for tomorrow. [inaudible] i am here from kenya.

but thank you so much, madam ambassador, and all your wonderful presentations. [inaudible] the most liking i talked -- the big organizations that want to cooperate with smaller organizations. they are offended. [inaudible] they don't want to collaborate. that's where the missing link is because people know more on the ground where violence is come, where profit is coming, especially women who are in the rural areas. they know what's happening. so when you avoid them and you don't want to put them on -- how do you expect the message -- [inaudible] they don't understand english. they don't understand. how do you convince them you are

doing the right thing you're talking about, peace? and i come to -- [inaudible] we need to cooperate into peace, problems, violence, empowerment. investment, which will create jobs to avoid problems like violence. when you say they're doing nothing, they are waiting for where, as you say, people -- [inaudible] when you're getting into the drama is when they will act. the violence, although sort of things. i'm going to the election observation in kenya. my country, change, had violence in 2007. [inaudible] now i am one of the -- how do we foresee a plan, religious people, politicians, madam

ambassador them to prevent violence before libya and after election? and why is violence there after libya? we need to get together before all this happens. so thank you so much for this presentation. how can we collaborate with you and the big organizations, the state department, the government, even the christians in politics. so getting all that done is just -- [inaudible] community organizations, like mine, and like this, and the government of the trent eight. thank you. >> a challenge of collaboration between small and rural organizations. >> yeah, i couldn't agree more with the probably your dana fine, and -- you are identifying. iphone over it. it's for difficult. governments have huge amounts of

money with. they have to disperse in very particular ways, in very, very controlled by extreme details of legality. that makes it almost impossible for anyone of integrity on the ground to be able to handle that. and so this vast difference between governments on the one hand and their legal structures, and on the other hand the people who actually are really on the ground, this is one of the challenges we have in a global community. how do we actually learn? and it's also a shift in psychology. and that is to actually the people on the ground, that women underground have a higher moral intelligence about violence than think tanks do. okay? that is a paradigm shift. so part of it is realizing that people, and we know this scientifically. we know from psychology there's high forms of intelligence and

physics, and mathematics at the same brain can have zero intelligence in social intelligence. that social intelligence, moral intelligence, the capacity to know that if it in the room has the same right to dignity is not simple for the brain. it's a very develop notion that many illiterate people have and many highly educated people don't. and so that realization of the wisdom at the bottom is vital to the shift in this. then there's a technical problem, and that is they can't even apply. they don't even know what it is to play. i've been trying to figure out for 20 years, and only because of my thirtysomething colleagues can't figure it out right now, okay? otherwise the money it is taken from people who know how to take money. their expertise is not peace. the expertise is taking money. so this is a built-in problem that every government person has a problem with. and we have to work harder, and how to make that connection, how

to have the hierarchy of relationships in such a way that there are enablers who speak for those, those amazing people on the ground. and the second thing is that, like i said before, every institution that you develop in develop and work, in jobs has to be that one group over against another. it has to be that those people in those villages see that this is a multifaith or multi-sectarian or multiethnic effort. it is not one group privileged over the other. and that model is the model of the social contract you are looking for. if it's not, it looks like a trick. it looks like one group is getting advantages over the other. so it is two things. one, on the ground, always this new notion of contracts across ethnic boundaries. at the other one is, if we recognize we have a problem globally without a transfer our

wealth and our power into the hands of people that really deserve it because of their high moral intelligence but you don't know how to ask for and don't know how to get it. we need to work harder at that. >> i completely agree with several points. one thing in terms of security, knowing there's a lot of ways of preventing. one of the first things, i'll find it to the religious, sometimes tribal leader because it's important that they know you're there and why you're there. i did in iraq from 2003-2005, and thankfully was able to leave before got very violent. i was living in one of the most dangerous areas and it was the religiously came came up to me and said our neighborhood is no longer ours, so we have any problems with you but i can't guarantee anything moving forward. there are people coming in, a lot of people we don't recognize in the street. you might want to think about leaving. that was the time i left. then several months later it became one of the biggest areas

where the complications had -- happen. so knowing the local leadership and understand that i think is very essential. anyone who spent time on the ground will acknowledge that. i think that the challenge, what marc was described, what you're alluding to, we call international darlings. greater proposal writing, have access to computers, we taken for granted. a lot of the rural areas don't have electricity. so know how to apply. i think the biggest challenge is how do you get those people involved? you have to find a way to bridge those groups with the international darlings. you can ignore one or the other because you need people to keep the financial records together. even if you go straight into the rural areas and give them funding, you can be legitimized, you can create a moral hazard and create corruption because it might not even be corrupt. they just do not handle money. the is a lot of technical issues. one of the things we try to do at usip is we work with people

before they ever write the proposal. they can put in a concept, we will work back and forth can help develop the proposals. we traveled to the areas will we meet with potential grantees, and in the a relationship ever before the proposal is ever submitted. but that takes an overwhelming amount of overhead. so for very small amount of funds because the absorption capacity of the organization should talk about is that 10 to to $15,000. maybe up to 25,000. donors are used to millions of dollars, maybe two and $50,000, maybe $100,000 is considered a small grants program. when you're absorbing 10 to 15 community disconnect. it's a huge logistical and administrative challenge. i think the way around is network, helping build regional networks can then take the large funds and find ways of dispersed them. but that in itself has challenges and is technically difficult. that's what works, more and

more. how regional networks can take the large money from networks and filter them. one issue on poverty. i agree with you and most of the cases, but there is a large number of middle-class to people who, a great way to burst them into poverty. entrance of religious extremism, a lot of it does come from both countries were considered wealthy and become very wealthy families. so it's not the only link. and i think taken with religious freedom, there is an exploitation of people's viewpoints. and again i think that dignity is humiliation aspect of it is a big part of the. so we're looking at the analysis, i think we need to be careful not to look at poverty and social economic. there is another element that is based on the ideology, the right to be heard which is a basic right. and again, humiliation and the right to dignity. >> i just want to underscore two

of the things, and again i'm breaking my role here as moderator so i apologize. two things. one, a lot of big international darlings better in the capitals of these conflicts we work in our countries work and are often from the secular peace building world. some the challenge with not engaging in the religious sector, also because the faith-based organizations or the religious organizations might abuse of this year when it comes to proposal writing or two having the relationships already. that creates a challenge. but also with this issue of engagement with women. this becomes a challenge also for religious peace building because oftentimes when international organizations or governments want to engage the religious sector, they go straight for the clerics. they go straight for the institutional religious authorities which in most of the world is primarily vested in them. and so part of the work of the religious peace building field has been pushing governments and international organizations to think of religious leadership

and religious authority as outside of clerical authority. we know that women in much of the world, especially in these rural areas, play a very significant role in shaping religious interpretations and shaping religious and moral responses to violence and to other communities. in shaping religious behavior and so when. we need to be thinking about the interpretive power and authority that many different religious actors have, not just clerical authority. let's open it up to more questions. >> i'm with the department of state. following up on what you're saying about women, i think most of us would recognize the important vital resources women bring to the table. but can you discuss logistically how, particularly in the muslim world, how we can reach these women of faith to make them part, not just of a discussion on the side, but actually the decision-making process?

>> him so, it's actually not as difficult as one would think. women in muslim majority countries, we tend to think of them as being illiterate or uneducated. and in some rural areas that's the case, but i mean, take egypt, for example. you have a lot of women who are entering the universities, and in some cases outnumber men in these universities. so it is being aware of, including, making sure to include all these different voices at the table when you are discussing these issues, especially when it comes to religious freedoms. and when you talk about religious freedom within a certain context, let's say the arab world or muslim majority countries, then you want to come at it from an organic perspective.

what is it that they their faith teaches them. what sort of ideals are promoted within islam that allow women to be educated, to have a voice, to be part of the discussion and to be part of the decision-making process. i think the general idea, maybe from people in western countries, is that it is difficult finding women who would be part of these discussions, but it's getting out there in engaging the. they are there, they want to be part of the discussion. they want to be part of the decision-making process. they are in parliament. they are in universities. it's just getting them that chance. >> i think when you're talking the decision-makers, there's going to be institutionalized change. that's going to take a long time to do that. and i think if you look, for

example, at the case of morocco where they were able to create an online program for women. because i agree, you couldn't find women were engaged and you will find women are well schooled i cannot decision-makers, take up when it to religious authority. it's a rich tradition that once existed but is lost to what you have is a need for institutionalized change so you can have -- i know that, for example, i think the asia foundation is looking at taking a group of afghan women to study. so, you know, having the actual traditional teaching and then looking at changing the institutions where they are then having the authority i think is very necessary because no matter how well -- i can tell you, i know a lot of the stories about how women in islam are supposed to be participate and all that. but if i'm standing in front of a room and i to contradict ago who are they going to believe? most cases would have gone into yemen or in iraq, and i'll tell women, someone will tell me, it is forbidden for us to work. we know that's not true.

this is what the quran says. they think it's cute. when i go to the religious leader and come back with, then they will listen. so that, the decision-makers is still a child and it has to happen institutions. i think the best case now so far has been rocco. >> i'm representing worst of america in afghanistan. my question is, to each of you and including, it's a massive like to comment on this as well, my question is oftentimes u.s. geopolitical can't -- conversations clash. religious and religious groups become the tool. we have seen that happen in afghanistan. [inaudible] how do you think looking at, and

basically work to change this? u.s. government as well as opposing governments. how do they balance this geopolitical conversations with the religion? >> i've done a lot of thinking about that and work on that for the last 20 years. is truly an excellent question. i do believe that we need, that there's much unfinished business from the cold war. the cold war is so devastating our planet. people don't realize it in terms of the consequences for syria and other things. and i think that the uses of religion in the cold war, in particular, and the consequences in terms of how these proxy wars took place is still haunting us. so the next step, the logical point to come is something again that the western nations have a hard time considering because religion is officially not on the agenda.

but there needs to be a hands-on peace treaty on religion. in other words, the instrument, instrumentalist nation for the sake of military or political gain is a standard operating procedure for many states to this day. now, the only way we have resolved these kind of interface complex on a global scale is that the united nations is with people negotiating on the places with which they're doing things constructive in bosnia, and how can we do something constructive in boston? we're doing something -- so one of those is hands-off of christianity, hands-off of sunni islam, as a tool of warfare. hands-off of communism these groups are militant groups. that's not an easy, that's not easy. and it's very tempting that now the genie is out of the bottle with some radical group you

don't like, so form their own group. said okay, these are the moderates who believe in human rights, anti-nudity you're seen as instrumental lies in them, too. do you see what i'm saying? if not, this is, we're facing this do with the american-egyptian relation. what is the relationship now with the muslim brotherhood and with the government and with civil society groups, et cetera? so i think this is front and center on how states and out even allies, united states, saudi arabia, qatar of all these groups, what is the attitude now to the use, to the uses of religion and how could we have a treaty or a set of understanding on how to depoliticize the engagement with religious groups and religious community. i think the more that becomes a self-conscious process, the more that we will allow local imams and others to work out their own problems rather than being

instrumentalize. that's the best we can do. i know i have been working in afghanistan, and it is an extremely difficult process of how you do that kind of trust, and that trust, that you, that you, the local people believe that you are not there to instrument -- instrumentalize and. i will never forget a moment we are in the room for the first time with many moms and they said okay, what you want a conference to to be but? so we can as to what you want it to be about? so they were in a state of shock because no one had ever done that. so easy when i'm saying? the idea is environment is so simple from a psychological point of view but like i said, it's a form of intelligence that's not always available to international actors. that nation -- notion of any of the power, saying what you want, that simple notion is creating that trust that the religion is not being instrumentalize.

>> so, i mean, i told a group of everything that marc said. i think it's important for governments to realize that now they shouldn't be afraid to engage different types of groups. and when it comes to, you know, state-based groups, now more than ever we are seeing their prominence and their value to adding their voice to the conversation. and the impact -- at mpac we like to so if you are not sitting on the table you're on the menu. we want to include all these voices. we do have, they have things to say, and there on the ground so they know what sort of ideas, what sort of comments, what is happening on the ground that it and the government, and the top does. so it's important to include these kind of groups, just like marc said, we shouldn't be afraid right now, especially

talking more specifically about egypt, u.s. relations, this sort of push back or welcoming with open arms to the muslim brotherhood or whoever is going to be in power. you need to be able to adjust, sort of policies with groups that are coming into power. [inaudible] >> it would be my delight. i think marc said it very well. it is very complex in terms of going forward. many of the governments have to be at the table. conversations with the secretary, department of defense. one of the critical things that marks it comes to things. one is strategic dialogue is beginning the conversation to make sure that advocates of the table, basically a civil society or at the table and that's beginning a conversation that has not happened before. also from his comment earlier

when he said that sometimes our presence, learning to be just listing, i think it's a paradigm is starting to shift. particularly, i can speak for myself, having been a former faith leader, and now in government, i think the president many times, and many people want to -- the third thing i will say is that it's very complex that we go forward. but what hoda sure that is the faith leaders are at the table. i just left united nations this past week and i met with several ngo groups who are religious actors, the room withstand a only in terms of putting religion on the table, in terms of conversation. i made several interventions with jordan and italy, and suddenly the conversation has begun. and so i think the first step in terms of going forward is doing we are doing today and begin to really put religion in government on the table. so the conversation has begun.

we are planting seeds for the future but i think we have made a lot of headway with strategic dialogue. but i would hope at some point this panel and i can travel together so it's not just a government, so we have government goes with congress to a state department might go with congress, but i think at some point in future we might want to go together, so sold -- civil society and government and showed him a paradigm that has not been done before. so we are on our way. >> did you get a good shot? [laughter] >> we have a lot of questions, and time is quickly marching on. i'm going to ask you to run around. you might want to be in the center isle so we can capture the last equation and try to answer them all before we leave at noon. spent i'm from the state department. one of the things, element i think some black in the discussion, utah by the u.s.

government and civil society, didn't talk much about the behavior of the other governments in the so-called, for lack of a better term, target countries. [inaudible] we asked the u.s. government have to publicly and forcefully go out and really put out our red lines and define our interests, in order to engage with these governments as part of the i know there are many complications of that, congress and public opinions here in the united states is one where it really requires us to find this interest very publicly. where does that conflict with our approach and our emerging approach with empowering civil society's? how can we do a better job of traditional diplomacy while enacting this new approach in this hybrid? because the governments are the ones you need to carve out space and what can we did as a u.s. government to push those other governments to do what they need to do?

>> i'm going to throw out a question from twitter as well to add to our list. one person asked a question that i think we kind of been addressing in the last comment, but in the past without having a secular approach and the secular language, secular paradigms as being necessarily inclusive language. we are increasingly learning using the secular approach actually exclude or marginalize his particular voice of particular groups. this question was not a government approaches but peace building approach by devotees building organizations. how can we include different religious understandings of peace building, but in a way that is still going to be inclusive of many different religious communities and many different groups? so, next question from the audience. >> my name is david steele. i'm from brandeis university.

i really want to ask a question about the practicality of dialogue, which i do a lot of attempts at. when you're dealing with tremendous values and differences, and you talked about common definition of religious freedom, for example, but it's obvious there isn't one of the moment around the world. talk about social contracts, which i think are extremely important, often can be worked out very locally. how t. begin to do that? not sure the u.n. is a good example. so my real question is, would you come down to dealing with conflicts about use as they are experienced by people, how do you begin to approach that question realistically?

>> my name is susan taylor and i'm with the national office of scientology. i want to thank you all for your comments today. we've been talking about dialogue and having the tools with which to bring people together. i was just wondering what role the united nations, universal declaration of human rights might be able to play say, in the grassroots level and bringing people together? >> one more back there. [inaudible] >> marc mentioned, said he has inside community very different interpretations in terms of freedom of expression. for me as a european, it's

interesting to see instead of this country you can expose a swastika but certain forms of nudity are punished because they are illegal. it seems for me just crazy what you are doing here. listening to you two hours, i didn't get one idea how the american society is able itself to think about changing itself by demanding the rest of the world to think about a lot of things. see, your interpretation of the first amendment is palatable. many people, even in europe, would say please start to debate about your interpretation of your constitution before you come up with giving advice to the rest of the world. but i've mentioned this, as a european, as i think about how

arab or turkish person, or whatever, that you don't question yourself. >> okay. well, i'll begin with the first question last. i asked before beginning about whether the emphasis is going to be some of the global issues, because this was provoked by the film that then ended up in the tragedy in benghazi. so the focus was on some global questions. one of the challenges of every society, i told you before, i worked with the swiss ambassador. a terrible situation in syria. there are many things i could've talked to him about. i said what's wrong about ex-wife and seek? how is it possible women didn't get to vote until 1970

something, et cetera? he wasn't the issue. it wasn't his problem. he and i were together in a difficult situation, a life-threatening situation, and we're both committed to the value of everyone's human life. we weren't speaking for our society. in other words, we face a globalized community of people who are trying to do good, and they don't represent at every moment everything that's going on in their society. that's a subculture on a global scale of people advocating human rights, people advocating women's empowerment, people advocating conflict resolution. so if you say to me that american officials are not self examined enough, if you say to me, i will say to you it's true all officials in the world, and that the hardest thing in the world is for societies to officially self examined. that is, you know, it's an exception when australia has a national sorry day, after years and years and years of civil society, helping people get used to the idea of apologizing.

so what happens here in terms of freedom of speech, allowing for a swastika but not for a newt picture, that is a result of a struggle of social contract that's peculiar to this country, it is peculiar to. every country has a peculiarity. should we be self examined? absolutely. absolutely. should that prevent people from sharing globally on how to dance human rights and women's rights? no, it shouldn't. but are you telling me that officials tend to be arrogant, or tend to tell other people what to do? yes, of course. that happens all the time. but there's a real struggle that i've experienced with officials, european officials, american officials. some are excellent at not coming off that way. people like ambassador, ambassador to libya, bless his memory the so there are great

variations in the capacity of diplomacy of officials. if you feel in frustration with american power in the world and massive military-industrial complex, welcome everybody in the world is frustrated by how much power the west throws around. how much we are supporting both sides. we talk about peace in the rant but we are providing submarines to one side and germany is, too. yes? providing to chemical warfare and the submarines. everybody is benefiting in the west from their power. there's a lot to self examined about that. i'm in violence research now, and i'm fascinated by violence research. the big flaw in violence research is to talk about six or 100,000 deaths indiana state, and that's how but it's only one per 100,000 in germany. it doesn't talk -- talk about all the deaths we cause from our industrial military problems.

so self-examination is absolutely critical to our work. but that should not prevent us from struggling for a goal in which anyone is struggling with the question of freedom of religion. everyone is questioning, struggling with the question of freedom of speech. and i have a deep faith that the more that we provoked these discussions globally, and a more honest we are about own peculiarities, the more that everybody will come up with her own interesting innovations on how to manage there. and we will all be better off for. so i respect your frustration with the public image of the united states, but i also say there's many good people are trying to do something different. as far as the conflict of values, david, and david is a wonderful activist, innovative, is the simplest thing has been focusing on the positive. you don't ask people what their differences are. you focus on, you ask people what you think you share with

them? what do you think, you, what do you think they want for their children? what do you think they want in terms of jobs? what do you want? in other words, positive peace building i found a remarkable shift of the brain, of the brain capacity. and i always take it back to the. many, many ribs i sat in an palestine, syria and israel, it is one, he used the island. everything is focused on what can't work. they say, what do you want to see here in five years? suddenly the brain gets all crazy. i don't know, i didn't think about that. it's very intelligent people because when you have trouble, we all have troubles in our lives, all you can think about is the trouble into some recess what do you want? then suddenly your brain do something different and your heart does something different. so we have to ambassadors of that process. last night, i was very proud of my presentation, and somebody asked the question, everybody was really thrilled with all

this piece work on global working so we asked the question right in the middle, because a stock that women's empowerment changing everything and making the world far less violent than it's ever been in history. that's absolutely true. he said to me, the very pointedly, you have but if you think it's less violent have you respond to what you think about the voice of the unborn? and is a direct question and challenge was all the liberation of women has led to the deaths of millions of unborn, right? i was stunned, but then i said, i said that's very important because that would take a very deep conversation between your care for the unborn and other people's belief that the liberation of women has been the key to the nonviolence. and we're both talking about how to celebrate life. let's think about how we can celebrate life together. and work on that. because his passion was life. different interpretation.

so you really have to work your brain at have to refocus. and i seen this work. in many, many bad situations. >> so to the question of self-examination, i think a lot of these issues that have been happening globally recently have led to an internal self-examination here in the united states. i'm not sure. i think we may have a negative public perception worldwide that we have this american exceptionalism and we can go out and give advice but we don't take their own advice. but i think it would be unfair to say that we don't self analyze, you know, a lot of the policies that we have going on. we have debates every day on freedom of expression. even with that, that trailer, the youtube trailer that came

out cause a lot of debates and discussion, people sing welcome what's the difference between free speech and hate speech? i do think you would be fair to say that we are completely devoid of self examining. a lot of our policies are our own freedoms and those in the constitution. and when it comes to shared values, i think marc goudeau hit the nail on the head. we have a lot more in common i think than we actually think. at the end of the day we are all humans and we do strive to have the same things, security, you know, bring our children into a safe world, education, empowerment for all, are just at the end of the day having our own voice heard. so i think focusing on the positive aspects of our shared values is much more important than trying to build policies on what we don't have in common.

>> i'll start with the question about how to get the country or will he call the duty barrier to shift. i think it's important for our foreign policy when we are addressing nations to understand what the capacity is, what they are capable of. i say that because for example, in libya, most people agree exactly with recommendations that the u.s. or others are asking for, that it comes down to the capacity issue, taken with the militias, particularly with protection. a lot of times will ask governments to take, you know, control of speech or deal with religious extremism when they simply don't have that authority. aske..

and the region are expecting the u.s. to hold up to that so when it comes to freedom and it comes to women and minorities we have to be on the principles but also be very flexible and open to the approaches and the timeline. most importantly is the timeline. we are managing expectations in countries there'll still needs to be managing with the international community a lot of them are transitioning the governments to do so that we are not actually just importing them and setting them up for failure. on the twitter question in terms of secular language, what a lot of people in the middle east talk about is the secular

fundamentalism. i think that is what people are objecting to. i was even told by some of them that i work with that were from islam is the de secular translate to no religion. so understanding or free adopting or creating the new word or taking back the word secular is part of the debate that needs to happen because right now secular is understood as no religion. and their needs to be a broad conversation where it can be inclusive and you can bring in religion and the point about the rule of law with the role of religious laws those the dates can take place, but there is citing the need to understand that a new term or a new terminology needs to be negotiated and used so that you're not just restricting to religion, but at the same time when you enter into the debate there is a danger to cause your putting religion and it's very hard to argue with the word of god verses everything else. so how do you intertwined that to create a new dialogue or a new term, the port secular or secular fundamentalism that is

what is primarily being objective. i think it is a really good question and it goes on to the idea what i was saying before a few people will pull apart the universal declaration of human rights when there is reservation intensity and reservation on the freedom of religion aspect but underlining is the mistrust that goes back to the need for a new social contract and understanding the relationship. people feel there is a double standard when it comes to the u.s. neither declaration of human rights. human-rights, democracy is called on when they're certain political agendas in the political will and completely ignored and other aspects and so people feel most of the document is truly universal and therefore universally applied. we don't acknowledge it. we don't -- we don't acknowledge it in the strong term, but it's not owned. there isn't an ownership, so that is a larger question is how

can we address this perception or reality depending on who you talk to of the double standards when we want to call on human rights and we want to turn the other way and not acknowledge it. but finally the question of, you know, different values and assessment, the point i was trying to bring when we need to look at extremism i think that that is something that for legitimacy reasons not only for addressing our domestic issues but the legitimacy overseas, people want to see the debate so how can we take it? i think it is taking place, but how can we take it to a larger audience? but, you know, where i agree with my colleagues about the start, david, this is in relation to your question about the values and the differences. there are essentials differences, and even for me with the internal islamic dynamic i struggled during because there are things i just will not be able to accept and it's important that we have this, but my fear has always been that we have conversations

where it's all hold hands so no one can own a gun and we don't get into the difficult conversations. we have to build the trust to get to the difficult conversations, and that's extremely essential otherwise change will not happen. and i think one of the ways i do it is focusing on islam there is something in the rules of engagement for disagreement. so the understanding from the beginning as we are going to have this agreement. we are not plan to agree with that you see women's rights i see it differently and we both have islamic arguments let's compare notes and here is what is one says about the disagreements setting the expectation of from the beginning coming in using the rule of conduct using an islamic framework for the this agreement and allow people to understand we are going to talk about this agreement and we are not going to just talk about common ground but we are going to do it respectfully, and above all you really is and you see it and particularly when you kind of isolate people in some kind of retreat over the next couple of days you see people shift and begin to understand the other person's perspective and that is

extremely powerful because people really do believe and assume that you are out to get me. you hate me. this is an age-old conflict no matter what i say you want to be convinced that when you are able to actually see the perspective and understand the argument, but also see the fierce with the islamic issues on women's righu know, a lot of women come a of the secular women are not just being difficult or his religion. the are afraid of the right that they feel will be taken away from them. it is a fear that mothers of experience and they have installed and their daughters and they will say it and we don't want to be in saudi arabia. we don't want to be in iran. this is their word, not my judgment on either country, and likewise the women that are practicing saying we don't want to be in france and turkey in the beginning. getting off my words, not their words, so there's a fear, legitimate fear we don't want to experience what we have seen happen when religion is brought in or when secular fundamentalism is brought in.

and that automatically breaks down where they are not agreeing with each other. but they are actually understanding each other's perception. i had one woman in the countries, most arab countries i don't know about the larger muslim world but most arab countries race is not a crime if it is a victim. this is horrendous. for me how can this be justified? when one woman was able to stand up and actually justify it, no one agreed with her the butt for the first time, people were not like you are so crazy, you're ignorant and you are a violent woman that has been brainwashed, the actually understood her issue to the point where the and they were able to build an argument to counter it which was accessible to hurt. she understood you are talking about trauma so you are actually not helping anyone and we were able to drop a new language for the criminal law. it happens by going beyond argument, and rather than just kind of, you know, going crazy when she is defending law and understanding her perspective, then you are able to actually come out with conclusions that

it is a difficult problem. i can't tell you how many times i've sat in the room and it is an extremely uncomfortable talking abut interface but trust discussions. extremely uncomfortable, but i forced myself to listen and understand to the perspective and actually end up learning a lot. >> we have gone over our time so i need to draw this to a close but i think he will probably be able to capture our presenters for a few minutes after we wrap up here. but i want to thank all of you for participating in the discussion and putting those that streaming over the internet and i want to thank particularly the ambassador and of religious freedom for cosponsoring us and encouraging us to hold on this panel collaboration with them and all of my presenters for giving such a nuanced and fruitful comment on the topic. thank you very much. [applause]

one

we asked c-span viewers what they thought of the final presidential debate in here is what some of you had to say. >> i was undecided until watching this debate. what i saw from obama tonight was presidential. what i heard was real leadership. i appreciated the fact that he was straightforward, was candid about his own positions, and what i heard from governor romney was apparent and that didn't interest me. >> i think governor mitt romney won hands down on the debates. >> i'm so proud of president barack obama. he's presidential, and when mitt romney is asked a question, she looks like a man that can take pressure -- can't take pressure. >> mr. mitt romney seemed to me to be a little when she --

wishy-washy. he made a statement of the president not having any backbone but later he states he wants to work with china. he wants to deal with pakistan. >> i just want to say something about the moderator's in the debate. it seemed one side and i think. i believe in governor romney and i hope people open their eyes and take note of what's going on in our country. >> mitt romney actually answered the questions. he didn't tiptoe around that. everyone keeps saying he's tiptoed around them but he's not. he's straight forward and keep saying the same things over and over again and is consistent, where obama has not been consistent. >> i felt the debate lagged all of the questions that mr. schieffer was asking because they got so much away from the foreign privacy, which i felt was the focus and then they started talking of the domestic economy. and i'm just trying to tie that into the questions were coming and i don't think -- i think

they kept going back to the economy. >> i felt that governor romney had done an excellent job today. he was very presidential. and it was the end of the comment where they are told our family has felt that we are not being protected as a nation, that our borders are open, and the issues that were discussed tonight on foreign policy i felt that mitt romney is going to get my vote for sure on those points. >> i thought governor romney was clearly comfortable talking about the economy. i thought president obama was comfortable talking about foreign policy and he did a better job on the foreign policy with the current economy. >> i was disappointed with the president. i was looking for him to lay out his strategy and foreign policy, and i found him to be the jimmy

carter of our generation. >> i'm kind of thinking that obama won this because i don't know, he sounded more like obama and less like backing down little that to this but president obama and mitt romney didn't say anything about small businesses, what they are going to do. >> i think out of all three presidential debates this by far was the strongest he was extremely presidential and direct to the point, straightforward and very assertive. he called out romney on some of his equivocations with such promise and being so polite that it was almost admirable how our president continues to defend his policies of the last four years.

>> representative joe walsh and challenger tammy duckworth recently met for their final of three debates for the u.s. house seat in the eighth district of illinois. representative walsh is in his first term in congress after he defeated them incumbent melissa bean by 291 votes in 2010. tammy duckworth was a black hawk helicopter pilot in the second iraq war and received a purple heart after being shot down in 2004. in 2009, tammy duckworth was selected by president obama to be assistant secretary of veterans affairs. she no longer serves in that capacity. this debate took place on chicago tonight on wttw, and it's 35 minutes. >> moderator: the candidates are in one of the most watched congressional races in the nation. congressman joe walsh and tammy duckworth have had several spirited and at times acrimonious phase office in the battle to win the district by

the illinois democrat's that newly drawn eighth congressional district includes west and northwest suburbs such as the village, schaumburg, bloomingdale, the elk grove and even a small portion of chicago and a couple of quick notes before we begin tonight. this is being streamed live on the web site, wttw.com/chicago kosoff, and then you can join the live chat and if you have a question for the candidates you can also asked and to note about the format tonight this isn't a formal debate. the candidates will not give opening or closing statements. their answers will not be time to come and they will not necessarily be asked the same questions. i will use fairness as my guide to move the discussion along and we asked the candidates to stay on topic and not give campaign speeches. joining tonight seated in the order that the appear r tammy duckworth, a republican who's the former director of the illinois department of veterans affairs and former united states

assistant secretary of veterans affairs. ms. duckworth previously ran for congress in 2006 and also served in the iraq war receiving a purple heart and remains a lieutenant colonel in the little i national guard. conagra's man joe walsh, republican first elected to the u.s. house of representatives in 2010 prior to his election to congress, mr. walsh worked with high school dropouts here in chicago and later taught american history and government at the community colleges in the area. we thank you both for being here and welcome to chicago tonight. now i've mentioned this race has had its share of tense encounters when the two of you have been brought together. there have been some fireworks and also has the dubious distinction of having made political's ten nastiest congressional races in the country. rabat to start on a congenial note, i'd like to ask each of you to say something that you respect and admire about your

opponent that makes them were the to hold political office. tammy duckworth, you begin. duckworth: i think that mr. walsh loves his country as much as any of us do and that would go a long way towards serving the people of this country and people of the district, and as long as we remember the day was about serving the folks and the district and the constituents i think that we can all go along with that. >> moderator:, walsh? walsh: campaigns can get neutral. it is it part of the business and we lose sight we are running against often. and because of everything that happens, we do lose the connection. i've always been -- i've always respected her service and her sense of duty moving forward which is why she wants to run for congress. i think that is incredibly noble. >> moderator: all right, let's begin -- if we can keep that congeniality going through all this. let me start with you,

congressman walsh because you had said on this program and you have repeated during your freshman term that you did not go to washington to compromise. that your objective first and foremost was to, quote, stop this president. do you feel that you have met your goal? walsh: i think that we have done a pretty decent job. maybe it's because i've taught american government and american history, and i take a bit of a longer view. the country is calling for some pretty tumultuous time right now. we are having a grand debate and of course i always want to be respectful about where we are as a country. i think when president obama got elected, a big chunk of the country sort of did a timeout, where are we going, our government is getting too big and it's doing things the government didn't used to do, and then the election in 2010i think they sent folks like us to congress to join that, and another point is to help educate the american people.

maybe this is something that we can agree upon as a country we need to wake up because we really are broke and we are not working and the economy is not growing and it is always easy to tear into the politicians. but i think as a country, we need to wake up and get educated. you know, the last point we raised the debt ceiling in number of times. >> moderator: we will get to the specifics in just a second. even before you get to that, you said that you are going to -- aren't going to compromise. you told the daily herald of your elective a second term that you would be more willing to compromise; on what? walsh: depending how this election shakes out, i am hopeful that is the next step in this country coming together to figure out its problems. and to help solve these problems. i have made clear i will never compromise on laying out one more dollar of debt on top of our kids or grandkids and i won't raise any taxes on america right now because we are all

taxed out. but even having said that, there is plenty underneath that i think both parties can come together and agree on. >> moderator: tammy duckworth, you have a bipartisan spirit going into washington if you are elected, and if so, what are you willing to oppose your own party on? duckworth: of the things i have been unclear about is the health care affordable care act has some very big if walls. yes, kids with pre-existing conditions are covered. we like that seniors can't lose their health insurance just because they are seniors or women don't have to pay more because they are women. most parents like that they can cover their children up to age 26 but there are more issues and this is one of the first things i said which is that businesses that have a low profit margin and need a large number of employees like restaurants are going to face higher costs. that is not acceptable.

>> moderator: in the general question because we will get to that later on, you feel one of your first priorities is to meet the challenge to president or challenge your party given for in the affordable care at? duckworth: we have to fix the problems and be honest there are problems with the affordable care act and i think that that is a part of what needs to happen in washington is that we need to listen to people of the district and the people of the district tell me they like all the good parts but the need to be fixed and i am willing to do that. >> moderator: congressman walsh, let's talk about the fiscal response of the and there are questions about your voting record. the first vote in congress was to reduce federal funding to the u.s. institute of peace, which described itself as a nonpartisan conflict management sector created by congress to prevent and mitigate international conflict. the next day you voted to continue federal funding for mass car sponsorships. can you explain that?

>> moderator: walsh: it's almost as a country we are not serious and we voted on a thousand things the last couple of years in congress. specific spending items and larger spending items trying as best we can to limit what the government does. but the country has got to get serious. we have 10,000 americans retiring every day in this country. we are living longer. there is so much more that needs to be cut and almost goes beyond cuts. we need to reform the government does. >> moderator: specific points that jump out from the record in the first few weeks that he were there was that something you knew you were voting on because you said you knew you voted on thousands of things and if so how do you explain note to institutes at -- >> i generally try to make it

will fool when i went to washington's and to cut government spending wherever i could. there were always a few notable exceptions. i voted to cut defense generally but the nascar amendment or bill was to help recruit men and women to serve in the armed services accepting that our armed services asked for and i think it's important that we continue to try to make a great effort to recruit good men and women that was probably a part of that specific vote. >> moderator: you don't have the voting record that we can cite just yet, but the opposition says that if you have been a protege of former governor as you know and then governor quinn and then president obama and this eighth district must everyone generally agrees was drawn to get you elected perhaps and so you owe that to the house speaker mike madigan. you said that in the effort will care act but what's to say you

are not following the line on the democratic party in the these people that you might be beholden to. the duckworth: look at my record. i'm proud of the work they do here in the state of illinois and when i started, illinois was 49 the other 50 states and the amount of the veterans' benefits and access to the veterans' benefits by 1.2 million veterans in the nation. by the time i left we were in the top five in the nation and the way i did that -- the was a tough time to be working in springfield. you had governor fighting with the speaker and nothing was getting the man you know what i did in order to get things live in? i went and i founded the first bipartisan congress of legislators on those issues. i reached out to the republican state senators and said look, we've got to get this through because nothing is happening here. answer, with the help of a bipartisan group of legislators standing up to broad blagojevich

10 million dhaka door so far and there are programs like that we work on homelessness issues and the first post-traumatic stress hot line, 24 hour hot line in the nation even before the federal va did that and the only way i did that was with the -- walsh: on record for a couple of years now that the affordable care act, obamacare didn't go far enough. >> moderator: we will get to that. walsh: district was drawn for her to be there wasn't some we drawn by a democrat for a democrat and was drawn by very powerful people tammy did a good things when she ran here but the general says it 12 times for noncompliance of the law and people have huge problems in the care they get to the veterans.

>> moderator: let's move on to bigger things facing the country let's talk about social security and medicare. at this rate medicare the medicare system has only 12 years left social security can be bankrupt by 2033. specifics on how to reform and at longevity to the programs. duckworth: those are things we need to do. i still from the point the people on the district of told me they want me to be and that is the need to maintain the guarantee of social security and they want to name the guarantee of medicare. not once in the 18 months i've been campaigning has summoned up to me and said tammy, let's do what joe walsh was to put me out on the streets with a voucher and let me fight insurance companies on my own. we need to be honest about the fraud and abuse on the program here is where i agree with peter

roskam he has a bailout on the fraud and waste and abuse in medicare so i certainly would support that. there is fraud and waste and i would also look at medicare being allowed to negotiate to lower drug prices. it's not been able to do that. we were able to do that at the department of the veterans affairs. they have so much and prescription drugs and the getty purchase price which is cheaper. medicare can't do that. >> moderator: is that going to be enough to take care of the -- duckworth: no, you need to look at other places as well. you don't cut medicare to save it. where you cut are places like the stryker aircraft and $385 billion the we don't need right now. that's look at oil and gas subsidies. $155 billion. >> moderator: your proposal for reforming the social security and medicare. walsh: the first point is to get serious. medicare won't be here. it would disappear within about

eight to 12 years and every elected official in washington knows that. republicans and democrats, democrats don't say that publicly. there are only two things you can do. you can do what obamacare does and what ms. duckworth supports which is cut medicare three to $716 billion is going to be cut out of medicare to fund obamacare. walsh: duckworth: that is not an accurate statement and we can keep repeating it but it doesn't make it true. walsh: to cut $716 billion out of ten years and the other thing obamacare will do is the legislation puts a 15 person bureaucratic panel of nine doctors in charge of the decision. >> moderator: who is the affordable care at 716 billion different from the same amount in the budget? walsh: mitt romney proposes to

keep those funds in medicare and reform medicare. an important point and let me ask what needs to be done in medicare even the republicans were so aware of how delicate it can be to touch medicare so if you are over 55, nothing changes. but to keep this program around for folks younger than 55, the other way that we have to go which is what the plan is is to give seniors option. >> moderator: some called vultures and you are calling options. walsh: i've never heard anyone utter the word voucher when it comes to the plan. it's called premium support. it's what we currently do with medicare part b which is where we give seniors options and it's important to note even for people younger than 55 in the republican plan if you want to keep traditional medicare you can. you are either going to ration or you are going to give seniors options and obamacare wants to

ration care and make substantial cuts. duckworth: i think i should answer that because it is not true. he voted three times which are on medicare. that isn't my comment that is on "the wall street journal" but says that would end medicare as we know what he wants to put seniors on the voucher and he wants to go even further, even further than the budget. he wants to eliminate the prescription drug benefits. do you really think that eliminating the prescription drug benefit is going to save medicare? you want seniors to pay more whacks you want seniors to actually pay more for the prescription bill? not a single senior -- walsh: we're stuck with medicare as we know what "the chicago tribune" and every of the responsible person in this country has said if we do not ended as it is it is going to end as we know it all by itself. we won't preserve it for future generations. we have to do that.

[inaudible] >> moderator: you have a trillion dollar deficit in this country. congressman walsh, governor mitt romney dennis lee said the first debate that among the things he would target would be the corporation for public broadcasting and big bird which got a lot of attention, but that is such a small fraction of the federal budget. give me some big ticket items what we call the power of mandatory spending for the non-defense discretionary spending and the mandatory spending. when it comes to non-defense discretionary spending what we have tried to do the last couple of years is reverse the direction that ms. pelosi and president obama were going in much the increased that by 28%. >> moderator: give specifics. walsh: to reform these entitlement programs.

>> moderator: such as? walsh: medicare and social security. the biggest, fastest growing piece of the federal budget by far is the health care costs for the rising aging population. i voted to cut the defense. part of the budget is to cut defense. everything needs to be cut. i have said publicly -- >> moderator: what are you referring to? walsh: we have bases around the world we don't need. we have a weapon systems still fighting the previous war and they know as well as i do in defense like any department of the government and there are huge in efficiencies. >> moderator: duckworth: number one it's not going to be a medicare guarantee of social security. that's for sure that we give a trillion dollars in cuts right now. i mentioned the stryker aircraft. $385 billion. >> moderator: why should that be quote? duckworth: because we don't need it. we already dominate the skies. we don't need it right now.

>> moderator: how much would that bring down? duckworth: $385 billion. three injured 72 for the contracts. this 24 billion in medicare being allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices. there's 41 million in oil and gas subsidies we should be going after. we also need to take another look at $155 billion that is just for the loophole that allows the companies like ge to not pay their fair share of taxes, yet the businesses in my district pay their fair share. medium and small businesses. we should be focused on supporting those instead of the corporate tax loopholes. >> moderator: a quick yes or no on these because we need to move forward. in terms of the income tax deductions for mortgage interests yes or no? walsh: i would be open getting rid of it. >> moderator: capital gains? walsh: i would lower and what to

eventually even debate we eliminated. duckworth: we need to let the bush tax cuts making more than a million expire. >> moderator: which ones would you look at? walsh: we could get rid of the whole basket full of them. what we need to give in this country is move towards a simple flat tax so that americans can keep more of their money and so that only the wealthy -- they've got all of the money to pay accountants and lawyers to find every deduction. if you want the wealthy to pay more, simplified the tax rate. tammy duckworth: like general electric they shift their services so they don't have to pay any taxes. they got a tax credit for crying out loud. >> moderator: we have got a question from one of our viewers, marc and schaumburg and this goes back to the affordable care act. you have said repeatedly that obamacare didn't go far enough. what do you mean? duckworth: of what i mean is i

think that other experience and unfair when they are compared to other businesses and other countries and businesses have told me they shouldn't be in the business of providing health care. i don't think we are going to get a place where all americans have full coverage. it's decades and decades and in the meantime we need to get to work we cannot get back to washington in january and a vote for the 37th time to repeal the affordable care act which is what mr. walsh wants to do. we need to fix it. duckworth: speed this is what people don't like about politics. she said the affordable care act didn't go far enough. i believe in government in universal health care. i wish he would stand by that because she said that repeatedly and the last point, ms. duckworth keeps talking about the fact that we should never get rid of the guaranteed benefit medicare. you understand if we keep the guaranteed benefit medicare it will last another ten to 12

years. duckworth: i understand that perfectly. you want to cut from medicare to say that is not the solution. most senior has ever said to me please get rid of medicare. please put me out on the streets. what they said is, the information where you need to cut. things like the of 35 stryker aircraft and the oil and gas subsidies. >> moderator: we need to move on. ,, we have another question. this comes from scott cooper. he is asking what is the role of the federal government and the citizens daily life? hoda elshishtawy of the will of the federal government is is we are born with a god-given rights and god-given freedoms and our founders believed as we should all believe today that the federal deride is there to make sure that our god-given rights and god-given freedoms are trampled upon or taken away. duckworth: defense of the nation, public could. and i also think it's important

in our society that americans have come together and decided that there was an importance for the social safety net program and if you are on your knees and you need help and you are not willing to give up we shouldn't give up when you either. that doesn't mean you stay on them forever but they should be there for you. >> moderator: let me ask about your personal and public image. congressman, obviously you have been the source of a lot of attention for your style. you have referred to it as passionate and what you believe in and others have used far more harsh words from confrontational, some say that he wore a sexist and racist. you do make your points made sometimes quite loudly and sometimes in your face with constituents. do you regret anything of the way that you have handled yourself and your responses to routt your first term in congress? walsh: there are times i've gotten ahead of myself and when i feel like i've stepped over the line i tried to apologize. i needed pledged to myself and i got elected that i would be the

most acceptable member of congress. i don't know of another member that is more open public town halls than i have every time i'm out in public there are three to four to five cameras around and as an elected official do have to make the decision are you going to keep doing that or are you going to cut back because you are worried about what you say? we are all sick of politicians that test every single word that comes out of their mouth. this country is broke. this great country is dying right now. i am an odd duck in that i'm not driven by my reelection. >> moderator: you told the tribune recently that the need to balance straight talk with responsible talk. speed you always try to. but understand when you are an elected official and you have made it a point to always be out there and to invite independent, democrats and republicans to come at me and ask me anything come express any opinion, i tell

over two to 300 town halls in the last year-and-a-half hours of tapes. there are clearly going to be times things got exciting, but this is a very important time in our country. >> moderator: let me ask about the military service. you served honorably and many feel very her likely in the military. new sustained some very serious wounds in iraq as we mentioned but some believe you might be overplaying your military service and perhaps even your wound is in order to get elected. how do you respond? speed 92 because the line he says many things that are irresponsible whether it was his attack on the veterans that speak about the military service or whether it is his discussions of latinos or his attacks on the president.

i am proud of my military service. its product line and and that's how i conduct myself to it i served my nation honorably. i've never called myself a hero and everyday i get up and i work every day to serve my nation because i have that to live up to. i have to make sure that i make the most of the second chance of life that i have and carry with the responsibility. it's up the mission, it's about getting the job done and making sure that you come together and decide for partisan vitriol that comes out, and my opponent is known for that and at "the chicago tribune" said he's a hyper partisan mega mouth. we don't need that in washington. >> moderator: me at the beginning of every town hall that i've had for two and a half years i recognize those that have served and i have called them hero's. the point that i've always tried to make is this great country is struggling right now. to run for congress you need to tell the voters what you believe

and where you stand on issues and not just talk about -- >> moderator: let's move on to where you stand on issues and make this a lightning rod to get a quick response if you would, please. >> moderator: in terms of the foreign policy do you believe the president of afghanistan with a drawl a timetable? duckworth: i would like them to come home sooner but for me the benchmark is how quickly we get them home without having to put people back again provide about to bring them home as soon as possible. walsh: we should come home tomorrow afternoon and not dictate a timetable as i believe this president has. >> moderator: what would you support the military action in iran if need be, yes as a last option, yes. >> moderator: under what conditions? walsh: if the sanctions don't work. if they are close to and about to have the ability to develop a nuclear bomb, we use every

option possible as well israel, and i would be the last option we would have to use, but we would have it ready to use. duckworth: i think it is real and we all know iran develop a nuclear weapon. i think the military option shouldn't be on the table. >> moderator: under what conditions would you recommend it? duckworth: we better exhaust everything else. and at the end of the day if that is what is needed, i'm still serving. i will be the first -- we are going to have an honest discussion about what is needed. >> moderator: should the u.s. become more involved in the situation in syria, and how? duckworth: it needs to help the people least and i think that the u.s. is involved in terms of humanitarian aid. but i think that this is the country in the middle east is that up. not as the first quarter and not by ourselves. >> moderator:?

walsh: we need to encourage space forces and we need to rally countries around the world to isolate syria. >> moderator: do you support the use of drones? walsh: yes as much as possible. we are in a war on terror. there are evil people around the world trying to kill us. we need to use every tool at our disposal to find them and tell them. >> moderator: ms. duckworth? duckworth: and yes, it is something that is very and i would rather send drones than helicopters. >> moderator: on emigration to use with the treen act? duckworth: i do. i think anything you do with immigration needs to follow the criteria. it needs to be practical, it needs to be fair and humane. i think that we need to make sure that people pay fines of broken wall. i think that we need to make sure that people don't get moved to the front of the line in front of those that have been here, but we have to be practical. we can't simply expel people and put them in jail and i don't want these kids that we invested

literally millions of dollars of public education into going abroad overseas and competing against work. walsh: respectfully, ms. duckworth that is an answer in four or five different ways. the dream act moves people. i want my government to secure its border and i want my government to do that before we have any discussion of any immigration reform. the real unemployment rate in this country is about 15 to 19%. that is a huge concern and i am especially opposed to what the president did where he just snapped his fingers and legalized in number of illegal immigrants where we have 15 to 19 percent unemployment in this country. >> moderator: let me ask about a couple of your colleagues in congress, congressman jesse jackson jr.. they have both been out of commission for illnesses. from the beginning of this year, jesse jackson jr. the last several months.

how long should the constituents give an elected official in congress before they either ask them to resign or step aside? what do you think? >> moderator: that is an interesting question and thoughts and prayers go out to both because we know the battle that senator kirk is going through and he's fighting it is valiantly every single day. clearly, this man jackson has his own issues that he's fighting with. i think the most important thing is for all of us as elected officials to be very open and transparent about what our situations are and they're seems to be some issues with that with congressman jackson. >> moderator: ms. duckworth how do you feel? duckworth: we need to give both congressman jackson and the senator the opportunity to recover. we certainly gave gabrielle giffords a year. they are fighting important fights in their lives and as long as the ear open and about

the recovery i actually think it is a very inspirational with the senator has done. if you've seen the videos of him in the chicago thank goodness he has amazing health care that allow him to get the care that he needs, that's inspiration. >> moderator: let me ask about a couple of social issues to the district on the defensive marriage act. do you support that? >> moderator: i support the defense of marriage act and i think it's important that this country clearly signal that marriage is a union between man and woman and that is the best environment to raise our kids. >> moderator: tammy duckworth? duckworth: i don't support the defense of marriage act. my marriage isn't threatened by two others loving adults. mr. walsh has criticized me for this before but i think it's important. my position on this comes from my time in the hospital. my husband had to make decisions for me but whenever needed to be done i was going to want to

struggle and walk again. that is why i don't think the defense of marriage act as appropriate. >> moderator: there is currently an ad running against you concerning your stance on abortion that says that you would not allow it, no exceptions at all. is that true? walsh: i'm pro-life without exception. understand ago when we talk about exceptions we talk about rape, incest, health of the woman. life for the woman is not an exception. trade and incest are exceptions. the violent horrific acts and they are stealing the life of a i would counter my position on life and abortion with ms. duckworth's who supports no restrictions on abortions, late term abortions and actually supports taxpayer funding of abortions, which is always been a consensus. >> moderator: what is your reaction and then we have to move on. duckworth: i am pro-choice about restriction and here's the thing

though, as you said, he wouldn't for rape, incest or life of the mother. he would let a woman died -- walsh: that's not true. duckworth: talking about rape, she is co-sponsored the amendment that the need to define what forcible rape is. that is absolutely true. that amendment for years everybody knew what rate was, whether it's physicians, whether it was the woman, a law enforcement officer. suddenly you need to define what forcible rape is? speed i have to respond because that is not true. i co-sponsored a bill and voted for a bill on the floor that kept the rate of language as as. duckworth: he put the word forcible as if -- as if there were the need to be fine. walsh: that is and what the house voted on. >> moderator: we need to wrap

up very quickly. but i want to ask you something about the human being behind the politician and the candidate. congressman walsh, you are born in -- your family may not have been that this is the advantage you were born into. you came to the inner city to work with high school dropouts. how did that form the person that you become? walsh: i've tried to helping dedicate my life less fortunate than i read most of my life prior to politics, prior to running two or three years ago was working with those less fortunate. i spent a good number of years working in the inner city trying to improve educational opportunities for young african-american hispanic and white children. i taught american government and american history. >> moderator: i need to ask a final question to read ms. duckworth you are born to a father the was in the military and your mother that was of chinese extraction preview

travel from southeast asia and eventually into that in hawaii. how did that affect the person that you come? tammy duckworth: my dad at 55 high lost his job and no one will hire a man in his 50s and we ended up on a school lunch and breakfast programs and food stamps and thank god for the pell grants that were there for me that allowed me to go to college. programs of mr. walsh called free handouts. if you talk about what has affected me, it's that hard work and personal responsibility and struggle to make something. >> moderator: with that we have to bring this to an end but thank you very much, tammy duckworth and congressman joe walsh for being here tonight, and for being so congenial to each other. and our thanks to the city club of chicago for its support of this and all of the candidates in this election season. >> president obama and joe biden will be speaking sporty vehicle shortly to supporters at a campaign rally. this is their first appearance

at an ohio campaign event in this election cycle. according to the latest politics polling average, president obama holds a 2% lead in the state of ohio. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> some other election program notes coming up shortly on c-span. mitt romney and his running mate paul ryan will be holding a rally in henderson nevada. you can watch but live on our

companion network, c-span2 read more campaign 2012 coverage to come later today. kuran c-span2. at 7:30 the newseum hosts for covering the campaign with judy what rough to the chris -- woodruff and candy crowley. that is live at 7:30. mitt romney and paul ryan will hold another rally at the red rock and the theater and colorado later this evening. they will be joined by musicians kid rock and brought me adkins. you can watch that night here on c-span2. while we wait for the president and vice president to arrive at the state rallied from today's washington journal, here is what some of the viewers had to say about last night's last presidential debate. >> we asked c-span viewers what

they thought of the final presidential be paid and here is what some of you have to say. >> i was undecided until i watched this debate. what i saw was presidential. what i heard was real leadership i appreciate the fact that he was straightforward, it was candid about his own positions and what i heard from governor romney was a parrot and that didn't interest me. >> i think that he won hands down. all of these debates. >> when mitt romney was asked a question he looks like a man who can't take pressure. he seems to view wish-washy. he made a statement about the president not having backbone.

he wants to deal with pakistan. >> i want to tell you something about the moderator of the debates. i think they are being one-sided i think. i believe in governor romney and people open their eyes and take notice of what is going on in the country. as a key actually answered everybody keeps saying she was not. he's straightforward he keeps saying the same thing over and over and is getting very conflicted as we're obama hasn't been consistent. it got so much away from the foreign policy and they started talking about the domestic economy. and i was just trying to tie that into what the questions were and i think i as a candidate stuck with, they kept

going back to the economy. >> i felt that governor romney had done an excellent job, was very presidential, and the main plant at the end of the comment on whether or family felt that they were not being protected as a nation, that our borders were open, and that the issues that were discussed tonight on foreign policy i felt that romney is going to get my vote for sure on those points. >> i thought governor romney was comfortable talking about the economy, about president obama, foreign policy, and he did a job of the foreign policy in the current economy. >> i was disappointed with the president. i was looking for him to lay out his strategy and foreign policy, and i found him to be the jimmy carter of our generation.

>> i'm kind of thinking that obama won this because i don't know, romney's sounded more like obama and less like himself, kind of backing down a little bit. >> president obama and romney both say about small businesses what are they going to do? >> obama did very well today. i think out of of three presidential debates this by far was the strong guest. he was extremely presidential. he was direct and to the point, straightforward and very assertive. he called out from me on some of his equivocations with such promise and being so polite that it was admirable to watch our president continue to defend his policies of the last four years. >> as we follow the candidates on the road to the white house, watch and engage with c-span.

while president obama and mitt romney wrapped up their final debate last night for the third party present candidates face off tonight in chicago. .. for the last four years. a president who clearly understanding america's interest around the world and has the courage to pursue and protect those interests.

ladies and gentlemen, this is a man who is not only earned my respect and all of those who work with him, and all of you but earned the respect of all the world leaders. [cheering and applause] ladies and gentlemen, a commander in chief not only knows how to lead america, but this commander in chief is leading the world! [cheering and applause] as my dad would say, this is a man with a steady hand and a clear vision. a man who leads not only by the example of our power but by the power of america's example. [cheering and applause] this is a president who says what he means, means what he says, and does what he says. [cheering and applause]

[cheering and applause] this is a man the world relies on and we rely on, boy, it was it contrast clear last night? [cheering and applause] it wasn't even close was it? no! as the president -- president as the pointed out last night, these debates have exposed governor romney and paul ryan have a foreign policy out of the '80s and a social policy out the '50s and a social policy out of the '20s. the difference in our policy, and in our values are profound, and the american people after four debates know it. ladies and gentlemen, that's why last night you saw governor romney rushing to agree with the president on iraq, afghanistan,

syria. he -- for the past two years just like that. even was amazing. this one amazed me. he even tried to rewrite the history of his position on rescuing the automobile industry. [cheering and applause] yo. have you know wow! if i only knew he was ready to help back then. if i only knew. look, half the time, half the time i didn't know whether grob governor romney was there to debate barack obama or ebb endorse barack obama. [cheering and applause] it was hard to tell. i have a message for the good governor, governor, you can't run from the truth. you can't run from your record, you can't run from your policies. look at his policy, opposition,

the nuclear agreements, wanting to keep 30,000 troops in iraq, shedding regulation letting wall street game, the money and letting banks rewrite rules. proposing over over $200,000 for the wealthy and proposing tax -- we have seen the movie before. we know how it ends. it end in a catastrophe for the middle class, it ends in the great recession of 2008, and the american people are not prepared to go back! [cheering and applause] and we're not either! [cheering and applause] folks, this president is leveling the playing field. getting the middle class back in the game. he knows how to build america from from -- that's how you build america and the leadership

and the credit of the american people, america is coming back. there is no quit in america! there never has been any quit in america. [cheering and applause] the american people know only one way forward. and that is forward, and together, ladies and gentlemen, all of us, even the 48% of us that romney doesn't think matters we're moving forward. [cheering and applause] regardless, i have never met two guys more down on america, every time they turn around america in decline, american people wouldn't take responsibility. i don't know where they live. it's not where we live. it's not who we are. and ladies and gentlemen, regardless of what our opponents say what they try to paint, america is not in decline! americans are not dependent people. restrong, we are independent.

we take responsibility and i have news for 0 governor romney and congressman ryan. it's never ever going to be a good bet to bet against the american people. ever. ladies and gentlemen, join me welcoming in my friend, our president, president obama! [cheering and applause] ♪ ♪ [cheering and applause] ♪

hello, ohio! [cheering and applause] are you fired ?up are you ready to go? [cheering and applause] i just want to make sure. are you fired up? [cheering and applause] are you ready to go? [cheering and applause] before we get started, i want everybody to give a big round of applause to joe biden. [cheering and applause] now first of all, you need to know joe biden is a man who is literally in love with a teacher. he doesn't just say i love teachers. he's married to a teacher. [cheering and applause] but more important, i want everybody to understand this, i could not ask for a better

partner than my vice president joe biden. [cheering and applause] there's nobody who knows more about foreign policy than my vice president. there's knob who gives me better advice than my vice president. there's nobody who you'd rather have in a -- with you when it matters most than my vice president. [cheering and applause] there's nobody who cares more about the middle class and fights harder for america than my vice president. [cheering and applause] i could not do what i do without him having my back every single day, i want you to give him another big round of applause. [cheering and applause]

[cheering and applause] joe, joe, joe, joe [chanting joe] [chanting joe] we've also got a great candidate for congress sharon nu is here. give her a big rouped of applause. [applause] two weeks, ohio, two weeks. two weeks from today americans all across the country will step in to the voting booth, but here in ohio you can vote early. [cheering and applause] here in ohio, you can vote right after this event. [cheering and applause] if you want to know where to

vote, you go to vote.barack obama.com. he already voted and he's proud of it. [cheering and applause] anybody who is here who has not yet voted, i want you to go vote because you have a big choice to make. not just a choice two candidates and two parties. but two different parties for vision for this country we love. last night we had our third debate -- [cheering and applause] and i hope i made clear that there's a big difference between my and mitt romney. [cheering and applause] and it's not just that he's got better hair. [laughter] the greatest responsibility i

have as president is to keep the american people safe. that's why so we could go out to who attacked us on 9/11. [cheering and applause] that's why i'm working with joe biden and our national security today, we have been able to decimate al qaeda. that's why we're able to bring osama bin laden to justice. [cheering and applause] that's why we're now ending the war in iraq because after a decade of war it's time to donation building right here in ohio. nation building here in the united states of america. [cheering and applause] in a world of new threats and challenges, america needs leadership that is strong and steady. personally governor romney's foreign policy has been wrong. he was all over the map, you heard him last night. during the debate he said he didn't want more troops in iraq

but he was caught on a video just a few months ago say was it was unthinkable not leave 20,000 troops in iraq. those troops would be there today instead of back home. last night he claimed to support my plan to end the war in afghanistan. but he opposed the timeline that would actually bring the rest of our troops home. last night he said, taking out bin laden was the right thing to do. back in 2007, he said it wasn't worth moving heaven and earth to catch one man. now i recognize that someone -- we must have some doctors in the house. i already heard people identify this condition. it's called romnesia. [cheering and applause] but -- and we had a severe case

breaking out last night. [cheering and applause] so i want to go over the symptoms with you, because they -- i sure adopt want anybody to catch it here in ohio. [cheering and applause] if you talk about how much you love teachers during a debate, but just a few weeks ago you said we shouldn't hire anymore because it wouldn't grow our economy. you might have romnesia. [cheering and applause] if you say you won't give big tax cuts to the wealthy but you're on a video promising your tax cut would include the top 1%. that sounds like a classic case of romnesia. [cheering and applause] if you say that you love american cars during a debate, you're a car guy, but you wrote an article titled "let detroit go bankrupt," you definitely

have a case of romnesia. [cheering and applause] last night governor romney looked you right in the eye, looked me in the eye, tried to pretended that he never said let detroit go bankrupt. tried to pretended he meant the same thing i did when we intervened and worked to manage sure that management and workers got together to save the u.s. auto industry. pretended somehow that i was taking his advice. [cheering and applause] don't forget, the people of dayton don't forget. the people of ohio don't forget. if mitt romney had been president when the auto industry was on the verge of collapse, we might not have an american auto industry today. we'd be buying cars from china instead of selling cars to

china. and you know how important that is to ohio. the auto industry supports one in eight ohio jobs. it's a source of pride for the state, it is a source of pride to our country, it's a source of pride to generations of workers. i refuse to work away from those workers. i bet on those workers. i refuse to walk away from the jobs. i understood that americans could compete. i wasn't about to let detroit go bankrupt. i bet on american workers, i bet on american manufacturing. i did it again because that bet has paid off for ohio and more america in a big way. [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] so here's the good news, ohio, if you come down with a case of romnesia, if you can't seem to

remember the positions you have taken, not just four years ago, but -- four days ago. if you don't remember the positions that are on your website, if you don't remember the promises you've been making during the six years you've been running for president. you don't have to worry because obamacare covers preexisting condition. we can fix you up! there's a cure! [cheering and applause] there's a cure! [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] there's a cure, but you got to vote to make sure that the medicine is there for romnesia. now we joke about governor romney being all over the map, but it speaks to something important. it speaks of trust. there's no more serious issue in a presidential campaign than

trust. trust matters, you know, youment want to know that the person who is applying to with be your president and commander in chief is trust worthy. that he means what he says. that he's not just making stuff up depending on whether it's convenient or not. so smart people who -- they don't have a dog in fight. they crunched the numbers, we know that governor romney's jobs plan doesn't really create jobs. we know it deficit plan doesn't really reduce the deficit. his foreign policy from the 1980s, before the cold war was over. his social policies from the 1950s, and his economic policies from the 1920s. he knows he can't sell that even those are his positions. he's doing everything had can to

hide the true positions and tells us what he thinks you want to hear and spends most of his time talking about what is wrong with america. joe biden -- he is terrific about -- he can't give you an answer of what would make it right. and that's not leadership that you can trust. you know, in you know me. you know i mean what i say. you know that i do what i say i'm going do. [cheering and applause] you know -- [inaudible] even when they're not -- what we did with the auto industry. it wasn't popular when we did it. it wasn't even month already in michigan and ohio. it was necessary. and because i have folks like

joe biden with me, who can support me when i make tough decisions, we went and did what we thought was right. and i know people may not agree with every decision we make. you know i'm doing it because i'm fighting for the american people. i'm doing what i believe. [cheering and applause] that's what you need from a president. [cheering and applause] yes, we we've been through tough times. there's no quit in america. our businesses have added more than 5 million jobs over the past two and a half years. manufacturing is growing faster than any time since the 1990. unemployment falling to the lowest level since i took office. home values are rising. the stock market rebounded. the assembly lines are humming again. our heroes are coming home. we are moving forward. [cheering and applause] four years ago i promised to cut taxes for middle class families,

and i kept that promise. i promised to cut taxes for small business, we have 18 times. we got back every dime we used to rescue the banks with interest and passed a lot of wall street bailouts for good. we repealed don't ask don't tell. anybody who wants to serve in our military, soldier, marine, airmen, or coast guard. they should be able to serve regardless of who they love. we saved an american auto industry. the engines are roaring. with 250,000 new jobs. that's not something that the mid west can be proud of. that's something america can be proud of. we know we're not where we need to be. not here, not anywhere. we have made real progress. we have to build on the

progress. we can't go wack to what got us in to the mess. we need to move forward with what is getting out of this mess. i'm running for a second term of the president of the united states. [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] [chanting] now last night and throughout the campaign, i laid out a plan for jobs and middle class security. unlike mitt romney, i'm proud to talk about what is in my plan. [cheering and applause] because first of all, the math actually adds up. my plan will actually move america forward. it's not just a sales job.

it's not a sketchy deal. it's not the of okiedoke. if you want to check it out at barack obama/plans. there's people out there trying to make up their minds. some of you may here may be trying to make up your minds. i'm just saying that somebody might have been taking a nice walk on a beautiful day and suddenly find themselves in a middle of barack obama rally. if that's what happened to you, i want you to look at our plan and compare it to romney's plan. see which plan is better fur you and america's future. while he says he has a plan, he has a 1-point plan. but i want talk about what's in my plan. so everybody knows what i intend to do over the next four years. i do what 0 i say i'm going do.

first, my plan bilged on the manufactures base by extending by making sure that we're ending tax breaks for company shipping jobs overis as put to give those to small business and manufactures that create jobs here in the united states of america. that's what i want to do. [cheering and applause] number two, my plan cuts the oil imports in half by 12020 so we can have more of our own energy. you may have heard me say this we're less dependent on foreign oil than any time in the past two decades. we have increased fuel standards on cars and trucks so you can go twice as far. i don't want made this china. i want them manufactured here in the united states of america. [cheering and applause] number three, my plan is going

to make it national mission to educate our kids and train our workers so we can compete with anybody in the world. i want to recruit 100,000 new math and science teachers. train 2 million workers at community colleges with the skills businesses are looking at right now. the workers have to be able to get the training. toirpt make sure that colleges and universities keep tuition low so our young people can get a college education without being loaded up with debt. we can do that. [cheering and applause] number four, my plan will cut our deficit by $4 trillion and actually adds up. question do the math on the website, in the plan, we'll do it in a balance way over the next ten years. i'll cut spending we don't need. we're going to have to ask the wealthiest to do a little bit more. that allows us to invest in

research and new technology to keep new expwrobs coming. to keep new businesses coming here to america. and i'll never balance the deft deficit by turning medicare to a voucher. no american should have to spend their golden years by at the american sei of a insurance company. let's take the savings from ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and let's put people back to work right here at home. [cheering and applause] doing some nation building. repairing roads, fixing bridges, remodeling schools, laying down broadband lines, making our economy more competitive, and when our veterans come home, let's put them back to work in some of the jobs. let's make sure we're serving them as well as they served us. romney didn't mention our veterans last night. not a word. not a word.

he may have already written off half the country behind closed doors, but the men and women and their families who have served our country so bravely, that joe and i talk to almost every day and see the sacrifices they are making. they deserve better from someone that is applying to be commander in chief. we are fighting for them every single day. ohio, that's the plan we need. that's what will create jobs. that's how you build a strong, sustainable economy. that good middle class jobs have to offer. that's how you encourage businesses to start here in america. that's how you increase take home pay not just by talking about it, that's why you build an economy where everybody who works hard have a chance to get ahead. we don't build the economy from the top down. we build it from the middle up. now it's up to you. right here, right now. you have got to decide which

path we're going to take. you can choose the top-down policy that got us in to the mess or the policy that we are promoting to get us out of the mess. you can chooses a policy that is reckless and wrong, or you can choose the foreign policy that joe and i have been applying that is steady an strong. you can choose to turn back the clock for women, and gays we can agree that everybody has a place in america and make sure that everybody has opportunities. no matter who you are, no matter what you look, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love. here in america, you can make it if you try. [cheering and applause] so i'm asking for your vote. [cheering and applause] i'm asking you to help me finish the job. [cheering and applause] i believe in you and i need you to keep believing in me!

if you -- knock on some doors with me, make some phone calls with me, we'll, i again! we'll win ohio again, the election again, we'll finish what we started and remind the world why united states of america is the greatest nation in the earth. god bless you ohio, god bless the united states of america. [cheering and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ [cheering and applause]

♪ campaign 2012 coverage still to come today on c-span2 at 7:30, the museum hosts a discussion on covering the presidential campaign. the with journalist judy, gwen, and candy crowley. they'll offer the insight to the year's election. it's live at 7:30. and mitt romney and paul ryan holding a campaign rally at the red rocks and the more soon theater. they'll be joined by kid rock an rodney atkins. watch it tonight at 9:05 eastern

here on c-span2. the booktv stops in austin, texas for the live coverage of the 17th annual book festival saturday from 11:00 eastern. douglas bringly on the late cbs news anchor walt tear cronkite and lbj and lady bird john johnson. and robert draper inside the house of representatives. the texas book festival live this weekend on booktv. on c-span2. i regularly watch washington journal, i watch call in shows in the morning, whenever there is a hearing that is of any significance i'll tune in.

i watch c-span online. it provides a source of0@0 unvarnish information to us that is rare in today's spin-oriented society. we can't regularly get the kind of information that we need to@[ make decisions for ourselves. we often have to hear it from the left or the right. the great thing about the c-span you get the information directly from the policy maker and you can make up who is right and who is good for the country. he watches c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you by a public service by your television providers. up next a debate for the sixth u.s. house district of montana. john tear knee that looks to

defend his seat. representative is seek the ninth term in congress. richard ty has served 26 years in the massachusetts state house. dan yem fishman said he's a citizens politician like johned a adams. it was hosted by the news and the jewish journal.

welcome to the sixth districted congressional debate. welcome to the beautiful new auditorium. one of the corner stone of the new high school here in danker haves. before we begin, we should mention that the work at the school is not done. you have probably seen that coming in. the educational partnership, which is a collaboration between the schools, local citizens and business leaders leaders is spearheading a drive to raise $500 ,000 to support the technology needs of the new school. we have to turn off our phones too. -- [inaudible] they created a number of seat naming and sponsorship. so you can sponsor the sheet you're sitting in now and it will go toward getting ten new high-tech classrooms at the school. it's near and dear to our heart. the candidates tonight in

libertarian daniel fishmen of beverly. [applause] democrat john tyranny of salem. [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] and republican richard tisei of wakefield. [cheering and applause] our panel tonight, you should cheer for them susan jacobs, editor of the "jewish journal." managing editor of the "salem news" [cheering and applause] and lisa president elect of the

board of oversees for "jewish journal" and a long time journalist. [cheering and applause] i'm going to explain how things will go. the panelists will ask the question, and each candidate will have three minutes to answer and each candidate will have a chance for a thirty second rebuttal. tonight in the front news -- [inaudible] [applause] she absolutely be applauded. she'll hold up a sign at thirty second and hold up the dreaded red sign at time. and we're going try to keep the time so we can get as many questions as we want. i would ask the crowd also to try and keep the cheering to a minimum until the end. we want to get as many questions answered as possible. it's an important debate and election. so let's get to it.

the first question will be from lisa, it will start with john. >> moderator: many people in the north shore are out of work and they're hurting, what specifically would you do as congressman and if you're not congressman, you'll answer that as well. to allow people to get that be fully and gainfully em employed here on the north shore. >> there are a number of steps to be taken to pass the just that put people back to work. it will help our cities and states, and towns be able to employ teachers and firefighters and police they need to have a full compliment so we have a growing of population of students but a decreeing number of students. we have to get that compliment back. and swre to keep the fire and police police stations opened and manned. we would pass a transportation bill as port of that and make

sure we have construction money for schools, repairs and mainlt innocence as well as construction. and it would put people to work in the private sector. there's a couple of million jobs if we do it right. and furniture unfortunately the republican bill in the house would not pass with the size of the we need. but pass a smaller piece of legislation on that. does some work but not enough. we need to move forward on the basis. we need to make sure that the education system is continues use to be strength end and job skills program. i have written the work force investment act and we have the version and i think it is close the one that the republican from california drew unfortunately instead of putting those bills forward they choose to put a bill in that is going to nowhere fast. we have to ensure employers that have people are qualified to do the job whether it's energy

technology and bioscience. that is -- we have good manufactures jobs that are available we are strength end in this region in massachusetts compared to the other states. we need to attract people back to the country. the tax structure covers companies to create job manufacturing here not encouraged take jobs overseas. and make sure that the monetary and trade policy are enforced so the encouragement is to have jobs hire. if we do those things and make sure we make the strategic investment even if we have to spend less because of our budget problems strengthen the economy and we'll be strengthening the idea of reducing the deficit as well. people will be able to pay their taxes and contribute and move

forward on that basis. that's the plan. we need to do it as the president had been allowed to pass the jobs acts, we would be well underway and it's part of the reason we're not growing faster. gary johnson who is the libertarian candidate my neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than the current administration. [laughter] reality to that. government does not create jobs. jobs are created when a small business or large business sees an opportunity. they think they can make more money by employing somebody and profiting and using that person as a part of the team than they would lose in a salary. that has nothing to do with government. it has to do with small business to take a risk. and we have to have an environment in which businesses are willing to take those risks. and in which those risks can

minimized so they can say, i can take this risk and it's going to be worth it. even if the particular one doesn't work out, i know by bringing in an employee and trying the line of generating income, we are going profit. something i call the first three are free. right now there's a small business wants to hire an employee, to go from zero employees to one employee is the same amount of paperwork that walmart had to use to go from zero to one employee. o'sha, taxing with all of those things. if we were to eliminate those barriers, if we were to say that company it hire one employee all they have to do is write the employee a paycheck. the employee can handle everything there. there are 20 million small business that have no employees in the united states. if even one sixth of those would hire one employee that would put 3 million people back to work. that's 1% of the population of

the united states. that puts a pressure immediately on wages. it benefits every worker. with that many people back to work, that shortage of workers is going to make everybody's salary go up. it's going to make workers their labor worth more. we can immediately do that. get government out of the way and get some people back to work. also on the north shore, we have a big issue right now with the fishing industry suffering fromming the fact there are fishing limits being placed that are impacting our ability to generating what has been a traditional industry for the north shore. fish farms have been proposed beforehand. i mistaken said in the last time. i said there are no fish farms in massachusetts. there is a fresh water fish farm in western massachusetts. we have tremendous technology in our state. if we can get government out of the way of fish farming, it's a

huge business on the west coast. it will put us in competitive place. thank you. >> i own a small business in the last few years have been tough, i definitely understand what small business is are going through right now. it's a difficult time i agree with dan, the government doesn't create jobs. the jobs are created by small businesses who usually have ten or less employees. i'm spending a lot of time going around the district. i usually tour businesses small, medium, and large, and i talk to the employees and owners. the owners say i'm not going to hire anybody right now. there's too much in decision. nobody knows what the tax code will be or the next regulation that will be coming down. and people watch what's going on in washington right now in the place become totally dysfunctional. business owners don't feel confident hiring people again. most of our problems stem from the fact that we're not creating

jobs anymore. we're not creating the type of jobs you need to live, work, and raise a family here in the north shore. as a congressman for the district, i would do a couple of things. one of the brights spots in the economy is the medical guys companies here in the north shores we have one of the largest in the united states minneapolis, southern california have been hiring people. jobs that pay between $60 and $75,000 a year. there's a new tax in obamacare -- not only whether or not they make a profit but on the gross income. you can go around the north shore and talk to medical device companies and talk about freeze and laying people off. there's a vote to come up to repeal the tax. congressman tyranny sports the tax. -- there's a terrible tax that

stifle innovation. in the state voted to repeal the tax. but our congressman with the most to lose the constituents with the most to lose is in favor of the tax. the other thing you need to create a better business climate in the country. the associations renting job creators in the country, [inaudible] rate all the congressman on their votes here's how he has been voting. he talked about manufacturing, and national association of manufacturing gave him a 14% rating which means he votes against local manufactures 86% of the time. united states chamber of commerce gave him a 19%. he votes against them 89 percent of the time. zero. he didn't vote with them once. national retail association, zero didn't vote with them one ever once. national small business association. zero. these aren't partisan groups.

[inaudible] congressman was the only member of the delegation to get a zero. i would do as congressman of the district i would be out there as a member trying to . >> time. >> push bills together to provide relief for small business. >> we're going to keep the time. we're going to keep the -- [applause] >> moderator: we're going to keep the time. we're going keep the time. we have a timer up front who is doing the timing. we are going to keep the time and let people finishing their sentences. thirty seconds. [applause] >> all the organizations as they said are republican of the party, essentially. [cheering and applause] the fact of the matter is, the united states chamber of commerce -- agenda -- [inaudible

conversations] turn up the sound. can't hear. [inaudible conversations] >> sorry. hold on for a second. we have a technical issue. [yeah] >> hold it up like that? >> yeah. >> how is that? can you hear? >> yes. >> great. [inaudible] >> okay. the united states chamber of commerce evidently supports social security voucherrizing medicare, giving tax breaks to corporations to go overseas. you go down the line is the republican agenda. being rate bid them is not a problem for anybody who wants to be create jobs and create them here in the country and protect people with medicare and social security and things that are important. anemia business i'm worried about being overregulated right now are -- >> moderator: time.