>> madam chair, i ask unanimous consent to commit testimony from humanity road and the business emergency operations center alliance of new jersey for the record. >> thank you. without objection, that will be admitted. at this time, i would like to ask mr. payne if he has anything for closing he would like to say before i close out? okay. thank you very much. i would very much like to thank this panel for their very valuable testimony. i think we have learn a lot. we started a very important discussion. what i think is happening with emergency managers, with -- whether it's municipal or state or federal officials, your companies are paving the way. you have created new technologies. i'm looking at the back of this actual hearing room is a picture from 9/11, and what the

technologies that you all discussed, whether it was people finder, whether it is the mapping capabilities that would have been so critical during that horrific time in our country's history, and so we truly have come a very long way, and as i talked about the emergency technology and knowing what is coming, we can't evenly imagine, as mr. cardenas just shared with us, the possibilities of what your companies and the innovators and engineers and inventors in your companies are creating, we ask that you continue to share those with government, with the public sector, with the volunteers. it's amazing to me that 14,000 volunteers come together quickly, but that we already had a team of veterans in place to help mobilize and that were trained, and so it's a wonderful marriage of the government and the military and our veterans and that point, mirroring up

with volunteers to aid in recovery and save a lot of lives and save homes and save property, most importantly, save lives, and that's what i think your testimony here today has also shown. i think we absolutely have some challenges that everyone needs to be mindful of, and some of those challenges -- sadly, the few bad actors that come up, the privacy issues weed in to be mindful of, but i do think -- and the connectivity. without power, number of this works, and we do need to continue to explore and continue to advance and partner between the public and the private sectors and i just want to thank you for your time. there may be questions submitted by others and we look forward to working with you in the future. we plan on having another hearing in the future with government officials, with fema and red cross and others, and we look forward to trying to ensure that all of the innovation that

you're creating and the way in which your companies want to contribute in emergency preparedness, we just thank you very much. so, thank you. this meeting is adjourned. >> a live look right now inside the center for national interest here in washington, dc. they're going to host a discussion in half hour on presidential powers. there will be a panel of attorneys and constitutional experts highlighting the growth of executive power in relation to congresses. among the speakers, dave ripken

who organized the -- -- with congress on break this week we're featuring book tv interviews and discussions with nonfiction authors on their latest works. we'll look at technology and the internet at 8:35 eastern, with randy zuckerberg. she'll share her insights and soon to be published book, dot comic indicated.

i think the most significant thing i have seen over the past year i've traveled every week. the most significant thing i see is the security checkpoints are ridiculous. so having more of the preflight

checks in more cities beyond the major and metropolitan areas would be fantastic. and then linking that up against potentially increased number of routes for cheaper prices. i think that's significant, too. if you're a last-minute traveler like i am, pay a significant amount of money as compared to a few months ago. those are the two big things i would like to see, more regulations, especially the consolidation of american and u.s.a. airways. that's going to have a significant impact, and then the security checkpoints and getting to those quicker. two forms of advice, it would be that. >> i think the fares -- i mean, the airline -- i live in detroit and fly mostly delta and there can be almost $600 difference in certain flights, different airlines, from detroit to philadelphia, for instance. the air fares are all over the board. and seems to me they could do a

better job of regulating fares and standardizing fares. not happy to hear they're trying to put more seats on the plane. it's crowded enough. what we have now is okay. anymore would be not good at all. >> do you think there's a role for the government in all of this, to make any new rules or regulations that would help that? >> i think all these airlines merging has ben a detriment to the general population. i think travelers are at their mercy now. with fewer carriers and less seats available they can charge higher presses and particularly business travel. the fares are absolutely outrageous and costs so much more to do business now because don't want to be gone over the weekend, they're gone all week so the government could regulate air fares, in their best interests to do so, and make the experience, the standing in line experience go a little smoother and quicker. >> again your chance to weigh in on the question about air travel

following the rocks of the southwest airlines ceo.

>> this morning on "the washington journal" we look at the federal healthcare law and with a key component of the law to kick in exactly three months we're joined national public radio's julie rovner to discussion healthcare exchanges. what exactly do we mean? what is happening on october 1st? >> on october 1st, finally, people are going to get to sign up for health insurance who don't have it and also some people who do have it. this is one of the big confusing parts. i keep getting a lot of questions. people say, i buy my own insurance. are she's changes 0 for people who are uninsured? answer is, no. if you buy your own insurance, 14 million or so people, you can also go to these exchanges, administration now calling them market places and buying insurance and small businesses, those under 50 workers can go to the exchanges and buy insurance, so it's for people in the

individual market, people who don't have insurance, and small businesses. they can start signing up on october 1st. the coverage doesn't become effective until january 1st. so it's a six-month signup period, starts october 1st, goes through march 31st but begins october 1st. >> we'll show you that timeline for you. october 1st, open enrollment starts. january 1st the exchanges begin. 27 states defaulting to the federal exchange. talk about the difference between a federal exchange and a state-based exchange. >> well, from a consumer's point of view it should be invisible. you'll go tower exchange, mostly online, although i you need help their paper applications, lots of people to help you. but basically when you go to your state exchange, should say, welcome to the whatever state you're in exchange. behind the scenes it will make a difference. the state will be doing it or the federal government will be

doing it and may make a difference, depending on what your -- how much publicity the is, how much marking there is, the states doing it themselves are able to draw down more money from the federal government to go out and publicize their exchanges. but the way it runs should basically be invisible, whether it's being run by the federal government, by the state, or in partnership? there's seven partnerships. >> exchange a partnership exchange. >> some states are saying we'd like to have some control over how this runs but we're nervous about doing it ourselves so we'd like to partner with you, federal government. so there's now this third sort of hybrid exchange, i guess you can call it, called partnership exchanges. >> this partnership exchanges are noted on this chart from kaiser family foundation as the sort of lighter blue exchanges here, the darkest blue are the declared state based exchanges,

and then everything else defaulting to the federal exchange. >> that's right those are the states that said we don't want anything to do with it, a lot of those are republican states who are ejecting the wholedy of the law. some are states that are worried they can't do this. it's a really big undertaking, and some thought let's see if the federal government can do it and if they can make it work we'll take it over later. that is one option the federal government offered. some you can take over later. >> we're taking your calls on this segment. if you have questions about how these exchanges will work? about the federal healthcare law? we have joy rovner here to answer your questions. >> talk about penalties?

this issue of penalties. do not sign occupy are up for a healthcare plan by the time this program kicks in. >> another source of upgrade misinterpretation. the penalties are fairly small and this has been a source of sort of discomfort, if you will forks the insurance industry. base -- basically they signed off on saying they could no longer turn people down for having preexisting conditions, or there's no longer charge them more for having preexisting conditions, which meant that sick people can sign up and you can walk in when you get sick and buy insurance. in exchange there was this new requirement that everybody have to have insurance. but the penalties are fairly small. for the first year the penalty and -- this has actually been sort of -- the penalty is not $95. the penalty penalty is the greater of 95 tuesday or 1% of your taxable income. so for most people a little

larger than $95. there are a lot of exceptions. if you can't -- if you truly can't afford insurance you don't have to have insurance. >> the penalty goes up in 2015 you they go up. i think in the -- when they get highest, it's $695 or 2-1/2% or 3-1/2% of your taxable income, but they can't put you in jail, can't basically do anything. it's a tax penalty. if you don't file taxes there's no way to get the penalty out of you. they're not going to come after you except by basically attaching your tax refund. so if you don't have a tax refund they're basically not going to be able to collect your penalty. >> talking with julie rovner of national public radio. questions about the healthcare exchanges. give us a ring. she is here to answer your questions. ricardo up first from philadelphia, pennsylvania, on the democratic line.

there are some provisions of the affordable care act that did expand some medicare benefits. there was improvement in the prescription drug coverage. there were new preventive benefits that went into effect as part of medicare. this is not a law in medicare. >> host: here is pr push. here is the headline of your story with npr. pr push draws scrutiny. talk about what needs to be done before october the 1st? >> guest: a lot of people don't know this is going to happen. particularly people, people who could be helped the most. most of the polls have shown people who could be helped. people get large subsidies. we didn't talk about that people who are not insured, go into exchanges are eligible for significant help through insurance. insurance if you don't get it through the job are expensive. one of the reasons people don't

buy insurance. if you have to pay the entire amount it cost as lot of money. one of the reasons the affordable care act was so expensive there are the subsidies. if you go on the exchanges and make 100% and 400% of poverty, individual 14,000 to $45,000 a year you get a lost help. people eligible for help who don't have insurance don't know about it. there are a lot of programs going on. there are a lot of outside groups. of course the federal government had some money to publicize it. congress wouldn't give them more. there has been controversies of this. department of health and human services has been asking groups that would basically benefit from this. the insurance industry would benefit from this. health groups that provide free care would benefit from having more people insured. a lot of groups out doing a lot of publicity. over the summer we'll see a lot of publicity going on. there were talk about getting

professional sports groups involved. they were trying to get young people who are heavily not insured and really need and should be insured and they need them to get into the pool to offset the sick people we're talking about although we did see on friday the nfl said they probably will not be involved. they were sort of approached by republicans in congress who said, really don't want to be involved in this. it is controversial. might hurt their brand. maybe they didn't want to be part the controversy. >> host: story from the "wall street journal" notes it was a letter that senate minority leader mitch mcconnell and senator john cornyn sent to the nfl, the nba and professional sports teams. >> guest: professional sports teams. >> host: warning them about their brand. >> guest: nfl responded and was worried about getting involved in what seems to be continuing political controversy. response?hat is the obama's

they were hyping up especially the nfl partnership. >> guest: there was a briefing last week. they had talked to the nfl. there were unconfirmed talks with nba the nba season stretches out over the sign-up period between october e october and march. the nfl obviously goes again during some of the main sign-up period. when has massachusetts did their law in 2006 and 2007, they sort of partnered with red sox to attract young men who are important to get signed up to get into the risk pool, a group that is unlikely largely unlikely to have health insurance or necessarily know they need health insurance and that proved to be, very highly successful but massachusetts law wasn't nearly as politically controversial as this law has been. although i might add pretty much the same thing. >> host: when you talk about the pr push, here's a story from "politico," obamacare, because mom said so. talk about the effort to get

moms involved in this. >> guest: there have been a lost studies, we heard about this the last couple years, for all the talk getting sports stars to encourage young men to sign up, turns out the most influential person to influence a young man is his mother. actually, if your mom says, if you're a young guy, i think, up to age 30 and your mom says you really should have health insurance, you're more likely to do it. there is lot of encouragement and a lot of pr effort turns out is aimed at moms of these young men who are trying to get, to get their sons to go out and sign up. >> host: "politico" quotes kathleen sebelius. her quote, moms still have a lot of influence. the. >> guest: kathleen sebelius is mom of two sons in this age cohort. >> host: that is the health and human services secretary. >> guest: indeed. >> host: back to the phones. carol up next from colorado springs, colorado. on the republican line.

thank you. >> caller: nothing could be worse than what the insurance companies put us through, co-pays, caps, cherry-picking gone on for so long. so why shouldn't people have to buy insurance? the tea party folks, i'm sorry i'm a moderate, they have medicare and medicaid and tricare. they can afford to complain. but sadly these red states are going to hurt the poorest of their people in these red states and make them suffer. i'm wondering what can people in these red states do to help themselves when their own legislatures won't even help them? thank you. i will take my information off the line. >> guest: one of the big, sort of controversies ongoing, one of the things the supreme court did last year when it upheld the law it made the medicaid expansion part of this optional. it said the law can go into effect but states if they want to don't have to expand the medicaid program. the law was designed so that

they assumed that the medicaid expansion was going to happen. that was going to create health insurance medicaid coverage to people up to 133% of poverty. so therefore it did not allow people with income under 100% of poverty to purchase insurance on the exchanges. so that means basically we have half the states expanding medicaid but half the states that aren't. in some of the red states the caller is talking about they're not expanding medicaid. it means for some people not eligible for medicaid in those states they're not eligible for health from the exchanges. there are significant number of people who won't be elgible for anything, who will show up basically at the exchanges or someplaces, there will be a lot of places people will go to sign up events, they will say what can i get and the answer is going to be nothing and that will be its own sort of political issue as this enrollment phase moves forward because they won't, in a lot of these states to be an adult, if

you're not disabled, if you're not a patient you may not be eligible for medicaid at all or may be eligible for medicaid in extraordinarily low, some states have medicaid eligibility perhaps 15% of poverty or sometimes or 20% of poverty. you have to basically have almost no income to get on medicaid. if you're between that and 100% of poverty to get into the exchange you may not be eligible for my help at all. >> host: julie rovenr, national public radio health policy correspondent. covered health reform for the medical news and network and covered health and human services for congressional quarterly weekly report, taking your questions on these health exchanges set to open up finally october the 1st, three months from today. paul is up next from arizona on the independent line. good morning, paul. >> caller: good morning, i think you've answered most everything

i wanted to know. i'm 66, on medicare, well below your $14,000 a year figure and have been waiting and hoping on this to have some additional insurance because i can't afford a supplemental policy and listening to you, i don't qualify, is that right? >> guest: that's right. if you're on medicare, medicare is considered to be a sufficient insurance to qualify, you satisfy the requirement that you have insurance but exchanges do not, don't provide supplemental insurance for medicare. the exchange is for people who don't have regular health insurance. so it is not a way to get supplemental medicare insurance. >> host: paul, do you know what you're going to do at this point? what is your next step? >> caller: that is good question. those of us on medicare that can't afford supplemental, part-b is not

>>progms for people who can not afford supplemental insurance, have you looked into those? >> caller: sign up for medicare or medicaid? >> guest: there are programs if you're income is not low enough for medicaid, there are several programs will help you pay the co-pays and deductibles on medicare. >> caller: who do i contact for those? >> guest: i think you contact your social security office and they can help you with those. >> host: julie is here to answer medical issues on insurance and the health exchanges set to open october fist. kelly up next from jacksonville, arkansas, on the democratic line. good morning. >> caller: how are y'all today? >> host: good. >> caller: i appreciate c-span a window into the federal government. >> host: what is your opinion on the health exchanges starting october 1st? >> caller: last caller being on medicare and everything, i was

just wondering how much medicare may be cut because they're trying to put money into the other programs and also too, is how come there's probably not been a, you know, like the other gentleman, we don't qualify for medicaid, you know. here in this state they told me, you know, the last four times i applied for it, that i wasn't qualified but, you know, when you go to the doctor, you still got the co-payment of $30. if you're disabled, you're sick, you're probably going to five, six doctors every two or three months. it gets quite expensive. i was wondering what the federal government might have to help supplement my, that part of it so that i could at least stay healthy? >> guest: as i mentioned there are programs besides medicaid. there are nine million people who are called dual eligibles,

eligible for medicare and medicaid on the basis of having low incomes but there are other programs that can help low-income medicare beneficiaries pay their additional bills. there are programs that help them pay for their prescription drug coverage. as to the first question about cutting medicare to pay for the, the affordable care act, yes, there were reductions made to medicare to pay for the health law but those didn't mostly affect beneficiaries. those were cut from provider payments. those are mostly done with the agreement of those providers who agreed that they were able to take those reductions to medicare because they would be getting a lot of those back because they are no longer giving away free care because so many people would be insured. those particularly came from hospitals now we'll not give away so much charity care so we can afford to take less from medicare because we get it back on the other end. >> host: richard butler writes on twitter, where are the doctors going to come from?

why should anyone be a doctor when income is dropping and education increasing? >> guest: this is one of the big questions. this was actually addressed in the law. one of the things happening they will be training a lot more what we call midlevel providers although i don't think they like that name. these are nurse practitioners, physicians assistants and more nurses. a lot of care doesn't have to be provided with people with md after their name, a lot of primary care in particular can be provided by other types of health care professionals. there was money in the law to train those and more primary care doctors, certainly that is one of the ways that the federal government hopes to bring down the overall cost of health care is by having, by, you know, you don't have to go to a doctor every time you need medical care. you can go to some other kind of provider. there are also provisions for new types of health organizations, medical homes, accountable care organizations

where doctors and hospitals sort of join together to try to keep patients healthy, rather than sort of wait until they're sick to treat them. so the idea to change way health care is provided, make it more efficient, more value driven, this was definitely something that was considered when the law was packed. obviously if 30 million more people will have insurance you will need more people to provide that care. >> host: back to the issue of exchanges, communist dog writes in on twitter, are there separate exchanges for individual and businesses looking to purchase health care insurance? >> guest: yes. the business insurance, the business exchanges are called shop exchanges. they're actually, people are a little bit more worried about those. they seem to be going a little more slowly. the federal federal business exchanges will not have the type of choice i think a lot of businesses were hoping for. there won't be, the business

owners will be able to go in to choose plans. they won't be able to provide a choice of plans to the employees. that will not necessarily be the case. this is one of the cases where it will look different in the exchanges being run by the states and ones being run by the federal government at least for this first year. the business owner will make a choice of plans and then all the employees will have to go to that plan. in state-run plans particularly in california, there will be a choice employees will be able to go in and choose among plans. later years there i will will be more choice. that was the idea employees would get. right now if you're in a small business the many employer choose as plan and everybody has to go with that plan. for the first year at least in the federally-run exchanges that will still be the case but later on the idea people will have employees, even small businesses will have a choice of plans generally the way employees and larger businesses have plans. >> we'll break away from this

recorded program. watch it on our website, c-span.org. take you live back over to the center for national interest right here in washington, d.c. a discussion is just about to begin on presidential powers. a panel of attorneys and constitutional experts will highlight the growth of executive power in relation to congress. live coverage right now on c-span 2. >> next question? [[inaudible conversations]] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i am jim gilmore, the former governor of virginia, former chairman of the national commission on homeland security for the united states and, also, presently the president and ceo of the free congress foundation. i've been invited and asked today to chair this panel on

presidential power in foreign and security policy. we want to thank the senator center for the national interest where we are today, for having us all here for an opportunity to examine this very timely and very important issue that is before us today as we are seeing an evolution today in american foreign policy. before we begin, the entire room is full of very distinguished persons. that's why you're invited and why you're here, why you're here. we're delighted that you are. i do want to recognize two people. i wish to recognize general brent scowcroft, who is here, former national security visor and also paula dobronski, former undersecretary of state who is here as well. frankly there are other distinguished persons in government and private affairs throughout the room. you will forgive me for not recognizing everyone. i will open for about five

minutes or so and then turn this over to this distinguished panel. each of whom will present for about 10 minutes and then there will be plenty of time afterwards for commentary and q&a from the audience and an opportunity for your comments, questions and answers and even your short speeches which we will look forward too i'm sure. i'm sure we will get plenty of those with people who are of this level in the room here today. over the weekend i was watching "the history channel" and i was watching the history of caligula. there was a president that knew something about foreign policy. and, he was of course, a dreadful roman emperor. followed his uncle tiberius and caesar augustus and was a dreadful individual to be sure and ultimately was assassinated. and then "the history channel"

was talking about how the senate which took part in the assassination, the senate of rome which was reduced to basically nothing during the roman empire, suddenly saw their moment and they said this is an opportunity with emperor, that we've taken part together with the pretorian guard to assassinate the emperor. this is opportunity to return to the roman republic. wouldn't this be great? they dithered in the senate for a considerable period of time until the guard proclaimed clawed just to be -- cladius be emperor. the opportunity glimmered away. they never again had the opportunity to return to the roman republic. if you would, not to put too fine a point on it, executive power continued to maintain itself in rome man empire from that point on which didn't work so great in the long run but they did have quite a run. i have reflected on that as i was thinking about chairing this

and moderating this panel here today about where we are now at the beginning of the 21st century. with challenges that we're facing today. and it occurs to me that there are several strains that set up this presentation today from these distinguished panelists. one is the diminution of the congress in foreign policy. as we all know in the constitution it is the congress that has the power to declare war and should be highly influential in the affairs of foreign policy through their ability to control the purse. in fact during the post-vietnam period, marvin, you were just talking about, they in fact they did do that. they actually cut off certain fund and changed american military policy forever during that time. and there were other times that they have used the power of the

purse. the ability to declare war is now debatable and has glimmered away if you will in similar fashion. but as recently as 1941 one of our most powerful presidents of the united states, franklin delano roosevelt, felt he could go to the united states congress and ask for a declaration of war and get it. that was a pretty undebatable time after pearl harbor to be sure, the world has grown so much more complicated since that attack at pearl harbor but now we have seen the growth of american power and the diminution of the congress and its role but yet it is the congress in theory supposed to be, particularly through the house of representatives, the direct representative of the people through our republic and today i believe the popularity of the united states congress is running, david, 8%, which means that the american people have lost confidence in their ability to elect a congress which can

govern affairs, particularly when it goes through the matters of life and death of the american nation. a second issue of course is the amazing emergence of technology. we saw it full force as it changed the nature of american government during the cold war when the life and death of a nation could be settled in a matter of minutes, if not, if not seconds as decisions were made and it was a matter of combustion, missiles, nuclear figures, and the rest of it -- fission, and conventional thinking in the united states there was really no room for the congress in a time when we could have a nuclear exchange in just a matter of minutes. the emergence of the technology of the submarine and long-range bombers just accentuated all of this. after a while simply by default it became the role of the

executive to make decisions about life, death, "war and peace" and through its diplomacy, the nature of american policy. and then finally the war on terror which is something that i'm particularly interested in and have dealt with through the homeland security commission that i was able to chair on behalf of the congress and department of defense. we have decided today we're in a situation where the country is in danger, the american people are in danger. the attack from terrorists could happen at anytime. we have seen it, repeatedly. as dramatically as at 9/11, which changed america dramatically and people in boston where people were killed by people who had their own ideas about the use of terror. it seems to me that the american people have decided they will tolerate no risk in the attack,

in any potential attack on them by terrorists. they wish no vulnerability and no risk from such an attack. if that is the case, then the executive branch is best able to deal with that issue of total and complete security of the american people even though it is probably a phantom and not real but the american people would have to turn to the executive, not to the congress, if they were going to in fact carry out a domestic policy that meant we were to be completely free from any sort of risk. so these are the strains and the post-traumatic stress disorders that have been on us now for a number of decades and this panel today is intended to discuss these issues and to address the issue of presidential power and foreign and national security policy. we have three distinguished panelists here today to make presentations and to engage in the commentary and discussion with audience who is here. and i'm going to introduce them one at a time and turn the panel

over to each of them for a period of about, as i say 10 minutes. we'll have plenty of time thereafter for questions and answers. the three panelists today, are distinguished panelists are marvin kalb, robert murray and david rifkin. i will introduce each one in order. if you gentlemen will keep your eye on me i will try to hold everybody in 10 or so minutes so we can have plenty of time for the distinguished audience. we'll begin with marvin kalb. marvin kalb is a guest scholar at brookings institution. a leading cbs and nbc journalist and commentator. author of a recent book, road to war. he is a senior fellow through the john f. kennedy school of government at harvard. he has a distinguished 30-year career as chief diplomatic correspondents with cbs and nbc and as moderator of "meet the press." he is the recipient of

numerous awards. is a well-known distinguished scholar and commentator on this particular topic. marvin kalb. >> governor, thank you very much. i appreciate your setup for this discussion because you've touched a number of the points that i think deserve elaboration. and i want to start by simply thanking a number of people here at the national interest center. demitri signs and paul sanders, for making this possible and setting it up selfishly because it gives me the opportunity to talk about a number of themes in my new book and they do coincide with your introduction. i believe one of the things is that i believe there has been a gradual trend that started right after world war ii, vesting more and more power in the executive branch of government,

specifically in the president of the united states, to start wars, to run wars, to end wars. you can immediately ask, well, who better than the president? he is the one elected by the people? that is a very good question, and the answer is no one better but, in the system of government we have it was never intended that one person would have that much power to initiate one war after another as we have seen initiate or respond to circumstance. in one situation after another since world war ii. as a result of that, it has almost become natural for the president to be the one that the american people will turn to, look toward, for the leadership necessary when you are in a war or on the edge of going to war. a lot of people will remember as the governor was pointing out, there was a congress once that

had very specific responsibilities. two of them, the declaration of war, and the power of the purse, being assets that could be employed to demonstrate popular approval of a presidential decision, or does approval of a presidential decision. and since world war ii, the congress on only one or two moments in its history has moved to demonstrate does approval and to ruse the power of the purse. interestingly when they did this, in 1973 and 4, it was already after the war in vietnam had been brought to an end. the war came to an end with agreements signed in paris in january of 1973. it was only after the end of the war that congress took upon itself the courage to stop the

funding. and even then, it was stopped within a year, that kind of action. at that same time they passed the war powers act. the war powers act was also intended to curtail presidential power on war. but if you read the language in that act, it is an absurd piece of legislation. absurd in the sense that they put a limit on the military action of 60 days. and if the president feels that he can not accomplish what he intended to accomplish in 60 days, he would then have to go back to congress and congress give him authority for another 30 days. at the end of which the military action had to stop. now, when president obama was faced with the libyan situation in 2011, he totally ignored the war powers act and he ignored it i think for very good reason.

because it meant essentially nothing. and there were a couple of people on the hill who said, wait a minute, but that was the end of the debate. it was all over. and so when you begin to think about specific times since of the end of world war ii, when congress could have acted, not to stop the president but to help inform the president, to make the decision more a popular decision rather than a, rather than a decision of one person, i think we all would have been that much better off. and i remind you that in, february of 1966, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, senator fulbright of arkansas, was the one who started a series of hearings on vietnam and on china. those hearings went on for quite a bit of time.

they were extreme influential, through true the war was not brought to an end because of a congressional hearing but there was a huge, spread of information about what was going on in a war that very few people, even in the highest levels of the u.s. government, knew anything about. and i knew that at the time as a reporter because when you talk to these people they knew so little about the history, the religion, the politics of vietnam and yet yet we had 540,000 troops there sent by a president who had in his hip pocket one thing in terms of congressional authority to act and that was the tonken gulf resolution, august 1964. i don't want to say it was a phony deal. there was on august 2nd, an

attack on american ship but on august 4th, there was no attack. that was acknowledged by the secretary of defense years later but on the basis of the august 4 attack the president asked congress for a resolution of support and got it. and it too, when you take a look at the language, what it said was, the president could use any military action, any military action, in defense of american interests in southeast asia. it isn't as if the congress was participating in any way. it was not. and when fulbright started these hearings, he began by saying, these are not his exact words but they're close, congress, especially the senate, has a direct responsibility for helping the president formulate

american foreign policy that's an important statement and yet there was very little acted upon, as a result of the president's enhanced authority to make war since world war two. i'm not talking about anything that happened in a moment of time. it was a gradual process but over this time, when the president began to speak, and subtitle of my book is, presidential commitments honored and betrayed, today, when a president speaks, his very words become a commitment of the united states of america. it becomes the policy of the united states, when a president says, for example, the united states will not allow iran to develop nuclear weapons. that becomes a presidential commitment.

it then is the policy of the united states to stop it. and this happens by the way, in one issue after another. and i think that one has to ask one's self, wait a minute, isn't there are a better way of doing this? there ought to be, in my judgment, treaties, minimally, serious, congressional discussion, minimally, before this nation accepts a presidential decision to go to war. the argument the governor raised in his opening that we live in a time of terrorist threat, there is still a nuclear bomb around to the best of my knowledge, so maybe it could only be one man operating under the enormous pressure of a moment in time when the threat exists who can act. you don't have time for hearings. but over a period of time you

are having these hearings, the congress was more directly involved, i think that the whole country would be infinley better off. i will stop there. >> thank you very much, governor. >> marvin, thank you very much. i will just take one minute and ask you one quick question before i introduce bob. is a resolution by the congress the same thing as a declaration of war? >> it is not. the resolution of congress, the history of these resolutions they're essentially a pat on the back. some of them, the one in 1991, for example, 1990 december, was a well-argued over a period of five weeks, it was a well-argued discussion. when president bush decided to act, he did have that kind of support but that was rare. that was rare. most of the time it is a kind of a tonken gulf pat on the back, you go for it, mr. president, we're with you.

a declaration of war is a shrill statement to the nation and the world that the united states is not playing around. it's a total commitment of the nation and that we have not done since december of 41. >> our second panelist is robert murray. bob is the editor of the "national interest" magazine, published here at the center for the national interest. he spent 35 years in washington as a political journalist and a publishing executive. he was president and editor-in-chief of the congressional quarterly. he held that position for about 12 years. he has been an author of many books including where they stand, american presidents, in the eyes of voters and historians and a number of other distinguished books as well on foreign policy. including by the way the mexican war. i'm very pleased about that,

bob. you might tell us about that. so bob, robert murray. >> thank you, jim, thank you very much. and thank all of you for joining us here today. i was struck by jim's invocation of caligula and his death and the ascension of claudius and i was reminded of a very poignant scene. , i never read the book, i, claudius but saw that wonderful play on "masterpiece theatre" many years ago, but the assassination of caligula, who deserved it without any question whatsoever, the gnat, at one point had to decide whether they were going along with a praetorian guard. of course they were scared to death of the praetorian guard but they would go through the motions to have claudus come before them. they were asking skeptical questions.

why would we give this job to you? of course claudius very cleverly passed himself off as a bit of a dolt because he knew that was safer in the environment which he lived. he had a stutter and he walked with a bit of a limp and they threw all this in his face and thought they were basically going to get him to shrink before them. but he rose up and essentially said, and they were saying, we have a big responsibility here. and he would say, well, if you have a big responsibility why have you abdicated your responsibility for so long? the reason that we don't even have the republic anymore because you abdicated your responsibility. to me that scene puts into focus just the magnitude of these questions where you have a system that's designed to be in balance, where you have, you have forces that are in play and that are balancing each other off and you find that one of the

forces is not playing the game. i'd like to begin a little bit with to me is a curious paradox which can be explained in two statements. one is, which i say in my book on the american presidency and how presidents fail and succeed, no presidential decision is more politically dangerous than the war decision for reasons that i'll get into and yet, the second statement, and yet, presidents in our time seem constantly bent on manueverring to make sure that they get a go it alone situation on the war decision. doesn't really make much sense if you think about it but the aim is to essentially eliminate the tension that exists when these momentous decisions are made but, i would suggest that they're supposed to be a tension. in most of our history there has been a tension, notwithstanding the rather quaint observation of arthur vandenberg that politics

should stop at the waters edge. but if you think about the inherent political danger of a war decision think about a couple of observations. number one, there is always a false sense of security when the president takes the country to war and that's because the country almost always rallies behind him. i can't think of a situation in which a danger, the political danger of the war decision is immediately seen with the possible partial exception of the war of 1812 and that was regional thing where new ending lan and the northeast were against it in principle and in idea and opposed it pretty much through the war, even to the extent of attempting to undermine the execution of the war through hoarding specie and other things. the opposition is almost always muted early on.

secondly, we know from history that going to war always introduces surprises. it never, events never unfold as anticipated, not for lincoln, not for jimmy polk, my guy, not for any president and certainly not for lyndon johnson, not for harry truman. all predictions go out the window and the third point i would make is that when it becomes really dangerous is when a president gets himself into a situation where he has a war that he can't control, he can't win, he can't get out of as truman experienced in korea as, lyndon johnson experienced in vietnam. so there are really four, there's a lot of factors that sort of meld together to, to, that are cranked into the american people's judgment every four years in terms of whether the incumbent or the incumbent

party deserves to be retained but there are four killer developments and one is just as i described, a war you can't control, can't win, and can't get out of. just barely hyped, a faltering economy and a little bit above civic unrest that becomes so intense there's blood in the streets. we haven't had that in our country for a long time but we have had it in our lifetimes, certainly in my lifetime. and a major scandal that touches the president or people around him. in our system it is considered healthy to have this tension where congress asserts itself and the president pushes back and i thought i would use just two examples to show not necessarily what the outcome is, because that is not so important as the fact that that tension exists and that it is taken as a given in our system. and one has to do with james polk. now jimmy polk, as i was saying, got himself into a war that was

protracted. he couldn't figure out where it was going. he couldn't get out. he thought it would be a short war. he thought the mexican, the mexicans would negotiate for peace as soon as they saw the power that he brought to bear. and the united states never lost a battle in that war under winfield scott or zachary taylor and yet the mexicans would not treat for peace. we had to go all the way to mexico city, invade from the north and then, amphibious landing in varyvera cruz, all the way to mexico city. there is a stalemate and huge debate in the united states what would we do to the country we practically conquered? will we have to conquer more? will we have to conquer more territory than we really want? it was a real mess and, polk's standing, political standing was in serious erosion. now congress is just, peppering him with all kinds of problems

and, aggressiveness. mostly by demanding document, internal executive branch documents. interesting thing about polk was that he almost always acquiesced, even when his cabinet was telling him, mr. president, i don't really think we want to do this because executive privilege is a factor here. he didn't want to get involved in it. . .

war. he had sent him down there and the congress wasn't sure that he was working very assiduously to avoid or avert the war and they wanted to understand what was going on. also, santa ana's safe passage to the u.s. blockade. this has an interesting back story. they sent an emissary to washington to talk to some of the members of congress. thomas benton and some others. and the essentially said santa anna had been exiled and they would like to get back in the country and if they do come he would negotiate outcomes of the war that you are looking for.

so, they took him seriously and they let him in. they did take over at which point he had no intention of living up to his promises. and the congress wanted to know what was all that about? so, his problem was if he defied congress it would be incendiary which he had been trying to avoid the diplomatic instruction at the time he would try to engage with diplomacy would be very, very destabilizing of his efforts to it so he essentially said no on the diplomatic instructions batvinis on the presidential order allowing santa ana to return to mexico. what he didn't tell them is that he also sent a young military officer as an emissary down to get clarification and he was instructed nothing in writing to

the he went down and wrote his talking points and that in the that any final in the state department and if the congress had known about that they would have really gone after that. and polk basically said we aren't going to give him anything on that. this was a factor of his own embarrassment. as he said it would exhibit me and a ridiculous attitude. and, you know, he basically -- there would be derision that he got snookered by santa ana in such a way so he kept it under wraps. the rationale was the sensitive diplomatic communications are confidential where they would trust the diplomatic unit. fair enough. that is an argument that should be part of this ongoing attention. of course they went ballistic and john quincy adams said this house ought to now insert in the strongest manner its right to call information in such cases

and was pretty tough politically and that is exactly what ought to be. a second example hasted with fdr. we know that they one america in world war ii and wanted to save brereton from this adversity and its extremist. but the isolationist sentiment that was dominated in american politics at that time was risky and at one point he said i am seeing nothing and hearing nothing and saying nothing. i'm literally walking on eggs. not true. he was slipping of reporters which is a distant relative very closely. he pushed japan to the absence of the brink the first embargo of 1940 and spanning into loyal and many he refused to even talk

to the japanese. and it violated gerald's neutrality act in 1940 with of the destroyer deal in which he made them available to britain in exchange for certain land that could be used on military bases in canada and the west indies. no consultation with congress. it was done in secret and cannot win and was exposed and he was asked about it by reporters and he dismissed it as a, quote, have faith accompli. he said basically he defied congress or anybody to do anything about it. arthur vandenberg, the same guy that said the water's edge he said, quote, it was the most arbitrary action ever taken by any president in the history of the united states. and if the are casually led past and he got away with it. i think it probably was an impeachable offense he broke the

law and we see the same thing in the iran contra. so my view is that this tension is healthy and we have reached a point where it no longer exists and it isn't because the executive branch is doing anything that is so terribly insidious. it's that the congressional branch is not playing its game. it's not stepping up to its role and that is the point that i would want to leave you with. >> your position would be that the congress is more effective and aggressive. >> the whigs or long gone. >> no one is gone and america. >> the third presenter today is

david rifkin jr. a distinguished american attorney a political writer and media commentator. he gained national recognition as a representative of the conservative viewpoints on wall. he appears as an analyst and commentator on various radio and tv. he is a visiting several here at the center for the national land trust, a contributing editor at the national review. he's a former united states government official under with president ronald reagan and george w. bush. in 2010, he took of the highest profile case when he agreed to represent a multistate lawsuit of the attorney general's against the obama health care legislation. david rivkin. >> thank you. litigation ytoy should be a will to protect my voice. i will try.

the example has been pretty plum i will invoke loosely paraphrase say that it comes to the constitutional arrangement between the executive and congress is as it should be and is indeed the best possible arrangement. but i hope to convince you of is that the foreign policy can be a budget that we criticized, particularly in the recent years. the notion that i think marvin perhaps is espousing and tell me if i'm wrong we have these unchecked executives that have somehow transgressed the proper balance of the president's constitutional authority is simply not true. it's not true as a matter of constitutional basics or as a matter of history. the national constitution will be six. i don't want to say the constitution is clear and the responsibilities in fact or of a better known commentator in this area the gentleman in the

constitution and an occasion to struggle the political branches conducting their foreign policy to basically consistent with the overall constitutional design, lubber detention the president as commander in chief and the chief executive, and particularly the not enumerated powers to receive ambassadors. but this provides the president with a great deal of executive power and the framers reallocated given their experience under the articles of confederation and the british example before the allocated sum of the palace traditionally exercised by the king. the congress as we heard several times is the power to declare the war and the power of the purse to emphasize by the way a regional constitutional language would have given congress the power to make war and was rejected without much of the date and the change was made not by alexander hamilton who we all

know is a proponent but by james madison who at least as compared to their peers were not as desirous of their executives. cramer's frankly expected that the way congress is going to try to check the present and again that is consistent with the overall approach in a variety of areas both with regard to the horizontal separation of powers but they would check the president affirmatively which is to say they wouldn't either create a permanent military establishment but the president can use to wage the war and to the extent they created one they wouldn't appropriate the sufficient amount of money necessary. the notion frankly that, and the framers of a difference to make and declared. declaring the war is primarily a legal act that changes the relationship between the united states and its coequal

sovereign's in the international sphere and it changes the relationship between the government and the people and the domestic framers knew perfectly well that the declaration of the war is not the same as we are making. now, another thing i mentioned history that is quite interesting yes, we do have now a very different world the uses of force are quite different than existed before but if you look at the history of the presidential involvement with foreign affairs in general and the war making in particular within a very few short years of the founding if you believe congress is a coequal fingers began to go abroad i because you send the ships any way and with enough resources to go one way expecting congress would come back and provide the resources otherwise would if we have on the media would have been stranded far away from our

shores. probably the point that i feel strongest about is the notion they need to go to congress with affirmative approval to get this approval that means the president cannot act and is not constitutionally a legitimate proposition, nor is it historical egullet proposition. congress can always check with the president provided that it does in the accountability is a constitutional virtue. you can have some questions in the case of can congress come up with funds and the situation we've been attacked and washington is about triple the foreign troops to what extent the absolute power has to inject the president in that situation but all of the war you can check meet the president pay a political price. finally, we have a couple of my colleagues talk about this today. the congress isn't willing to pay such a political price and

the framework statues which we have including the war powers resolution reflect this regrettable pact. i happen to think that the 73 resolution is unconstitutional and every administration in power has maintained that and as some of your note to the extent the president reports to congress he never says under the war powers resolution. he says consistent with the war powers resolution. but again, the congress wants to bring in military given engagement to an end it can cut off funds. we have the war power resolution which is again on constitutional but a fairly new device. let me also tell you there or more organic statutes that discipline how the president exercises other aspects of the power than ever before. we have a 1991 intelligence oversight act. the framers believed the capability of acting with secrecy and dispatch has absolute authority to engage in things other than the uses of

force, dispatch of agent, covert operations, etc., etc.. that is and how things work. there's an elaborate system in place in addition to the 1991 act there are endless annual appropriation bills and other arrangements between the house and senate intelligence committees and a requirement the president of the rice things. so certainly going back to 91 and moving from their the extent which the president uses covert activities is very much shared with congress. we have something called for an intelligence surveillance act that's been very much watched the news than the amended twice in the last decade. also very much the case where intelligence gathering is cabin by this and the foreign intelligence surveillance court all of which things are fairly

new. so, while i'm not suggesting the hour aco week will when it comes to the sharing of information and an opportunity to solicit the congressional views it is that a high your local than ever before. now a couple of problems now as to why shouldn't we do more, first of all the constitution doesn't require us to do more. the president i believe is fully within his rights to operate the way the president has been operating and not just this president but his predecessor. second, i don't need to repeat what you heard from bald and marvin, the constitution is incapable of playing any serious role particularly in foreign affairs and when it comes to the issues of war and peace because of the way that it organized and because of a fairly new phenomenon that would surprise the framers that the approach of the political passions of politicians themselves.

they believe the factions would arise but they also very much believe we're use it is where you stand and there will be institutional loyalties. there will be some fundamental distinctions the would provide a different framework for article 1 versus article to. it's been this way for awhile but one of the things and i'm not going to spend time to be moaning at. but the partnership transcends the loyalties. can you imagine if a democratic controlled congress would have done in the republican administration had these policies relative to -- well i'm not going to name the scandal but the democratic congress is entirely oblivious and uninterested in halting the president accountable and i did say the republican controlled congress has been largely for giving of with the republican president should have done. so that, on top of the

institutional capacity of article 1 - house things even more difficult because if you have a congress controlled by an opposing party the partisanship dries things up and if they were controlled by the same party as the white house, then they are mute. so from my perspective the problem isn't a constitutional public is of the quality of the foreign policy and if the congress got involved in it more, freda would make things worse rather than better. thank you. >> the concern is i suppose in prior years and different times we have had a consensus with the direction and the goal of the nation should be and therefore there was more of a capacity to get a consensus in the congress what they regard as the parties

that now after the fall of the berlin wall and the rise of an entirely different set of challenges the united states may not know where it's going and that lends itself to more conflict in the conference. i agree with the governor but in addition to that there are people more qualified to speak about the article 1 functions. whatever structure existed in the congress historical the is broken down. there is no serious commitment to abide by with the leadership is proposing and congress has been more fractious and the executive but you have the backbenchers on the republican and a net excited challenging the leadership in the house and the senate is poisonous and unprecedented. so on top of the inherent problems we are having a multi member deliver to of body participate in war making and national security you've got all those new problems. so again i am very dubious that

congress complete and one little point it's interesting to go back to the point more venice talking about in the of war powers resolution i remember vividly a number of proponents of having those disciplines if you get congress what will you take off. ladies and gentlemen it's not true. if you look at a number of instances the president has gone forward and asked congress for the opposition to use force. yes, lydia -- no congressional approval but the major forces of use. iraq one and two. afghanistan congress was on board. congress gave its blessing. can anyone of you say they were present in the exit of landing? every member if you look at the bush 43 administration every senior democrat in the senate and i am being partisan as an example running away from the iraq war matt. so even that benefit and the

proponents of article 1 were promising that if you bring us you will not be alone at the landing is a fiction. >> i am very concerned about development of the resolution as opposed to the declaration of war. i don't see them anymore and it concerns me we have a lack of responsibility and accountability in the congress. the idea if you declare war you take resility. if you pass the resolution you are saying we will grant you the authority but maybe you will use it and maybe you won't. it's your responsibility. we aren't going to face the voters having made any decision and that is a lack of accountability in the congress. >> i think that you are exactly right and that is what has

happened. you know, at the end of the day you were left with a set of facts. the u.s. today lives in a very unstable world. the possibility that we will be involved in another war next week is there. if the president of the united states were to go onlevision tonight at 10 p.m. and say ladies and gentlemen i just got this bit of information and this obliges me to send -- to begin to bomb damascus and we are going to send troops into this area and that area without any kind of congressional authority or even discussion with the congress that is now possible. another factor that we have not mentioned and i would like to add to the discussion it relates to the all volunteer force. the president is commander in chief and he now has his wn

army. that volunteer force represents .6% of the american people. 99.4% of the american people are not part of the world and many of them choose not to be part of that world. in other words of the war doesn't affect us what the pros deal with it so you have a situation regardless of words at this point. you have fact where a president can act to get this country into the war he has his own army with which to fight the war. who's going to say that is minimal the questionable? put aside for a moment whether it is right or wrong or in the best interest of the nation. who stands up today and says wait a second this man not be the right thing for this country at this time. i am simply making the point

that gradually over a period of decades regardless of party -- and i want to stress it is regardless of party that won president after another has simply accumulated power in this area of war and peace. it isn't that the president has been on a power grab. none of them i think really has. it's simply that the rest of the government pulls back from exercising its responsibilities that are tipped off in the constitution. and so the president -- cow were then is in the streets and so it has to be picked up by somebody and who better than the president to do so? >> if i may say one thing, and again, we can spend time debating the quality of the administration's foreign policy but the notion that overreaction is a primary foreign policy

problem to me isn't very credible. the failure to intervene and feel they are to be involved driven by the national interest not just necessarily by some sentiment and i would hope at least half of the people in this room would see the failure to intervene with the boots on the ground earlier in the conflict would have made an enormous difference. so we don't just have overreaction to worry about, we have under reaction and here is the congress not in a very good way because of a breakdown of leadership. i'm not sure. but we as a constitutional matter into something the framers rejected arguments not recall the council was an effort and institutions and in the days for the king was at least supposed to keep or at least take advice by most senior

advisers. does anyone think about the quality if we had some kind of council advising the president if you can come up with the council and congress? >> if i could make a comment about something and then make another option if i understood david correctly. regarding the question of the standing army that the president has at his disposal -- jim whether who i invited after he was leaving the senate to do a piece for us on some of these matters and he wrote a cover story to issues ago in which he decried much of what martin is talking about and jim is talking about and a lesser extent what i'm talking about but he makes the point that the constitution talks about raising armies and congress raising armies and maintaining the navy.

you see significance in this and that it was understood the importance and the imperative of maintaining was going to require a standing navy but not a standing army in the nature that we have today at the disposal of the president. did understand you correctly to say that you feel things would be better had we gotten boots on the ground? >> i was making a rhetorical point that at least half the people in the room would agree without putting boots on the ground of this president for more energetic about using some tools of statecraft, the situation and syria might be a bit better, not perfect, but a bit better. all i am saying is that the notion that an action is somehow a sort of a strategic panacea across-the-board than doing nothing is good and therefore making it more difficult for the president across-the-board to

use force is a good thing to me is a historical and it is by no means proven. it depends sometimes cannot intervene in what has been better and sometimes intervening would have been better with the notion congress can bring a superior wisdom to this exercise, ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult for me to imagine and if i may, one thing about you, i read the article with great respect. there is a debate between hamilton and madison when they were founding but the notion that the constitution requires the military establishment outside of the needy -- navy to be brought up and then taken down. guess you can change the structure if you are article 1 you have to pay the price for it. but he's all the hard line in the constitution you cannot have a standing army and the framers expected that there is a difference between the constitutional predictions

inflected, but there for the foreign policy prediction that interesting but not this posited. so, i don't see that out all. >> do you want to see something more before we go to the q&a? >> i don't know. >> keillor under direct attack. >> i myself don't think there should be council either unless i am all on that. then maybe so. >> we have about 30 minutes still remaining in our program in which we could do some questions and answers. again, with our distinguished national security adviser brent scowcroft. >> we will try to do something about microphones here. go ahead.

>> what i wanted to say is it has the ability to make the war and to struggle and i think that anyone who says that congressional power of the perch is not a nuclear power, it is difficult and complicated but. you can't do it. so, it is theoretically there. one of the things that is left out of this discussion so far is the the environment for which the decisions are made to the environment of an attack, an insult to the united states and these kind of things. and the other thing is the slide

since world war ii. in the bush-cheney administration, we faced the first golf war. and we had these specific arguments. could the president -- did he have to go to congress? and i remember that we said no. the president is the commander in chief. he could send the forces wherever he wants to. what the congress then authorize the power. the president, president bush led lbj on vietnam. he said whenever your authority, the president is in the danger if he moves in support of the american people. so, bush decided that he needed to go to congress. this was a really quite limited at this time. they had hearings about all of

the sand so what to do. the first thing we did it said if we can get an authorization for them that would help us with congress. so that is what we did. then going into the congress will ask op for the revolution of support. we knew we could get it from the house and we did. we got it by five votes and neither of them wore a resolution of support. they were authorizations. i don't think that this is so executive dominated as the discussion would indicate. the fact of it all was removed in the country. and in the first bush administration we felt that the mood was an attack on the presidency with richard nixon the power of the presidency was

under attack. now the opposite is true and it seems to me that these kind of balances are still very fundamental. and i wouldn't say at all. it depends because there is an erosion because we were under a general attack. >> if i may, we are on the same page but the problem as we aren't seeing the pendulum swinging because if you look at bill level of discontent for which recent disclosures and had been traded on both of the left and the right the post 9/11 consensus is dissipated.

>> i find myself in a great deal like the general said. i think that there is a lot of wisdom in what he said and a good bit of history that we ought to be mindful of. my point is that in time and time again a person of the white house level was capable of thinking of the broad issues involving his power and the link to popular approval, the way in which the congress would respond to all of these are crucially important. and if you can get the congress to be a part of the decision, and you are that much ahead of the game because then you have to their support behind a military action. but if the mother to reaction often biased by the president goes first and the congress has to be dragged along or not even dragged along, the president is out there and is very vulnerable

and that means the country is out there and very vulnerable. and that is the fundamental point i am trying to get. that is the reason that i went back to the less than of recent american history with senator fulbright. he was a democrat and the president that he took on was a democrat. so there wasn't politics involved. the senator sincerely and deeply believed that the tonkin gulf resolution which he masterminded himself in the conference was a phony and the president was playing games. senator richard russell told the president, and it has nothing to do with 73. russell told the president and 63 and in 64 who twice you have to bring the congress along. both for the landing and for the takeoff and that was in his mind. and when bush did what you

described, that is to me what makes absolute sense. i am with you 100% on that. >> one is i am not particularly concerned about the fact we don't have a declaration of war. i think that the episode involving the first gulf war is a perfect example of the administration going to congress getting of the opposition that put it on a firm footing going forward. it would have been very on why is and questionable from the standpoint of the equilibrium from the system that had herbert walker bush gone into kuwait without getting some kind of congressional authorization if you don't like it you can cut off the funding. the would be an irresponsible

action on the part of the converse. and that is not the kind of give-and-take that i am talking about. >> question. we will be back there in just a second. there seems to be a consensus either by default or intention and at this moment the of transferred very heavily and increasingly congress forfeited its authorities are simply it can't exercise them. but given that, it seems ironic to me that we have invested all of this enormous power and

objective increasingly to elect the president with little or no experience in the formulation or execution of the american security policy. the last three presidents come to mind, none of whom have any experience whatsoever for any qualifications. why do you think that would be? i can understand the need for the powers and the executive and we don't like to do things by committee. but it seems to me that we then want to test those that we are going to put in that kind of power and make sure that they are capable of executing at. the process doesn't seem to me

to be producing that result. >> i want to say with a little bit of history starting with the '92 election for the presidency, the candidate who had little or no experience in military affairs for foreign policy overall is the candidate that ended up winning. in '92, george h. w. bush lost the 96, and 2000, al gore lost. in 04, john carey lost and in 08, mccain lost. you go on and it's interesting because each one of these people come it is kind of curious and interesting factor.

it goes back to an experience in vietnam. all of those that have experience in the world in world war ii or vietnam when they wanted to salute the for the dutch have a convention baseline here and ready to serve you. that didn't play with the american people at all and maybe that is something about the mood of the people not wanting military experience. who knows. but that is a curious set of facts. >> let me try to cheer you up by making two observations. i wish it was my idea but it's not. there are a number of historians who for written books and they point out that when it comes to their leadership at the strategic level, they try to experience and acknowledge the military affairs. they are not with the quality decision making. one example i would use, remember, look at the military

and the sort of foreign policy grasp of jefferson davis versus lincoln. he was a provincial congressman. he never went to west point yet he was a commander in chief and kept the union to give it to the aquino is better than anyone. so, i am not -- i sort of believe in the genius of the american people but he lacked -- elect people but rise to the occasion and what happened with bush 431 of those he did rise. so the genius of the political system as we do not need to elect the smartest grand strategy is the only do well. >> i would augment that by saying i used to be a political reporter. my observation covering the presidential election is that the american people generally are very much on top of the economic bread-and-butter issues and the judge the president very quickly or the candidate very quickly.

on foreign policy they take a different view. like we don't know, so we are going to delegate that with a proviso of don't screw it up. and i think that is sort of the ethos that you get in the election. i told david the american people don't worry about that until it goes awry and they bring themselves back into it as they did in space and vietnam for example petraeus connect i will add to that. i guess one might say that foreign policy national security isn't important until it is. we have seen at the end of world war ii when you're not was divided we turned our attention to general eisenhower to be president of the united states. and then john f. kennedy, weigel reactor we have some foreign policy experience with the main point is that he ran on foreign

policy. he ran on the national security because we were in the cold war and that is what was on the forefront of the mind of the american people. and so, during the cold war period, we tended to address those issues in the campaigns. to argue them out of the american people made decisions based upon whom the assessed was the best person for the foreign policy and national security committee and as the berlin wall fell, and by the way i would say that ronald reagan had a lot to say about foreign policy and national security as he was campaigning then when the berlin wall came down they were turned much more inward. i would say to final things. number one, we at the foundation that i am chairing and president of believe that the opportunity combined with the economic power of the united states and the restoration of the economy is

the number-one issue and i believe every poll shows that the american people think that the economic health of the country is the number-one issue and it will manifest itself in a national security. number two, this is coming fast. we have an emerging china that seems to be determined to control the eastern pacific. america has never allowed any power to control the eastern specific to the pacific since the period harbor. the middle east is emerging, conflicted, getting a nuclear weapons, extremely dangerous. and the russians seem to be determined to have other policies other than making themselves a pain in the neck to the american people in the united states so there are challenges of working here and they will command the attention of the american people in the immediate future.

>> [inaudible] they could be more engaged and responsible. we can do all of this wonderful intellectual work and exciting papers' in the box and will make absolutely not one bit of difference because we are coming at this mosque at the wrong end, but ignoring the other end. we have a columnist that keeps replicating itself. they keep electing the same kind of people. how do you expect the congress to change if you do not change the way the congress is elected, lecturing them, writing books,

it isn't going to make one bit of difference. if anything is going to change a would be there has to be the branch reform of the electoral system. in my view, and everyone has their own ideas that has to be offered. there has to be a change in financing. the public financing which may require a constitutional amendments, fundamental change in the way of the congressional districts were drawn and complete changes the way candidates are recruited. we look at that end and all of the work that we are doing isn't going to change anything in my view anyway. >> well, with respect we have a constitutional republic. we get people elected in the house and the senate in the different types of franchisees based upon what the american -- who live the american people want to elect.

i do not personally think that if you could wave a magic wand -- and i appreciate at least the acknowledgement i wouldn't be the same country because the house, the so-called insularity of the congressional district is reflect exactly the role for the house that the framers envisioned. the limited franchise, the aero franchise reflecting the views of a set of people in the congressional district and the fact that they are not viewed in a great notion of national interest and the same degree as the members of the senate that would play a different role may be the president is what the framers intended to the and i frankly don't think we are making any difference if this public financing as far as the outputs are concerned in terms of who is going to get elected. but again i guess my overarching point -- and i don't know if it is selling today, there are no institutional fixes the foreign policy debating who is in the office and the beating on with

challenges we face and sometimes playing the lock but the notion that you can just reshuffle the institution to have a much better outcome to me is not proven and there is plenty to disprove it. >> there is one aspect of what you said in that redistricting the house serving the functioning. i think the house has absolutely not served the function that the framers had in mind. the framers had in mind the house of representatives would be the government's first alert system so the sentiment was bubbling up in america out in the country would make its way to washington and that is how we would know that this was happening that the sediment was bubbling up and making its way into washington so that the representatives could adjust to it. as a result of the computerized redistricting in which we have essentially destroyed the old ethos that they should be as

much as possible contiguous with the lines of the political subdivision which tie them to the other elected officials back in the district back in the country at large so that there is a connection between denney and a familiar daily -- mayor daley and the ties of collecting congress. that's been destroyed and it's all been destroyed as a result of redistricting. so i don't agree with that at all. >> i am not trying -- people like barone would tell you that if you have done all of those tweaks you wouldn't change the composition of congress. they would remain democrat and a number of districts would free mann republican. and there isn't despite all of the crazy ill shaped congressional district. one thing the framers really --

the democratic state has a substantial quality of things in the congressional district. that is one state -- >> pennsylvania? >> in one party to be a step replicated across the country. >> did you want to add something? >> i would add only one thing. when i was the governor of virginia, i ended up transitioning over one decade to the other. and i was in charge of the redistricting in virginia. i grew up in a system where there were no republicans in virginia. we were a part of the solid south and there were no republicans. and i can assure you coming along was very tyrannical. very. so when the opportunity came to redistrict and virginia wade told by the democrats you may want a temporary majority but we

are going to redistrict the state and go back to the old order. the republican said no, we are not. and we redistricted the state and we had a majority in the house of delegates ever since. and i want to say to you -- i am not very proud of that. and in the fullness of time i believe he is right that we ought to be trying to draw the district is much more objective because what you have right now is the perception at least and probably the reality to read the district and therefore a potentially electoral system. yes, you sir. >> the governor start by reminding us that is almost at record lows and the concern i have about this is their permanent institutions and the and for military and diplomatic

service and others and they've had a culture that the president is our boss and we serve the republican. that is being eroded and a large part of it is the erosion of the broader american public for congress. the days when there was john cooper, al gore, people in the house who actually claimed a responsible and a prestigious role on both sides of the aisle in international affairs as largely i think disappeared and with that the prestige of the congress among the personnel of these institutions. i noticed that in my own quarter-century that the ability to talk about we serve the

public and all the president had gone from being people looking like you were a dinosaur. and i feel that one of the most important losses that's taken place in the congressional turning away from its role in international relations is the loss of respect and these institutions and the tendency now to say you served the president. i don't think that is a good thing. >> i tried to raise this example as a good thing when having this kind of general discussion. i still feel very much that is a good thing. but in these discussions i also raised a question of who today could fill level of the centers whose names you just ticked off

and i'm not sure we could find the current population measuring that a group of rose out of world war ii the beginning of the cold war and the realization that we are suddenly faced with nuclear weapons and we have to be careful about this stuff and the viet nam war would come along and truman what korea and in 45 when they took over to all of his buddies in the senate if i have to send troops abroad, if there's print be a conflict i will never do it without your approval. when the communist moved into south korea he went to the u.n. and got a u.n. authority. the russian ambassador happened to be out that day with a cold so he wasn't there to veto and

in that way they got the authority but never went to the congress and later in bits of remorse he spoke about his blunder not going to the congress today there is something elementary it seems to me the congress represents and its current form the people of this country, the people of this country in the war are the people who were going to fight. they deserve to have -- they deserve to be part of the decision that they can process. maybe that is too simple to understand and i beg the forgiveness of those of you seeking a more sophisticated explanation. but there are certain things that are fact and we have to live with them. >> i think a very strong litmus test for what marvin was just saying and i agree with it is that libya and obama's action in

libya. and i suspect -- i think david, you said that you saw nothing wrong with that. it was acceptable in the constitutional framework. and i would disagree with that and say that here is where the american president needs to get the country behind him if he wants to take military action that could lead to other military action and others circumstances in this case it didn't particularly. but that is not the point. and so to me libya is a really good test and separates. >> what i disagree with the desire ability of fostering of a consensus and gaining support from the body policy and article 1 all for it and it would be foolish not to be. but as long as we understand they are constitutionally

compelled and as long as we understand the limits of the consensus because if it is a short format without american casualties even if you don't go to congress he would be able to get a price for it. >> i am not suggesting that you shouldn't do it. that was not my point. but what is interesting back to my point about how the congress isn't with you on the landing even though you went there. it is a difficult war. it is afghanistan and the fact that when they went to the congress and gained approval, the authorization to use force which we have no declaration and it's the highest level approval it was a tough casualty. the congress is nowhere to be seen it. so we have to -- while it is good practice, good statecraft to get the, chris on board, let's be honest, there are limitations to that. if things go badly then it is not going to be with you. c-net we now have more opportunity to get the american

people on board through cable television, talk shows, radio, facebook, social media. we have time for one more question if there is one. is there a hand up? >> i guess i could make an argument -- >> speegap. [inaudible] >> i wonder if anybody sees any evidence that voting for congress or president reflect some the understanding that the country's interests are more intertwined with those in the

rest of the world than ever before in the shores and especially economically. i don't see any difference in quality of the congress. but i could argue that it's more important today than it has been in a long, long time. >> i think that is a very in a valuable point. but i agreed with you. there is no manifestation of that in the composition of the congress and the way in which the congress has performed i don't even think of the way the president has performed it is almost as if they are ignoring until a becomes an overwhelming problem. at that point maybe they will act but not until the plant. and that is a sad reality of the way in which the government is functioning now. >> i would add only that it is not surprising that even if you

are right there is a great deal more interdependent that and hinges itself upon the nation and our time and i think that i would agree with that. that giving of the old notion of the american nationalism isn't an easy thing for the american people to do. and some of the tension that you are seeing in the american policy is really a tension between that and i think it is publicly understandable and probably inevitable that that would exist. where it goes is another question and i could perhaps your sensibility will emerge as more powerful over time. >> i want to think the center for the national interest for the opportunity to engage in the debate and i think that it's been very energetic and interesting and enlightening and fun. we appreciate all of you being here. i just would have an advertising for the congress foundation as well as the center for national one tressed we are beginning a

project called the american opportunity where we are going to particularly talk about the opportunities that don't exist today even in the inner cities or the economic opportunities of the country and in a very real way the dangers of foreign policy and national security dangers that are not being addressed. .. >> weersz not necessarily existentially threatened, and this is the opportunity to rebuild our economy and national consensus for the challenges that are ahead. i agree that there are major challenges ahead, and we have no

more time to waste to rebuild this country and to rebuild its power and influence for the challenges that are emerging rapidly in the 21st century. thanks again to paul sanders and center for the national interest and good day. [applause] >> it was a pleasure. >> thank you, david. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> some of the discussion here on presidential power, and that leads us to today's agenda for president obama in tans tanzania today wrapping up the three day tour of africa visiting last week to south africa. the white house saying the president will be joined by former president, george w. bush, for a ceremony at the u.s. embassy in honor of the bombing there in 1998 that killed a number of people. on tuesday, president obama will hold talks in a news conference

with the president of tans knee that, and visit the power plant, and first lady, michelle, participating in a forum hosted by laura bush promoting women's education, health, and economic empower. the family scheduled to worn wednesday. with congress on a break, we have booktv interviews and discussions with nonfiction artists on the latest workment tonight, we look at technology and the internet beginning at 8:35 eastern, former marketing director of facebook and sister and founder of mark zuckerberg soon to push her first book and a chirp's book. at 8:35, we discuss the link between the rise of digital networks and the economic recession and who owns the future. at 10:20 tonight, the new book "the digital age," and watch booktv in prime time beginning

at 8:35 eastern right here on c-span2. on c-span tonight, southwest airline's ceo, aaron kelly, on travel in the country taking questions from an audience at the university of denver. we'll open up the phone lines for your thoughts on the subject and what advice you'd like to give the federal government to improve air travel in the u.s.. we recently asked that same question in virginia just outside washington, d.c.. >> i would say just further streamline security and ensure it's safe to be on the plane, but at the same time, a process that's comfortable for us to walk through the gates and not feel like we're being completely violated. i think that would be a big improvement, but just make it quick. >> dngz government regulations so that the articles have the opportunity to be more competitive and actually decrease prices for their customers. >> is there any regulation in

particular you think of? >> yes, one in particular would be the fine that airlines are forced to pay when customers sit on the tarmac. oftentimes before they cancel the flight rather than take the risk of staying on the tarmac, i think they are more successful to take that away and make decision for themselves rather than the government running their business. >> i'd probably fly no fewer than two or three times a month, and i think the government would benefit from reigning in on some of the practices that i think the airlines have gotten lazy on, and i think they are gouging prices and things like that where you did in, and if your flight, you know, it's an emergency, and it's a week before the flight happens, you pay exorbitant fees so capping fees for certain flights makes everyone's experience significantly better. >> on c-span3, watch american history tv in prime time at eight eastern tonight, a look the the 150th anniversary of the

battle of gettysburg, and then the influence of the 1963 speech on the cold war and the remarks on west west berlin. more presidential speeches from berlin with president reagan and president obama. american history tv tonight at eight eastern on c-span3. coming up, several panels from the new york ideas festival last month. first up, a look at online teaching and impact on higher education, specifically the increase massive online courses called "nooks" that colleges incorporated as part of the curriculum. this is hosted by the atlantic magazine and aspen institute and runs about 20 minutes. >> thank you, all, very much. these are two of my heros. let's give them a round of applause. [applause]

electrical engineering and computer science at mit, and he created a great course there called circuit, and then he put the course online a year and a half ago, and in the theory that once you've done that, you should be in charge offing in everybody put things online in charge of the online program that's one of the three major mukes, what is it? multiple -- what's the m? massive online courses, yes, thank you. dave is one of the co-founder -- is the co-founder along with mike feinberg. kip is thee best multiple charter school operator in the country. i know this very well being from new orleans when after the storm, we trieded to reinvent the school system, and how -- have and bring in competing

charter school operators. i think he had five early on and now up to ten, that is the way can should work to scale success. i'll start with you, if i may, and tell me how you think online courses transform education. >> if you look around the world, we see two big issues. withdrawn is education as the main stagnant for 500 years. the last biggest movement in education was the textbook that came after the printing press, but after that, what do we have? the single biggest is sliding back boards, but that's about it. you know, we have not had much in the way of innovation. quality has not changed, and the second thing is access has been a problem. i saw the picture, and it's a teacher conducting a class under a as a --

culvert with students running around, and the side was the black board. the real problem with access to high quality education for students around the world, and i think what massive online courses and online learning in general can do is one dramatically improve the quality of education, and, second, it can dramatically increase access to education as well all in one fell swoop. i think there's a real opportunity for our office here. >> do you have to blend it into a classroom model so that there's the on-site campus teaching? >> so there's two ways of doing it. one is a moc, massive online course, anybody in the world takes it, and it's completely online, and students tell us that's already very good quality. what they do on campuses 1 we can do one better. we can do what's called bleepedded learning. also called a flipped classroom where students watch videos and interactive exercises and online

virtual labs in their own dorm rooms and come to class and have in-person instruction, collaborate with each other and do in-person labs. the blended model is very successful. for example, they offered the blended class at san jose state ivat san jose state university in the silicon valley last fall, and the results were very encouraging where traditionally it was a circut course on campus, a 41% dropout rate, and with the blenned class, the results improved to just 9% dropout rate. these are preliminary results. it's not -- don't take it to the bank, but it's encouraging. >> a circuit school? >> a circuit school, right. >> i read this in the harvard clemson so it may or may not be true. san jose state last week, the

department professors refused to take michael sandell's course and refused to teach it in the classroom because they thought had would hurt them, and they made the english department try to teach it. do you see massive resistance like that in places like san jose state possible? >> so, you know, the way i look at it is these online courses are a new tool for instructors, and i think they provide great value to the learner, and i think we should keep our eye on students around the world and the quality of education, and so this new course, is the next generation textbook, and the book is out there. if you're an instructor somewhere or at a university or school somewhere, it's completely, you noaf, it's choice, it's your choice. you can use a textbook in your class. we do it all day long today or use a chapter or write your own textbook or not. it's up to you. you know, we don't ask the author, hey, you should not be writing a book. i think authors should write

books and people are free to use them in way any way they like. >> will it equalize san jose state or other community colleges with a harvard and berkeley, or do you think it widens the divide? >> i look at online learning as a rising tide that improves education for students in all universities, even for students that go to university. imagine there's a small university, since i'm from india, i'll take india, a small university, engineering colleges hire bachelor's degrees to teach courses because they don't have enough teachers. imagine you get the degree, and you don't get a great education in the universities, but imagine if they could license the course or online course from berkley, okay? of course, a service or

artificial intelligence and teach in the local campus so students have access to a great course. you tell me, does it bring the university and berkley closer together or further apart? if i was a student, you know, i grew up in a small town in india, and it was a small town of arabian sea where i grew up. if i have a chance to go to the neighborhood college to take a berkley class or go across the oceans to go to, you know, a university in the u.s., where do you think i'm going to go? you tell me. does it bring them closer together or further apart. you think about it. >> dave was among other things a teacher. a teacher of america corp. vista, and then started in the

south bronx before he even created the whole kip academy empire. as a teacher, how do you see these types of tools changing the classroom? >> yeah, thank you. hi, everybody. a lot of friends here. good to see everybody. so we're excited. i mean, i think the promise for teachers is that you now have the ability or you will have the ability to differentiate based on the needs of the kids you have and the challenge when you have 25-30 kids in the class is how do you meet their needs and online learning provides a road map for that solution in the hands of a great teacher, and i think where i see the promise is how it affects teachers entering

the profession so youssef mejri reteach everyone teaches five, ten, 15 years, but those starting to teach, the analogy of the textbook is 5 good one, a tool that they should be expected to figure out how to use well. >> and so how many of your teachers as you integrate the curriculum, one example everybody here would know, would take a video saying let me use that to ceo plain algebra opposed to teaching on the black board. >> today, we have 125 schools in over 41,000 kids and 2 # 1 stations in the district of columbia. we have about 3,000 teachers working across kip, elementary, middle, and high, and at each level, there's really different valet online. take the work that fell and others have done, it's really

throughout schools, teacher experiment and use material in different ways. go to virtually any of the middle schools, you'll see teachers using con academy with some group or collection of individuals, individual students. the chance which i think is hard for -- so if i, i mean, based on those coming to new york with the festival run by the atlantic, i assume it's people who like to learn pretty much in the audience here. for challenges like this, if i say how many folks in the room like to learn? how many people raise their hand? great. the vast majority is not like you. [laughter] i mean that for myself until the age of 18 #. the challenge for teachers is how do you reach and aspire everybody? rightoline,

and i signed up to teach a moc next year on teaching character in positive classrooms, but this is a better way of delivering content, and that works for folks like the audience who receive concept and make use of it. college graduation rates are 32% in demographic groups for a variety of reasons. there's issues of socioeconomics, but what they don't talk about is the actual mechanics of learning is fundamentally broken across all demographic groups, and until we deal with the mechanics of learning, what i think you see is that the online potential will better serve with all boats for folks who learn in that way. >> now, when you talk about that way, it's a content delivery system whether it's the teacher. the next wave is something that

amplify, a wireless generation, which i've been involved with, which is, i think, news corp.'s way of adding a new curriculum that has gains and role-playing games and assessment tools of the teacher. is this the next level that they might adopt? >> what amplify is doing and what everyone is trying to teach online and is trying to figure out how do you -- there's the mixture of guided practice and independent practice that is absolutely essential for learning, for everybody outside say 20-25% who assimilate content directly, and it's that interplay where they talk about game, role role plays, how do you use interactive technologies? i think not to take two clay shes and form a third which is risky, depends whether or not

science fiction is an accurate prediction of the future and whether or not you believe that spoke is the right vision and matrix is the right vision. if you believe in how spok learnedded if "store trek" or "matrix," you plug in your pod and learn. otherwise you believe in a guided interplay of practice. i believe in the interplain of guided independent practice, and i think that is the promise. >> as you create mocs, how do they involve to be guided and independent rather than lectures that are broken up and watch in 17-minute segments? >> so i think the way to think about this is that we create mocs, and these are complete courses. they start with videos, laboratories, assessments,

exams, the community's in it, and the end, there's a certificate. take a course from ut, and they get a certificate that they passed the course from ut austin. these are complete courses. now as a student learning from a textbook by themselves, so if i'm in some remote area of china, i can take a textbook and completely learn a subject from a textbook. however, if i went to a high school or university and i had a great teacher who would mentor agialong with that book i ime the learning experience is better because there's the imprint and in-person version. replace that today with on line with the person and just as an example, a number of high schools around the country have begun using the courses and other high schools, for example, in maschusetts have owed a

uents who offer a number of courses from berkley, harvard, mer campus with a number of students who have, you know, mastered wonderful ap courses, want a richer set of courses, and they don't have the teachers to teach the richer set of courses they take the courses. some have a mentor on-site, and some don't, but they get high school credit for the courses, and a number of high schools are talking about doing the same thing using what they can. >> our high schools have the same exact experience: it's the promise of what i talk about. it can significantly provide opportunities beyond the doors of any one particular school. >> and it can provide opportunities, but can it also exacerbate the divide between privileged and poor kids, and if so, how? >> well, i think on one hand there's the argument that it

will close the divide because it democracyizes acess. on the other hand, you could take the argument that it increases the divide because of who has access to use the tools and technology, and so i think there's a question there. >> you've seen it. >> yeah, i don't -- >> you have academies in new orleans, south bronx, whatever, some of those kid say they need more than just to struggle on their own to get out. >> combining many variables, but i think when you look at the kids we serve, not everybody -- while they talked about the digital divide, they don't anymore which is weird because not every one of our kids, in fact, the vast majority of our kids don't have individual computers or tablets at home, and so in in respect -- or even individual computers at school,

and so in this respect while the potential and potential is that it could affect, you know, in all corners of the world and in america, if you don't have materials to use it, there's issues there. i think schools like andover where there's one-on-one computers right now, you have an advantage over schools like ours where there's not. will everyone have one-on-one computers in the near future? you know, i think it would be great -- >> chance to have internet access at home -- >> i mean, almost everyone has internet access i'd think at this point. that, i think, is ubiquitous. whether it's reliable and the speed and whether or not it's available to them individually is a different story. >> you know, i think i agree with all that's been said, but i believe that with the right level of investments and the right policies, i think this can really narrow the gap between

the divide and really the reason i say that is for example, some talk about investing in creating universities, and to me, think ahead and invest in tablets and infrastructure in terms of interpret access, and that would be a much cheaper way to really access all of this content that's streaming down another you rather than creating more bricks and mortar structures with the right investment. this is happening. in india, for example, many people heard of the any tablet that's a $40 dollar tablet that the government invested in that's made available to kids all over the world. i think because of the new cop tent available as on line content, i would encourage nations and policymakers to say

what should we invest in? i think invest in infrastructure, bricks and bites infrastructure. that enables people to access content, and that's the matter of the divide. >> and i agree with the investment in having policies that will get tablets and computers in the hands of as many kids as possible. i'm still not ready to -- i'm still not at the point where i've seen the software exist that convinces me for the vast majority of learners great teachers are not necessary in some type of an environments. i would want great teachers with tablets. >> can you define what a great teacher is? >> absolute -- well, it redefines what they do and the tools they have and redefines how you think about the space all together.

it doesn't exist yet. every science fiction movie presents a version where it's not necessary. we have not seen it yet. for the next generation, particularly for the kids we work with at kip, our country needs to make having a great principle in every school and a great teacher in every classroom as big a priority, if not more than having a tablet in everyone's hand. >> in fact, i believe that, you know, whether it's redefining teachers or not, i think one of the moc movements will do is bring in a lot more great people into the teaching profession. what on line technologies have done is brought education to the fore front of the public. in europe, i don't know if you listen to a pam on education? what's the last time you did that or saw the "new york times" and topups and bloggers writing about education learning? this is exciting, and when something is exciting, i think

great people come into the teaching profession. i think, you know, we get a lot more great teachers so i think whether the profession changes or not, i think we get more great teachers, and i literally do believe great teachers along with good content will improve the learning experience. >> and i mean, did the one -- the one caution with that is particularly in public schools, particularly in k-12, the great teaching experience depends, you know, there's this old slogan saying people don't leave jobs. they leave managers. this idea that we have to create communities of teachers with principles and prioritize that has to be coupled with any vision of how technology plays. i do think there's a k-12 version that's not fully yet united. >> i want to thank you all. this is an amazing time in the transformation of education partly because of the two of you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> learned a lot. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> they have a tremendous role, and the things martha gave george, but that going to camp every winter was huge, and he thought so. it was not just valley forge, but it was every winter of the eight long years of the revolutionary war, and she hated it. you know, it was dangerous. the roads were dangerous. she was a prime object of hostage taking. she was key to troop morale, and he felt that strongly, organized the other officers' wives, and they would have -- they would cook for the soldiers, sew, nurse for the soldiers, pray with the soldiers, put on great entertainment for the soldiers, and during the war, washington's genius was keeping the army together, washington would say he couldn't have done it without

martha, that she -- and he begged her to come to camp every year so that she could work with the -- and the troops adored her, lady washington is here. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, leslie stall, roberts, and yale university law and political science professor discuss first ladies tonight at nine eastern on c-span. a. up next, startups and how the business world is changing including former sports team owner along with the ceos of zip car and baiter works. this is 20 minutes.

>> hi, everyone. this is going to be a slightly different strategy of interviewing. this is going to be a little like speed dating or overlapping diagrams depending on how you like your metaphors. we'll talk to three wonderful innovators, and the way to do it, though, is i'll talk to one them alone and then bring up another one and kick this one off the stage and talk to the second one for a bit, and then we'll bring number three on, talk to them for awhile, kick number two off, and finish the discussion with number three. we'll be exhausted in 30 # minutes and ready for lunch, but it should be fun for everybody. anyway -- >> okay, let's go. john, let's go. >> clock's starting. i think the first question that i need to ask is what exactly is baiter works? is it a vc firm? an incubator? startup factory? what are you, exactly? >> so i think about beta works and what i'm trying to build is a media company for the century, and so we're a company, not a

fund. we do three things. we build stuff; right? from the ground up, we build stuff. we build companies. we run them and operate them, and second thing is we buy things. we made a bunch of acquisitions in our five-year history, that all pretty much of them are acquisitions; right? the biggest we've done is 5 # 00,000 -- 500,000 so small acquisitions working to do development, and third thing we do is invest, and we invest in 7 # countries over the five years we've been in existence, and beta works itself is a single company, but what i wanted to do is i'm entrepreneur, grown companies, built them up, and sold them. i wanted a platform to do that; right? there's ten people, and those people have incredible depths of experience in building companies.

we do it in a power fashion instead of one by one, we do them in parallels. >> name some of the companies people might be familiar with. i use at least three a day. >> yeah, so we certainly got on people's map in the early days because we were involved in initially as investor and helped run a company that's called surmise that twitter acquired and became their search end gin. we then built a company called bitly with short links on the interpret now, and short links are easier to navigate in the social world. we built an analytics company and a bunch of data companies. we then fast forward, you know, last year, we acquired dig, which was the big acquisition i mentioned before for half a million dollars, and dig was the high flier in the early years, a wonderful company, defines crowd source news, and maybe flew a little bit too high, got funded

too much, and came -- fell on hard times, and we saw this opportunity to acquire it and turn it around, so we bought it, and in sex weeks -- six weeks, we relaunched it. two weeks ago, we have instapaper, another reading service, and we build this sort of ecosystem around reading, cure ration, data, media that includes everything from newspaper to dig to bitly to other things that are coming. >> right. you have something like an interpret tool box in that the companies in whether it's to retweet, read longer pieces, or redistrict traffic to my site. how do you choose what company to invest and what to build? what's the most important variables from the qualities of the entrepreneur to the quality of the company. >> you know, we're first we're

idea people, and so we -- we're, you know, we don't -- a lot of people say, well, how do you come up with the ideas at betawork, we're users; right? first and foremost people who use all this stuff, and so then we say, you know, in the case of bitly, we said we wanted to use the, you know, at the time, this is five years ago, the -- four and a half years ago, the established, you also know something called tiny ul, a wonderful service, and it was not scaling. it was breaking all the time. met with gilby who had no interest to build something to scale. we built bitly, felt it was shorter, and we felt that the brand, you know, part of this is billing and a scale business. we're product people, first and foremost. the second thing is that, you know, we run betaworks like a studio, and so we have a whole

set of creative people who are building things all the time. i mean, we launched, last week, we launched our first game because we've become fascinated with engagement. you know, i'm generally fascinated with what actually -- what are the habits people form? how can we create something which people want to come back to every day and it becomes part of the lives and there's an emotional attachment to it, games, sort of high up that list, and so we launched this game, and we have been number two in the app store now, and we have about a million users on is and how fast engagement happen. >> you seem to be building things that you want, and one of the things that you want and a lot of people in the room also want is a replacement for google reader, which has been killed unceremony yowsly, and people are --

unceremony yowsly and people are upset about it. what are you doing to fill the void? >> we talked a bit about it, but google came out a little bit earlier than we expected, but we understood they would girl the probing, and it's very important. there's a lot of hype and news and lot of writers use it, and those who are real news, you know, people who follow tracks and news use it, and google had invested in it in the last few years, and, yes, google's presence in the market wipedded away competition because nobody funded as alternative. they were the de facto product in the space, but they were not funding or growing it, and so it's unfortunate that they're no longer -- that they are shutting it down, but i think it's actually in the long run will be a good thing because it makes the market more competitive. it was a little bit skewed and

nobody innovated in the space. innovation is needed there, so we jumped in to launch the google alternative to do before they shut google reader down. >> that's great. this is speed dating can we have scott come out? there he is. [applause] scott's company was acquired by avis, deal closed in march, and so he would like me to tell you he is looking for a job. [laughter] >> thank you. my wife thanks you. >> what unites you, i think, is you built things that are not just dissh they are truly popular. the people like to talk about them, and i want to ask, you know, with you, maybe you think about how you use the internet and fill in the hole, try to build this things that can supplement your reading experience with the internet. what variables did you look for in thinking about starting a car sharing company? you first.

>> the question is how do we do that? >> right. >> so what's going through your head when you read the internet thinking there's a part of the puzzle that is missing. i want to make it. >> yeah, so i see the end to that and the web we're building is a new emerging platform starting off in an e centric way, pages, met fers on reading, but you can write any page; right? there's a right aspect to it which i think was somewhat delayed and sort of in its evolution. coupled with that is with mobile and tablets, it's becoming a lot more personal, and it's becoming something that we are interacting with all the time, carrying with us, and it's gathering data about the movements, and what we do at betaworks is we have a process where we start here, build something, and then we say

rather than adding a new feature to something, we ask ourselves, can we make a distinct product? my belief is that, you know, what increasingly happened is that users, people, myself have a set of products that they use every day, and they want to move data between the products, want products to connect together in a light way so photos are not trapped in one product or annotations are not, like, locked in one box, and so what we try to do is create these -- this sort of loosely coupled ecosystem of products that people use every day. >> right. scott? >> so i've been in transportation for my life, started in boeing and then the startup world. the way zip car, and there's a whole emerging group of companies and transportation that are excited. the information data technology and the automobile, and look

what happens with that evolving. at the end of the rainbow is google's vision for driverless cars and other things coming ten years out and beyond that. zip car was the first stage of that. now we're seeing the growth growing extraordinarily quickly with companies like lift in san fransisco taking your vehicle and turn it into a car on your own. when we started the company at zip car in the first few years, we were 100% web driven. over the last three and a half, four years, we've gone from 98% of the interactions on the web to 7 o-plus permit of interactions on the app. we innovate the ourselves through the revolution. i think we're probably this interesting juncture in transportation that is probably as important as the model t.

there's so many things happening now, all the intersection of technology, car, and transportation broadly. >> that's great. i was supposed to kick you off, but it makes no sense for you to leave talking about internet companies. i'll invite the founding general partner of revolution growth and co-ceo of groupon. [applause] i'm calling an audible on the speed dating game. you know, at revolution growth, you guys invested in zip car -- >> i did okay with that; right? >> we're very happy. this you look at ideas that tap into the idea of the sharing economy, the idea that the internet's pulling down barriers letting people see what assets everybody has. they can share it rather than an ownership economy, it's a sharing economy. why was this the right moment for car sharing? why not the 70s or 80s for car

sharing? i'm going to follow up with you in a second. >> a lot of generational. the big win for zip car and flex car was actually changing how insurance worked allowing students to get rental cars, and it grew up with campuses and was a local phenomena, and what we've always looked at back from the aol days, acquired john's company, one of the first local commerce company called total new york, and john was my cto at aol was big segments of markets, not enabled technology creation to make money, but to find big categories to be transformed like automotive. you couldn't do zip car without mobile, without your iphone

starting the car, locating the car, and mapping, all applications we take for granted we were able to mash up and create a whole new category. >> we, i mean, and we talkedded about the technology impact how consumers interagent with the business, and it's not as sexy or interesting to people, but how we ran zip car was really a virtual company. we really are a technology company, a branding company, and lo gist ticks management company. we had low head cont, did not clean cars ourselves or jockey the cars around ourselves. we use a lot of third parties and people from task rabbit who are self-employed now to help do things with the business, and so our company was focusing on using technology in the back end as much as it was in the front end, and that, itself, like ted said, it was not possible untile had smart phones now. the fleet services run through smart phone apps just for fleet teams.

this is changing our business even as it grows. >> rick. >> sorry. >> go ahead. >> a general point. first is you could see how zip car and other businesses built by rev niewtion money and others had a completely, ripping out all of the infrastructure, industrial infrastructure, behind, how we used to do things, and the second thing is that data is making all octobers, physical objects connected so zip cars are not quite connected yet, but when you walk up to it, it's connected to you. one away is where we zip cars become connected. as the physical world is part of the network, we radically redefine how economics work.

>> there's never ban better time to be an entrepreneur because of that. >> yeah. >> john mentioned revolution money, which we sold through american express positioned originally as paypal meets mastercard, and rather than have to build a network, a private network, like we did at aol like all associations, we kept costs down and able to get scaled quickly, and it's a part of american express powering their prepaid card business and it's the fulcrum of an enterprise growth business which they just launched with walmart calmed blueberg aimed at an integrated program to get the unhappily banked online and not have to pay the high fees, and so great

acquisition and business, but all really empowered by the web and cloud. >> what i find interesting to add to ted's thought is if you look at who is adopting the technologies and business models first, it's l millennial generation. they are the earliest adopters, and it's a phenomenal shift in behavior. they are thinking very differently. this is the most under employed generation in many generations, so they are doing the math. they are very smart consumers, and they are not nearly as brand associated as their previous generations, and they are much more open minded to sharing business models, sharing tight business models, and access versus ownership is the montra whether it's address from rent the runway, a car from zip car, or using groupon, nay are happy to be together as a group and do something smart together. >> i mean, the coincidence of the spread of mobile technology and the recession i think created a hay day for the

sharing economy in the way that makes someone wonder whether the good times keep rolling. it makes sense for people who don't have money to buy a car to share a car making sense for young people who want a pedicure but can't afford the price to get from groupon. as we've seen from groupon's experience in the last two years and as we might see in the future, it's possible with a generation getting more and more money turn away from the sharing economy. it's a twin question, and, unfortunately, it's the last question as well. with groupon, in 20 # 11, we call this the fast et growing economy in 2011. it was a different story. take us through what happened, and whether macroeconomic conditions -- a min and 55 seconds, half of that because the other question's for sot, and if you talk about how you see positioning sip car in a growing economy. [laughter] >> sorry.

your speed date is over. >> yeah. >> i have to be circumspect. we have earnings tomorrow. [laughter] groupon, though, is a good proxy for young people that are living life in a mobile setting that's growing dramatically. i see a day where majority of the business is realtime generated through mobile devices, but it's also a global phenomena. it's not just a u.s. phenomena, in 700 cities, i think, around the world, and the business has morphed from being a daily deal business that's delivered via e-mail, though it's a strong business. we have 250 million names in our data base to being a cure rated commerce business where these deals exist out on the web, and we did 5 billion in top line

last year for the fours year of business, and so it is a phenomena. the goal now is just to manage it with more focus to make sure that we deliver on what the forecasts are. the company still is a strong operating company and proud of the benefits we deliver to both merchants and consumers. >> thanks. scott, the clock has 15 secs, but feel free to take, you know, two minutes. >> you have a question where do you think we're going with the business, and i really miss those earnings, ted. i can't wait for tomorrow. we think the same way we have been, listening to the consumer, pulling every day and week, what's the consumer looking for. from our business, they are looking for convenience, always are. we have a strong value proposition on both the convenience dimension and on how we save money for people.

we have to push out and put cars on airports as part of the avis budget group now, put cars in airports so if you travel, use our brand in the environment that feels like zip car does in cities. we're going to add flexibility to pick up and drop off and tell us with avis because of the low cost structure with them we'll continue to do and invest in technology. there's a new platform in the car in 12 months and be much more, you know, sort of live interaction with the customer. >> i say a lot of those two go around car sharing is like groupon. if you own a car in a city, it's not just the cost of the car and the maintenance issue but of the parking and the ?erns and it's a noneconomic value to an individual so if you can share the ownership in that car and have access to all of the cars and find it very conveniently,

it's just a very compelling consumer proposition which is why zip car was successful and grew so quickly. >> thank you, all. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow night, leaders from ups, goldman sachs, american express, and ford motors talk on a range of issue like the economy, immigration, and government regulations. we're also beginning to take your calls, comment, and your tweets to get your experiences working for a company or if you run your own business. that's tomorrow night at eight eastern over on c-span. with congress on break this week, every evening, we feature booktv interviews and discussions with nonfiction authors. tonight, a look at tdges and the internet. we begin at 8:35 eastern with

randy zuckerberg, the sister and former founder of mark zuckerberg. at 8:45, we discuss the link between the rise of digital networks and the economic recession and who owns the future. at 10:20, google on the new book "the new digital age," watch booktv in prime time beginning tonight at 8:35 eastern here on c-span2. >> making transition from journalism to books is exhilarating and completely overwhelming and frightening, but wonderful. >> why did you make that choice? >> i made that choice because -- well, i had long wanted to be working on a book just because the freedom it allow you to rial dive into a topic and lose yourself and go off on tangents, and have enough time to really explore it fully. >> sunday, taboo sciences,

living in space, the afterlife, and the human digestive system, best selling author, mary roach, takes calls, e-mails, facebook comments, and tweets on "inn depth" three hours live sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. >> this final discussion from may focused on women on wall street. hear from bank of america's former president of global wealth and investment management and a young salesperson -- entrepreneur who founded a personal finance website. this is 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> i'm the executive direct for audit quality, and we are thrilled to be supporting underwriter again of new york ideas. the caq is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that serves investors, auditors, and

the capital market. it is my distinct honor to introduce our next panel. the girls club, women in wall street. our panelists are qualified to talk about two issues near and dear to my heart. confidence in the capital market, advancing opportunities for women in positions of corporate leadership. women earn advanced degrees in the united states more than men do and roughly an equal number of men and women represent the work force, few women have earned positions of corporate leadership in the hallowed halls of wall street. facebook's coo's book "lean in" returned the issue of why this is to the front pages of the business section. sandberg and others claimed that to break down the glass ceiling, women have to advocate fiercely for their own advance. the next panelists have learned

this lesson as evidenced by their many career successes. sally, the former president of global wealth and investment management for bank of america is currently a commenter focusing on her passion of regulatory reform, analysis of big banks, and women in business. sally was the first president of global wealth and investment management at bank of america, a new division that was launched after bank of america's acquisition of merrill lynch. working in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, sally led the unit to 33.1 billion in federal governments in that -- profits in that position. she was ceo of citi global wealth investment management, ceo of citigroup, and chairman and ceo of stanford bernstein beginning the career as a research analyst covering

financial services, a role in which she was consistently named first in her field by institutional investor and called "the last honest analyst" by "fortune" magazine. we have the founder and ceo of learn vest launchedded in 2009 to provide tools to help women be more financially savvy. learnvest has since grown to offer financial planning advice to empower people everywhere, men and women, to take control of their personal finances. alexa is selected as young global leaders by the world economic forum featured as one of the coolest young salesperson nears by -- intern euros and named to the young women's learning class of 2011. we are lucky to hear from two women who truly are stars in the girls club. please welcome sally, alexa, and

moderator steve clemons, himself a star in the boys club. thank you. [applause] >> how's everybody doing? enjoying the day? it's only just beginning. alexa, come join me. boys club, girls club. you made 3.1 billion for the bank of america, and they fired you? >> you got it. [laughter] >> i think our chairman would be interested in talking to you. >> i was excited to hear myself described as a girl. it's been a while. >> you know, i didn't pick the headline, but in any case, we are hear to talk about a number of things. we have such an open arena to discuss. you know, women in finance, discuss things like cheryl sandberg's book going through

the sociology and the architecture of constraint for women today, and they ran the most read article in history by ann marine slaughter, why women can't have it all, and i've been in a room with her with 700 people where women walk up and cry and say it's their life story, and others say what a person disconnected from the real world because there's another group of people who says that, so, sally, why women can't have it all line do you see yourself? >> well, i sort of back up which is if there were one answer to success for women in business, we're not so dumb. we would have already all faulted. you know, we understand and see the research which is that nothing bad happens when women are in positions of poir. in fact, only good things happen be it in positions of power in countries or in businesses,

higher returns, better stockholder returns, lower volatility, more client focus, less risk, good things happen, and 10 the -- so the research is there. , the challenge -- >> why did that scare your ceos so much? >> keep that aside for the time being. [laughter] talk on a macor issue. we look for and have this amazing, robust energetic and emotional debate, but what we need to remember is that lots of definitions of success, particularly for women. a women, a definition of success is a ceo of a multinational, and the otherments a fulfilling clear to spend time with the kids, and for another, i want to start up a company. there's not one path or answer, and i think we have to -- smart, smart companies increasingly embrace the fact that there's not one answer, and really work

to not only move women through levelings -- levels of seniority that there's men and women who want flexibility and carve their own path. .. between regulation, international and what's happening here. i get the sense from just reading this that you keep talking about arenas that big bankers don't want to talk about, because it may be where they see profit or whatnot, the

regulars not looking. so i can understand why you make people to some degree nervous but is it these old boys networks that remain largely in place that to some degree are inhibiting a healthier banking and financial system lex so turn it around, are the false, or the bubbles, are the fragility in the system in part related to a kind of nepotism if you will between and? >> yet, so the way you've introduced the topic we could talk about this for hours and hours and days and days. what i would observed is that in my entire time in financial services i never heard a client call them up at. i never was anything we race and we will rip people off. i never was any meeting where anybody said this subprime thing, i've got to chile, we're going to writ ride this and let everybody crush. that never happened that i saw. what i did observe which i think it's unimportant in this context

is you have a lot of people who group together breathing the same air, talking the same way, thinking the same way, thinking assembly. >> you grew up with stephen colbert. >> i did, in fact. fun fact, he dated my cousin for you to my daughter recently matter and said what we do thinking to break up with stephen colbert? but that's a side point. >> and you help fund raise for sister. >> i did. back to is really important financial services point -- [laughter] which is my background is a research analyst and a business leader within the industry. one of the things as a research analyst you learn is \facts/fax can be very stubborn things and you need to look at them, excepting and speak the truth about them which i did when i was inside the bank and outside the banks but i think a real challenge that we have in the industry today is whether it's regulars or senior executives or the media. is sort of the same people having the same conversations. and somehow we are hoping will be a different outcome.

the regulation is very important that the most important of which is not the little detail of it but do the banks have enough capital? to the banks have enough capital? do you know that today we are looking for and guiding towards minimum of 3% equity of assets for some of the banks but let's call it on average 8%. been at the beginning of the 22nd, 20-30% and 102 to 50%? so what is the right amount of capital for these banks to have. to me that's the big picture important issue because accidents are going to happen and when accidents happen it's a lot easier to absorb them if you're the big capital cushion and if you have a very thin capital cushion. >> alexa von tobel is a real disrupt or come into their in this debate you quit harvard university and started a financial services company mostly for women, or would you call the 99% of the we of the 1%

superstar. your the 99% superstar as i understand it. >> she's a zero-point in terms of her talent. >> we been up all of you together and we have 100%. >> there you go. my personal story, graduate from harvard, went back to work at morgan stanley trading derivatives. i have lots of thoughts on that and then we'll backed harvard business school and ultimately launched learnvest which did actually is one of the very few places in the country can go to get subscription model i'm biased financial advice. you can sign-up for free and just a lot of our tools, or you can actually pay a small fee at a gym membership and get access to a certified financial planner who will scrub your finances and will help give you advice. i started it because i'd gone to these great schools and endeavored a single thing about personal finance, none of us in this room did. yet when i got six to 10 money decisions everyday.

i was passionate about preparing myself either wonderful education, despite working in finance knew nothing about personal financing and felt like it's a really big problem. as lehman brothers is going on in 2008 i was seeing the theme of unemployment and what is that? that means people having money problems. people overleveraging, credit cards and buy homes and as result of this is the right team. i dropped out of harvard business school, very scary to raise money for myself and partners and we are headquartered in new york working to make financial planning -- >> how may people in the network? >> our company just under about a default unemployed. we added for yesterday. >> how many people do you service? >> we're servicing hundreds of thousands of people. our customers are growing rapidly adding about 1,005,000 a day on the free site. so yeah, it's been a lot of work over the last four years but here to make financial planning consumable for the masses

because it's not rocket site. everything a person in the country to have a plan and not having a plan is a really bad financial plan. >> if you google sallie krawcheck and you go into her deep bass, you read that she was considered to be one of the most ruthless and honest and those in the business and that's essentially what propelled you, not really up the ladder. you were brought and in a very unusual way in the business based on the research and whatnot, and there are two questions. one is how do women make in this profession? the other is abroad financial literacy. one of the things if you look at large banking financial institutions, i look at it as the regulatory laxness or dereliction with a large banking, this kind of structural corruption. these are the big players. your are really coming up meeting a lot of people have financial letters to challenges and trying to do that. so races the fundamental question of achieving trust. not much to do with gender but if women are more trustable are you designing something that will look back and say wow,

learnvest was really amazing in terms of changing the game when it came to trusting that kind of information puts i think a lot of people don't trust what they hear and read after. >> i think it's simple, when you go to the doctor they should never get paid to give you shot to give the drug. you're supposed to go to dr. nagl to give you. the financial station be the exact same way. you should show up, selling annuities and taking out on the backend but nothing honest about it. so for me it's not men, it's not women. structurally our planners are set up. they make money just to give you advice. it should be like oil and water. the financial work over the last years, they make money. they make money to sell products to those people but as a result you don't learn about money and schools across the country. people are ill-equipped to walk into this conversation. that's why the trust barrier is so high because you know you don't know that much.

>> did you start your company because you didn't want to go through the ladder climbing bit in a large firm? sally, want to ask you because you didn't climb the ladder in these companies either. you came in as kind of a god from atlantis, right. >> goddess. >> god's. [laughter] >> go ahead, alexa spent husband said i wish i could take credit for being as bright acting out my great at age 24. it was not that way at all. i was extraordinary passionate about the problem is he and massacred it seemed like it wasn't a rocket science i did everything a person in the country should get access to trusted device where you're not selling anything. it's a simple as that, and the companies aren't rapidly and we have won lots of awards. something we're on a path to do something that is accessible i wake up every morning feeling like with a lot more to do so i didn't have the ousted figure out my whole career. i was just passionate about this

problem. >> sally, how do you feel about your advancement? not only was looking at other women and where to go in the financial sector. has neither one of your traditional in a way i think many guys go up the ladder inside a financial services fi firm. >> i can say with almost absolute certainty that if i had started, my first really big job was running smith barney and i can say with certainty if i started at the bottom as a trainee i never would've made it to the topic and it would've made it to the top, one, and this is sort of the old wall street is that the editing process, the question of many of the branch managers use was from the marine corps. and in order to then come join to make it in. women financial advisors tend to be very successful but more slowly than many financial advisers so the industry takes them out before their successful because they are forming these deep relationships. in order to be successful in the way the business works is to get

your first promotion. you go to be the number four manager in a big branch in new york or cincinnati, where ever. then you go to be the never one manager in a really small branch, the number one manager in a medium-sized branch. and so i'm sure there are lots of wonderful husband out there who would move six and seven and eight times like any number of wonderful wives here but my husband doesn't happen to be one of those. nor would my children frankly ever stand for the. because that path, let's call it state a state was not conducive to getting -- to be only woman at the top was a single woman who had made those types of sacrifices. the challenge of changing that is when are making billions of dollars we can only read great books about creative destruction and changing and keeping force but i'll tell you having run

larger coverage when are making a boatload of money, you know, you can put it off until next week. or the week after. and that's what i love while alex and i will not completely agree on financial advisors because i think there are a lot of enormously terrific ones on the intel industry into a fit hoosier standard so the whole industry is raised up and i'm hopeful that we'll see action out of our regulars for that. but i love seeing are these young women commentors have to be a break somewhere in the mid '30s where there's a sense of this entrepreneurialism and open environment and i really enjoyed in the past year spending time with alexa and her cohort of young women entrepreneurs. i've learned more in the past year from these guys and i learned when i spent a couple years i was at bank of america, really phenomenal what these young people and ladies are a

publishing. >> when you're sitting in a large bank, it's just enormous, part of, the theme of the conference is innovation and disruption. do you sense, and does the bank avoid to think that anything our is it essential to protecting assets question is see something like alexa doing, i assume as a blogger was having, bloggers, long, first their disregard, then ripped off and then bought by large media companies. to some degree is that essentially how large institutions in of a? >> actual question. i would put forth so that we can be controversial and have the discussion that most of the innovation that occurred at a large financial institutions through the past cycle, the institutional trading, insurance, were increased risk, not innovation, that was wrapped in complexity, that road the

volatility. and everybody thought look, it's innovation but its growth -- >> i bet that would fit really well and 140 characters. >> its growth. and then when have the downturn you realize you were way for of the risk, right? on the other hand for these banks what you've seen less of israel significant innovation on the consumer side. when i was at city and bankamerica watauga and think of a talk about the freaking atm, like you're kidding, right? it's been a while. part of it i can take because i was chief financial officer for the time at citi and you have people come with the investment plan and part of the issue was you could make money like that on an institution product, but if you are innovating on the consumer side, because of the concert of the industry it was a difficult to pull consumers from another bank so the returns on innovation on the consumer side were much, much, much, much

slower in coming. >> alexa, how do you see the innovation challenge? i hear you are on the way. not on the web, on iphones. can we go to the app store and get an apt? >> plain and simple, learnvest has made a free tool called our money center. we can link their accounts and you can see your entire financial life in one place. we made this a free tool but our average user on the weblogs in about 25 times a month on the mobile app, but to put -- about 2.4 times a day. it has almost a five star rating after hundreds of thousands of downloads so we are really proud of it. and then what is innovative for us if you need advice from your financial expert if you decide upgrade can go browse what's happening with human right then and there. you don't have to print out documents. one of the things we were focused on was, one huge mission to make financial planning, but too, love the financial plan that happen off-line in my mind

is very archaic. i say it respectfully but it is. you print out documents. he goes your plan. they charge $3000 for the year about an average. i don't know about you but i would not be willing to pay $3000 for a financial plan that seemed extra misty. it also turns it back and forth for months. so we simply said let's use a free tool, let the users organize their financial life and when they have questions, which they always will, you want to talk to an expert. let's make it seamless and it's affordable. it's more like two and 50-500 ou500hours a year as opposed to. for us we wake up every morning just trying to think about the consumer. we always call me, i'm consumer one. i create the product because i wish it existed for me. that's where my passion and my commitment life. a product team and taking and the innovation but if i didn't use it then we shouldn't build a frame house. so that's all we in the forest for the customer and on the side of the customer.

>> one thing that alexa has really focused in on which may not feel like an innovation but it is important, which is the keynote customer, the female investor. one of the industry publications, one of the industry rags as a column for the wealth management industry recently did a series of a piece on niche market for financial advisors. is anyone want to guess what one of those markets was? women. women. niche market, right? half of the population, 60% of college attendees, start new businesses at a greater rate than men. it's unbelievable. and actually what you hear from women who interact and engage with the traditional wealth managers is that while they may be in the meeting, typically is men talking to men and not into the woman. and that's part of the challenge is that patricia wealth management industry, merrill and

smith barney have about 16, 70% of their ustry, merrill and smith barney have about 16, 70% of their advisors as women. so it really is men with men. and they think they're getting the whole family but when the husband dies, and the guy dies first, right? that just happened. >> thank you for looking at me with concern. [laughter] >> the guy dies first, is that the woman typically does on average, does not keep her money with a financial advisor on average she's because she gets like she wasn't as the link is as you would've wanted. >> we have 42nd but let me ask you both very quickly, if the tilt was the other direction and you have many more women in the boardroom, many more ceos, just much more embedded to the system, with the financial performance, with a stake oversight society really different? would talk about if women ran the world, what would be different? just snapshot of how you would see that, alexa? >> i would say the best person, man, woman. i never saw myself as --

>> are using that to be politically correct? >> i never saw myself as a young entrepreneur. i saw myself as young onto but are working as hard as possible. i wanted to be the smartest and the best person. >> i'm going to end up i slightly disagree with you. i think it should be the best team. think about a basketball team, right, if all five members are raymond felton, jimmy black, kendall marshall, you know, i many point guards, right? they could be the best players but they won't be the best team. i don't know what would've happened if there had been more women or diverse individuals. research shows that more diverse teams not only outperformed by most metrics, teams, they outperform more capable teams. and so what i would say is that if we look at the research i think it stands that we would

have had a more prosperous economy. >> ladies and gentlemen, please thank alexis on double of learnvest and sallie krawcheck for a very informative session. i should simply add my colleague, we had the atlanta library in our group i think we have 25 women and one other guy. i think if there were 25 guys and one woman we would be a disaster. so thank you very much. [applause] >> with congress on the this week, we are featuring booktv interviews and discussion with nonfiction authors. tonight a look at technology and the internet beginning at 8:35 p.m. eastern.

>> watch booktv and primetime beginning tonight at 8:35 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> over on c-span3 watch american history tv in prime time this week. starting at eight eastern tonight a look at the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. after that a discussion on the influence of president kennedy's 1963 speeches about the cold war, including his remarks in west berlin. more presidential speeches from berlin with president reagan and president obama. american history tv tonight in prime time starting at eight eastern on c-span3. >> on c-span tonight we will show you what southwest airlines ceo has to say about air travel in this country. as he takes questions from an audience at the university of

denver. we will open up our phone lines to get your thoughts on the subject and ask you what advice you would give the federal government for improving air travel in the u.s. we asked the same question just outside washington, d.c. at ronald reagan national airport. >> well, i feel that we, a lot of us take for granted the opportunities that we have here. going to other countries, i see other people live and it's wonderful to be an american. wonderful. i love it. i wouldn't trade it for the world. so i mean, we need to sit back as americans and think, you know, everyday is not going to be great but it's better than a lot of other people in a lot of other countries. so i mean, when we sit back and write and complain about this and complain about that, we should all just sit back and think and see what we do have.

we are not where we at but we are better off than we could be. so that's my being an american. >> i think it means that we all have initial understanding that freedom and liberty leads to great success and that's the reason our nation has been so successful and will continue to be. >> well, i was born your and raised in new york, so i always had a lot of american pride. and most of because my parents came from india and it didn't have much am and they came to me because they thought it was the greatest place for opportuniti opportunities. and i just graduated medical school so they just see it as a place where they can come from nothing and bring it up to something. and i think that's what everyone wants to do in american is a place of opportunity and a place where you really can make your dreams come true. i guess that sounds a little bit cliché, but i guess that's the main thing that i'm proud to be

american because my parents, they felt that it was better to be in america. i really think that it really is. >> we will get your thoughts on the same question tonight following remarks from southwest airlines ceo gary kelly. it all starts at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> last week the u.s. institute of peace hosted a panel focusing on empowered afghan youth. business included several members of the group afghanistan 1400. a grassroots group working on ways to involve the next generation of afghans as the u.s. prepares to pull back its presence in the country. this is 90 minutes. >> i'm the director of afghanistan and pakistan pro rams here at the u.s. institute of peace. i would like to thank all of you for coming. i would like to particularly thank our panelists for comedy

and a special thanks to the open society foundation and rachel reid in particular for helping organize this event with usip and for being responsible for bring at least two of our panelists to the u.s. to participate in this event. there's lots of doom and gloom stories about afghanistan in the press today. and i think while there is indeed lots to be concerned about, it's very important to also recognize the tremendous gains that have been achieved in afghanistan in the past decade. and i think a lot of those gains have been achieved by the next generation in afghanistan, and i think it is incumbent upon all of us are interested and concerned about afghanistan to do our utmost to see what we can do to preserve those gains. and i think that's what it's there important to have representatives of that next generation with this year in washington. i think to talk about some of their concerns, some other hopes for the future and what they

think needs to be done both by afghans as well as the internatiinternati onal community to help again protect some of the games and, indeed, promote those during the coming years. while there's much to be hopeful about, it is of course many challenges. i think facing the next generation afghanistan, and i think we must acknowledge those. afghanistan to save an incredible youth bulge. an estimated 60% of the population of afghanistan is today under the age of 25. and that poses tremendous challenges in terms of provision of education, in terms of provision of health care, or vision of employment opportunities. and i think especially as afghanistan is going through, going through quite a transition during the coming years, including an economic transition to i think the employment challenges for this new generation, how to find gainful employment for them is going to

be again one of the key challenges that i think we might hear a bit more about that today. education is going to also be critical to against losses been achieved in the past decade. i used to be to save the children drug in afghanistan back in the '90s, and i think when you about all that pessimism and afghanistan i think it's important to remind us where we were 15 years ago, even 12 years ago in afghanistan. they very difficult circumstances. very incredible challenges in terms of educating both boys and girls in the context, what's been achieved in the past decade. however, what they were also need to remind ourselves education can be a force for positive stability. it can also be disruptive, and i think we need to only go back to the '60s and '70s and remember, look at kabul university which proved to be quite an effective incubator for radical politics on the left and right which contributed significantly to the next three decades of conflict in

afghanistan. in that regard i think it's quite disturbing that it's not in a i studied in depth but what report you often do here say, for example, kabul university politics is that ethnic politics are a major force in terms of the politics there today. so again how can we make education a force for peace and afghanistan rather than a force for conflict? not -- lots of generational contention i think the power has continued to mobilize by the older generation. so how bad is going to be worked out in the coming years including possibly in the next election cycle i think will be quite interesting to see. afghanistan also faces lots of tremendous urban and rural divide which has also been a source for conflict in the past but i think that's a divide that also the new generation is also going to have to contend with and deal with and i'm hoping we

might be up here a bit more about that today. also changing gender relations. i think this is an area where i think it's understated, but what is the impact o of the king occasions and the revolution in afghanistan on gender relations? many more women out in the public workforce working and the private sector, the public sector, the nonprofit sector. but also the ability for boys and girls and young men and women to communicate through the internet, through phone, through socially, to extent never before seen in afghanistan but it's going to be the impact on that on social relations and gender relations in afghanistan. i could go on. lots of interesting things. is a faceted topic but i'll turneturnover to our panelists y the experts on this topic and i'll turn it over to rachel reid will be moderating discussion. rachel is director of the original policregional policy in afghanistan and pakistan at the open society foundation, brings lots of expertise is up on afghanistan. prior to being with osf she was

an analyst at human rights watch in afghanistan for several years, and prior to that had a career in journalism, in particular at the bbc which is also covering afghanistan. so with that i would turn over to you, rachel. >> take you very much and thanks to usip for hosting us today and thanks to our panelists for joining us today. very important discussion. i first went to afghanistan for the bbc and i lobbied long and hard to try to go to report something other than the conflict. seven years later i'm still trying to do the same thing really also added to conflict with also got corruption and some stories often about horror stories about women victims. as andrew was saying, this lens is distorting not just in the media but also policymakers here in d.c. because they are missing half the country really and that's what our panelists here are representing. so it's great will be able to hear from them. both in terms of their vision to

the future and also how they think they can tackle some of the challenges which andrew has alluded to. one of the most positive signs, one of the most encouraging things i've seen in the last couple of years has been the emergence of these new several, political movements. we have one purpose and here today, afghanistan 1400. 1400 is the afghan millennium. they have a different calendar year. so they're thinking more long-term. i would also recognize another movement called a three, afghanistan and house and what is but there are many more. we will touch on some of the other youth activism that we are seeing. but we will start with 1400. shaharzad akbar to my left, i won't tell you which got them but just to say that shaharzad as impressive and as you'll see. meeting this or decision she and others have set up a business, consulting firm there and they

have been going to storm the hill here in d.c. so it's great to hear from shaharzad. we'll start with her and move on to haseeb humayoon. them a player from hossai wardak many of you would have seen you before. she's been with usip for a few months as a senior analyst. i also know from my work in kabul as a leading activist in civil society. and finally maiwand rahyab, the deputy director for afghanistan, a counterpart international who has been doing work with youth initiative. so we'll get a full picture of the diversity of youth and some other aims and aspirations. but i'll start by turning over to shaharzad. >> thank you for a very generous introduction. good morning, everyone. i'm very honored to be here. i will start speaking about afghanistan 1400 because i think not only because i represent 49 but also i think it tells us something white trash nation in

afghan society of what future michael. afghanistan 1400, rachel stole my like of its 1400 refers to the new millennium force. the reason we choose to include 1400 in our name is that generally politics in afghanistan is either focused on past, on an ongoing blame game of who did what, when, why. or -- we want to revisit the future of afghanistan talk about the vision beyond 2014, beyond the western calendars, a vision for a democratic afghanistan. so that's why we chose the name. where we started? i think the beginning of 1400 the idea has been around for more than two years. the first meetings happened because of the realization that there is in the past and afghans have come of age. they have a different vision about -- were willing to work

with past their differences for a shared future. they have strong political bias, democratic values, that they can't see and their current political actress. they can't relate to them. there has to be a platform to mobilize that energy and to mobilize that provision. and 1400 is aiming to become the platform. we have our political centers are all come with the recognition of the transformation that is happening in afghanistan with an emphasis on democracy, with gender equality and the other guys we think that the new afghanistan differences. we have done -- i want to highlight one or two examples to give you a sense of what we do. one of the first activities that we did even before going public and we went public on

december 6, 2012. even before going public one of the first things we did was publishing a series of posters and putting up billboards, shaping our security forces. we want to bring -- we think for our future and for our present, our security forces play a very important tool in building the compass but there was an incident in kabul, and a member of special forces, there is a picture of him while fighting, has leg bleeding but he was continuing to fight. we took that photo and we publish it and posted poses runtime, put up billboards and started this culture of promoting our security forces. most recent activities was a visit to the province where there was a so to attack and west afghanistan a deadly attack, more than 50 killed. the whole town was impacts by

that. it was a very tragic event, and for u.n. troops to follow to offer sympathy to the families but also and more important to send a message of defiance and strength. to say that this will not go. afghanistan has changed and the taliban would've any impact in afghanistan, the have to accept the constitution. otherwise they can't be part of society and they will be treated like enemies. also, in their we give blood which was a symbol about as giving blood for the taliban, in the meantime we decided to focus on the issues we think are important, present and future of afghanistan. our top issue has been the political transition. as you might know, we have the council elections are coming. elections will happen on fifth of february, 2014. that's a national party for a

stripper booth as we have a smooth political transition of power for the first time from one political leader to another that we will continue on a stable path to continue the democratic path that disrupted 11, 12 years ago. the work we do inside afghanistan, we focused on keeping attention on election, falling with preparations for elections, on and pushing people to participate because we think that's the main legitimacy of elections, particularly the urban population and youth of afghanistan. we been up raising attention about technical preparations pushing the government to make it happen. also here on this trip the u.s. has literally called on u.s. congress, on needed, on public to pay more attention to clinical division but, in fact, make it a priority and not

expected from that by other, but other -- we don't see them having a key impact at election for future. so i will end it here. >> thanks very much, shaharzad. haseeb? >> thank you, richard. thank you, andrew. and it's great to be. sometimes when i was young i sat on inside listening to people. great having one of my former bosses here, dr. weinbaum in the audience. of the very brief. we met here in the past three or four days and meeting people with specific set of messages. our condition back home was we are based on and what we've brought it is that the afghanistan has transformed and both our leaders at home as well as allies in the u.s. or elsewhere need to start adopting and to set of prospects towards the country.

that's because the increasingly concerned, prescriptions for the future of afghans that are most debate on a set of assumptions that are old and invalid on the ground. many of you, i see very someone with afghanistan, transformations of the past 10 years but if you look at it from a demographic shift to the fact that technology, connectivity in general, all these factors play into a new set of aspirations that have developed and people positioning both their own lives as well as what they expect to happen to them, to the films in the future much differently than what it used to be in 2001. quickly, just and then go to for you. on that package coming 2000 once the timber 10, 2001, the whole city of kabul had only two working phone lines. we had to line up in the morning kind of phone lines to get access to a three minute call

somewhere. today are looking at a population that has 20 million cell phone subscribers in many of them connected to 3g internet, gps and that is impacting both connectivity, exposure to new things and what people aspire for both themselves and for the country as a whole. and why this is relevant to discussions around afghanistan today, a particular around the law is we sense that afghanistan is 140 1400 the larger publishig that much of what the world is trying to offer as unisys forces withdraw are based on assumptions that are fairly old. who the taliban are, what they represent. our senses particularly in the past three years there's been a major conflict pushback against any attack that they've had or anything at any claims they have ever made, any geography or any

portion of the afghan population. as we look at, i'm sure everyone is my with what happened in doha, but in kabul what doha signified to many of us was the legitimization of care. at the risk of legitimizing terror that for many of us in particular the way it was managed, the messages that came out of their from the taliban as was the reactions out of washington, took us back to 2001, to the time i think everyone is my with a tear of the taliban and with the used to represent, it doesn't have a cell in afghanistan anymore. it was a widespread public reaction from political actors, the government but also civil society. all around one particular message. that the return of the taliban, even if they themselves claim they have the capability,

essentially is a fence for them. but also one concern that emerge around that time was we working in the march 14 and in those which keep the focus on our political transition. president karzai said to finish his term about 10 months from now, 10, 12 months, and what we believe that the new government coming with the pressure set up, energy as well as new mandates, can answer a lot of the concerns about corruption or about the challenges that the youth bus presents to the country. some of the challenges are increasingly starting to normalize. employment, access activities for the i think it's a question that many other countries are grappling with as well. so with that our message is simple. please don't let distractions emerge between now and april,

2014. and let's remain focused on this constitutional test, making sure that both, will return to do is mobilize people for greater participation so that the government has been needed legitimacy and the need of mandate to move on our challenges. but outside what we're trying to say is, in particular in u.s., what we learned is that i leveraged diplomatic, -- increase in the short. spreading that allow multiple actions doesn't promise at put on any. and at this stage i think we are trying to get both the u.s. and own forces and has focused on election on transition and broadly on creating that needed stability in terms of the constitution orders to build also around our city forces, support for them be in the form of bilateral security agreement and during commitment from the of so as we move forward the on 2014 show the taliban or anybody else like to come accept a

constitution, lay down the weapon, there is nothing borrowing them. again, are forced to cancel andover, we operate with the conviction that the constitutional order established since 2004 is very inclusive and brought. it doesn't our anybody from participationrather, they need those preconditions. thank you. >> thank you, haseeb. 's overdue hossai. hossai, clarity of thought creating the their own platforms, is it possible for them to get their voices heard? >> thank you. good morning, everyone. well, i keep on actually telling friends that he wanted the rest of the town to speak and i will try to chip in. but i was very, what we encountered in the past 20 plus, and tyear

of my life and afghanistan's. there is no doubt actually the kind of conditions and opportunity are given to the afghan youth and his imagination have never been there before. something wit a the shortcomings and weaknesses that we see in today's administration and theafghistan. one of this government was the opportunities for the afghan youth were enormous. they have been working at different levels. one thing i would like to start with, just for very few seconds, i would just like to give you a scenario. think of me as someone who's actually going to university, a sole breadwinner of the family. i have no one else to support me here. i have to study, at the same time i to go and help my family. for me at this point where i

don't have money to pay for the rent to give me, to give me to this university, what is more important for me? do i have to continue my education? to have to look after my family? or to have to join groups who are actually working for the development of the country? i would love to do all but i simply don't have time to participate into these groups. all i need at this point of time is i don't want to see any member of my family dying because there's nothing to care for them on the table. what is really important here is that they use have come a long way, no doubt about that. we have movements that they're working for their political participation, yes, we have to think of several issues which use are facing beyond call and that the prevention level. if we look at actually the data

saying that more than safety 5% of afghan population is actually used, it's true. tomorrow our fate is going to be decided by the youth. they are the ones who are actually taking charge and responsibility for the leadership of this country. however, majority of these youth are still having enormous issues when it comes to economic development and when it comes to actually suffering and feeding their own families. unemployment rate among youth is 35%. that's not a very small figure. weakens a 35%, yes, 35%, so what? or us normally generally we are in the mind if we did 50% and that's a big number or any one of her but when we said anything less than that then okay, that's fine. but if you actually put that in numbers. last year, out of 37,000 high

school graduates go 60,000 high school graduates only 27-37,000 could make it to universities. what about the rest of 37? they don't have a job. they cannot even get admission to invocation and training centers or universities. they said they don't have income to the into the private university. these are the issues that actually we can never close our eyes on and we had to do something that connects us, to the prevention level. what is the impression of you that the provincial level from us were sitting in kabul? i wouldn't call myself use, talk about the issues of their in palma, youth empowerment and all that. when you first go to them, the very first thing they will say to each other is, there you go. now we have to learn rapid rule appraisal from this urban nitwits. and excuse me for by think which. what it really is required is is

that you that how can we empower them. there are all different groups working. however, there's nothing called a nationwide advocacy, and involving all the youth on the ground. what we can actually to reach those who do not even have a job, it is me if it into a group of us into it. but we will never be the athletes hoping to get a job. it doesn't are a big chunk of resources. i've been part of youth group when refugees living in pakistan. we didn't have salaries to do that. we didn't actually come we were just shooting from the very small amount of income working as a part-time english language teachers, computer instructors, and even sometimes literacy features. that was enough to bring the forces together. and i have to say that at the issue of economic opportunities and deployment is not provided

to youth. no matter how much we're going to say that we're working for this country, they would only work for those who can actually pay the money. and if those happen to be the insurgent groups, i think everybody knows what's going to happen on that end. with that, i'd like to stop, i hope i don't sound extremely negative. but these are the realities on the ground that we cannot close our eyes as everything is beautiful and everything is happening. no, that's not true. that our people that are needed to their people, thousands of schools are closed because the insurgency, the prevention level, what they need at that point in time? they want to continue their education. so these are the issues and the fact that we cannot deny to any think beside involving the current political profits of afghanistan i think it's extreme important that we have to help them and get opportunities that has to be needed in terms of continuing their education,

employment at the same as actually raising the skills but it doesn't mean, i'm probably making a very controversial statement get from the very green years of experience i had in afghanistan, and that travels around the country, one of the real interesting used to i must say that my fellow colleagues on the pelican disagree to the, that i found you at the prevention of a much more brighter and in former. >> great. and i think that doesn't mean that because they cannot speak english lord, they cannot come to be in panels like this. that we going about it. but all they need action is jobs. to feed their families and then only will they be able to continue and to work for this government, and for this country and of -- and at the end. >> right. very important issues will get back to in question. professor? >> thank you, rachel. good morning, everyone. just want to clarify when we work for counter national today

i'm speaking of my capacity as a activist i'm not a feminist of afghanistan 1400. i think of course i really touched on important issues and also share that from numbers that are worrisome but the reality is afghanistan. but in the meantime i think what's happening in afghanistan, there's this growing sense of responsibility among afghans, afghans in general, particularly the younger generation. today, when i come in kabul when i see young women working full-time during the day and then hanged himself in university in the evening. i get hopeful. when i was a student, i wasn't a student under taliban. there was no single girl allowed even go to primary school. so that's a change.

around 8 million children did not go to school today. if you compare that with 10 years ago, it was 100,000. so instead it's a matter of remarkable achievement. of course, i don't want to -- the challenges are still there. in the meantime what we see now is that afghans as particularly the new generation, is trying to take charge. trying to be responsible for the country and they don't want to wait for others to rebuild the country, and they would like to take charge, be responsible and they're taking action. the afghan new generation today is tying their presence and their future to the country. they think if don't, if you don't work, then there's no future but i think that's a very popular find. we were in cairo just don't want to talk about the young afghans

being more smarter than kabul, and we agree. we went to five province a few months ago and we were really, really inspired when it was just days outside and we went there and met a group of around 80 people. despite all of the problems and their faith for the future, their sense of responsibility and inspired by kabul. so that's a generational change. that's a transformation that we are seeing in afghanistan unfolding today. i think we need to build on that, we need to support it and we need to have this, a better realistic/optimistic view that the next generation is today thinking and acting beyond sort of the ethnic lines, and you're looking at ethnicity as a source

of strength and a source of richness. and trying to build on that. also, i was speaking two days ago in washington here on civil society. and my co-panelists was talking about how afghan civil society lacks vision, you know, there are challenges and doughnut dependent. they are not organic. but just an example i want to share with you i said the carefully, you know, we are just this week preparing for a meeting in kabul, and just two days ago or three days ago one of the key afghan civil society were stationed that is surrounded by, lead and run by new generation, vendor people. we don't want to attend this event and we don't want to attend any event that is funded or supported by the american government because they

officially recognize what they started due process and the meeting with taliban and they say we would like to buy u.s. government but they are negotiating with the taliban, 10, 15 years. to me, that speaks such information of afghanistan. as civil society that once was the pendulum of doing something that once was making sure all of this campaigns to be the dumbest to make sure the donuts are giving them the money today. they would like to say against the particular don't as a we have a loud -- you are talking to the taliban. that shows a change in afghanistan. also, we are starting a program called imagine leaders. we're working with young people

of afghanistan to empower them so that they can take a leadership of afghanistan society in the future. i was so inspired when one of the speakers went up there. the members of the program saying, you know, five you to go or 10 years ago leadership and supreme leader was defined by ethnicity base, i how much money you have, how much -- today is defined by how much you can serve, by what you believe. so that's a chain that's unfolding in afghanistan, and a new generation is leading this change. also, just my last point. i know rachel is looking at me. how we see a new afghanistan what comes to civil society. that's sort of traditional

society organizations, we are seeing the emergence of the civic movement is considered afghanistan -- [inaudible] there's a lot of other civil society movements that's been established in afghanistan. predominately by afghan youth but they don't we organize by our decision. they don't want to get funding. they want to mobilize the new generation. unite them, so that they can become a conventional constituency to turn back afghan and international policies in afghanistan. thank you. >> thank you very much, maiwand. thanks to all of the panels. there's lots of well-informed people in the. i had one quick question. you can talk about trying to mobilize youth. your basic a volunteer or position in 1400, many of these are volunteer. there's another side to mobilization of use in afghanistan. which is, fund, organize.

we're talking about groups. can you speak to that and what their level of influence is with young people? >> absolutely. and i want to thank the kabul university insinuates people of afghanistan there's always a perception that oftentimes at least there's that implication that rutan's impact urban settings and also the future of the country. but if you look deeper in the past 30 to 40 years in particular, kabul university has served as what andrew rightly called that integrate of conflict as well as instigator of mobilization. we're something that happened today but just a limited to kabul university come universities around the country in particular, public universities but also some private universities. that trend needs to be recognize that we now have over 70 private universities established in the country. quality is questionable but they are catering to the number of people who don't get absorbed by

the state public universities. that trend of radicalization, there's, we have the taliban on this deal radical and using tear as their tool. but in the past 10 years under the protection offered by the constitution, the freedom of expression, the outlets in the country from media to online activism, there's some new groups emerging that much more equipped, a great deal there and complete the that the in house mobilize on how to attract the younger generation. ..

below the age of 25 more. what i have seen, 70% below the age of 20. median age being 17.

at the state's chickens ditch the -- constituency of different ideas, different sets of mobilization. 1400 is one. there are many others who are out there trying to us in advance far more radical causes. >> thank you. i see several people with their hand up. at the back. >> thank you very much. i wanted to ask a question about elections. one of the things that i have heard and observed over time is that you have a strong desire for democracy and hope in elections as a source of change. at the same time they have a disdain for politics and, you know, a certain, you know, lack of trust and a lot of the current politicians. so there is a paradox there in wanting democracy but not wanting to necessarily engage in what is the heart of the democratic process.

i'm wondering, you know, how to the -- how different groups and you advise that use translate their desire for more progressive afghanistan into actual political power. is that by writing this candid it? is that by gathering roadblocks they can persuade existing politicians? how did you see them overcoming the obstacles for good ideas with the people that are actually responsible for implementing them? >> yes. we have that challenge, particularly for the upcoming elections. we hope that in people, candid it's of the provincial council elections. 1400 itself, can this from different parts of the country depending on our influence there. the people that we want to support. taking part in that. the biggest question, in that

the election, i think what we have been trying to do on our part is to say let's not hold for personalities of people. let's have a few agenda items. let's ask people, what are you specifically doing for youth for the new generation? let's ask. we're trying to kind of get our politicians used to being accountable and have something more is said and ethnic issues. so asking them that you want to abandon the peace process, you know, how do we see the integration. does it agree that we have in mind? in now, the other agenda, women's issues, transition, it's a particularly different -- difficult time. we know some of the gains we have made fun of the integration because as international

attention would drop some of the radical elements, they become bolder. so what does this mean for minorities, youth, the new generation? this, that teams that compete have the most impact on the features next year. so that's why we strive to do that. on the one hand the main gate political actors and challenge them on an agenda and a person to come out with agendas. on the other hand, telling people there are no perfect choice. let's stay and watch and see who will have better agendas. >> just as supplemental. as someone who was actually reading the biographies and editing the biographies, one of the questions was that what you promised to your constituencies. trust me, it was a shopping list .

long, great things. one thing that everybody mentioned above the one, i'm going to make them. what we are witnessing is very losing a wonderful. so only accident challenging candid members of the provincial council, those who will be, that's not enough. what happens assembly promises to do something for you and your she doesn't, we're upset. we talk about that person. we don't have anything to talk about. we're going to question the candidates. neither heard from the civil society nor from one of the youth groups to come and step forward. the monitoring aspects from the terms of reference from the provincial council members.

now, with provincial council members does is collect your voice. if they are not able to monitor the government service delivery, we don't have to even have an in the first place. but nobody even talks about that. at think when it comes to elections it's only important that you connect the election. the individual, the ethnic groups and all that. personalities. you actually connected to the service delivery. we should also actually tell people the mechanism that they have in place to question the candid it's if they do not deliver on the promises. thank you. >> two things. i think we need to prioritize. today the fact that the elections have to happen is a priority. how much people engage in it. the key message that we have today, when he to make sure that elections happen and there is no

other alternative. it was the only thing that should happen in afghanistan. it must happen. and the other thing, i think, which is important. a lot of -- on like the previous election, a lot of discussion about this. and nowadays you look at some seven nights, the panels and discussion and debate. someone discussion amongst political groups. active in trying to us modify and improve the election law. the political parties have an election almost every day. i think that's a good start. i think the fact we're talking about it and they're looking at the solution to a stable

democracy in afghanistan, we encourage the discussion. for that we need afghans in the new generation playing their part. the international community, particularly the american government to also pushed and support the afghan government and make sure that the election will happen. >> thank you. a question, back left. who had their hands up earlier? this tournament. -- this gentleman. >> you talk about -- in particular, my focus was education. the literacy rate somewhere between four and 8 percent for women. it's so small that it's not

accountable. basically the southeast. and in talking to other rural provinces, it's fairly similar. there is very little that is being done. there has been very little from us. i see that in particular 70%, 72 percent back. and i wonder if what's going on now is going to make it worth is going to be to afghanistan's, overall, ethnic, and unskilled area. a more educated urban stabilized

area. i wanted to -- i didn't hear any kind of remark on that. >> you're raising some very key questions. i will take them one at the time the numbers in terms of literacy and others, one thing we recognize as we operate without assumption. we have a lost generation. so the question of literacy and the question of people's perceptions, generational in many ways. thirty years of war but one particular generation did not have access to the institutions. they play into the numbers as to what literacy rate. sure to look good numbers, the literacy rate of people who've come of age in the past 12 years and particularly if you're looking at the demographic, use the higher numbers. but all across, the access to

education. none of us here to deny that. in terms of the differences we travel a lot. we operate with greater connectivity the people and not her denarius. political actors in general. we don't sense this reticulation that often happens in washington they're is a major divide between the urban and non durbin. from 35 miles of asphalt the 7,005 miles today means greater connectivity between population centers, rich areas, and non and settings. media, access to radio, television, all of them. i think that capital wants to be between isolated communities living in non urban settings and

various city says, that gap is very much shrinking. now, we do recognize that the challenge ahead, the trends that are mostly emerging in the cities and urban areas, the recognition that they are the population centers with much higher than any particular juror feel the country. how did these trends get further into the non urban areas? and the whole idea of looking at afghanistan along those lines, the two constituencies or demographics, it doesn't translate. >> very briefly actually. i see your point. if we do not really plan wisely at this point we will face the situation. and now word that the international community's, orbitz essentially we would lose this generation because they're upset, disappointed, and because

the government and even us, we are not able to provide them with services which their every second is the issue of the budget. let's look at the afghanistan budget in general. it's mostly, we would see even 99 percent funded by the donors. if resources are shrinking and we're saying we're connected, have technology, media's good. these are all wonderful. but for me at the only means of income is going to be paying me at the end. i think the answer is quite obvious. >> thanks. i have three -- five questions waiting. back to your second, incentive to those who did not conceded in there and then give a couple back questions. the not come to the other questions. so all the panelists, on the future of afghanistan while unifying vision can make all

afghans transcend their ethnic religious backgrounds by gender differences in working toward attaining an afghan future. is there a national identity? and one more, putting up on something. afghan use active assessed what can be a comprehensive acceptable solution to end the war in afghanistan. an important question. and when our position is expressed, to somebody who wants to take the afghan national identity questions which the questions really. national identity. a think what we have been trying to do, outside that cultural circle and among the educated

population, there is a disenchantment with mobilizing as well as mobilizing, political islam. that will pay off either. there is recognition that whether we like each other not, we have to live in this geographic area and reminders will make it work. that is our focus, the focus of many people who've come to this recognition and recognize that although we may not like some people, may not like the way they speaker dress another part of afghanistan. we have a chance that will impact all of us. more radical elements. all over afghanistan. and people will be influenced by that. some of the things that happen toha

of afghanistan can associate with the retreating some images that all afghans can associate with. one of the things that we see and been made in the past ten years. a national achievement. we considered the people. rejecting the initiatives. when taking the opporunity. something that wasn't imaginable a generation ago. in this national transformation, this is what we consider a starting point to be and also, another thing that helps with national unity is envisioning a shared future. we find we have a political future and opposition to the political future of other communities.

we are envisioning a political future were all afghans to live together. >> that has created a lot of energy. the new national merit discussion. >> the question, the way we look at this question is we've had about 12 years of investment. there is that demographic shift. and at this stage it think the biggest is coming up with the presidential elections. we need not distract ourselves from our allies from that by any of the program, talks with television. second, i think we can negotiate or talk with any party that is part of the violent cycle if we

have some certainty about the future of the constitutional order that can be afforded and achieved through a credible election as well as the agreement with the united states on the future of its commitment in afghanistan. once we have those to basics in place the question of what will the taliban to with their patrons in the region would like them to do will become much more clear. i think the constitutional test of the elections, in particular, people in the region who often position of proxies'. in terms of ending the war, one thing in these to be recognized, there is the sixth thing as a constituency. the term is -- there is overwhelming consensus that we need piece. it's about how you get it, what creates for the division or

further polarization of the society and even certain of the people to our struggles. we think that a process that is, it's a bit more dry. i hate to use this word, but when she was she. the people that representing the violent armed, many of them, from what we know, have never seen over the past of years. some of them did not quite offer an alternative option but also increases confidence in international structures as well as in the profits. what particularly impact the confidence and political circles , the fact that it is increasingly emerging and is becoming part of the chatter. many folks were actually on the u.n. sanctions list. and to ask the question here about the intent of institutions, about how did they make it there and what is the

design. in general again were looking at them with a lot of skepticism and with this belief that, don't let things distract from the elections and making sure that the constitutional order. some of them were even operating . >> such an important question. you mentioned the influences of the financial security agreement between afghanistan and the u.s. a strategic agreement this makes a very long-term agreement. the tokyo agreement which gives long-term funding commitments. and so much of that is already in place. on the question of talk, i think part of the thinking in the u.s. , simi from government on the panel. this might still be the best

point in which to try and reach some kind of a deal. there are still troops, a significant presence and that actually the odds might be worse years down the line. what are you effectively saying to parts of the country that are at work, those people losing their lives every year. you basically saying, i'm sorry, this will just tough to continue until a point comes when the taliban is a political movement, a different entity, ready to negotiate. >> if we look of the numbers on how they operate are what tactics they used, you're looking at suicide bombers. that is much of what they have. not control of territory mobilizing forces. that is gone. now much of what they do is six to seven people coming in. at 2008 bombay attack. at the state i don't quite understand. that level of

command-and-control being associated with the taliban to many of us comes across as very illusionary. you have smaller bandit groups projecting violence than you have obviously their patrons in the region. amongst, of the disconnect, people coming summer and pretended or claiming that they represent. we have had a shopkeeper come. take $50,000 go back. people who claim that the new that the particular shopkeeper presented the tell been unhappy staffer. we are extremely cautious. it is about reducing violence and violence could be reduced by the enforcement. one thing that the taliban are waking up to, when they tried to have an attack, back in the days

when they would have a terror attack, the narrative then shipped would be about the strength, about how they infiltrated a particular place or what sort of damage they caused. nowadays their is a shift in that marriage. the spectacular attack. the attack on the gates of the palace, you're looking at the significant this please how long it takes, demobilize the attackers. the apparatus almost two days to demobilize.

and i would just briefly point numbers on is an american closed in january to doesn't end there was an attack on the u.s. embassy. twenty hours to demobilize. the attack. the diplomatically significant area. sixteen hours to demobilize them fast forward about ten days ago. about four hours before the security forces had back, no casualties to the nsf in particular. the gates of the palace, no casualties, security forces. projecting themselves. >> move on to questions.

>> just a quick question. coming back to the political transition which she said was the top priority, they touched on this questioning whether trying to influence the manifesto and the agenda is actually sufficient in the current stage of where afghanistan is in terms of its democratic development. i could not tell you anything that was contained in the manifesto from 2009. there ultimately pretty important. so in that context i guess whether there is scope, being a bit more ambitious, a series of youth movements give mobilize around terms of actual tangible

support behind the candid in this election. and i think even put in for his own camp, generous definition. given the demographics and the high number of voters in this new generation, including many children voting in the election, there is some potential power there. well, actually the way people vote, you need to be a warlord, a commander, ethnic backing, trouble backing, proxy, neighboring country backing to be successful, but if you actually go back to the 2005 parliamentary election, we were all expecting a small town favorite candid to do well, this trouble figured. the question that the single largest number of votes was a young woman who basically ran a

gem. very few people had ever heard of before. she was the single largest of winner in that province to be just saying that there could be a new paradigm for a look toward politics, especially when there is quite a bit of disillusionment with the old regime. and so whether you improvements such as yours are starting to think a little more ambitiously about electro politics and get engaged. >> at think i should clarify that we have not decided either way yet because we don't know. the situation is developing. we have our own defense quite a new movement. but there are new faces. rita still looking for that. there might be something out of the old guard. it is not finalized. september nominations. i agree with you.

it's not the same. in the past elections. >> one thing that i would add on is that this fine not to have a leader or representation at this point of the election, but with the use kindu, i know that they have a concern of not associating themselves with a certain candid, giving his our political background, issues, all of that, but one thing that you can do, and i think that would make history to but to bring these leaders together and to talk to tell them that they have to come up with a consensus it should be very clear that there not going to win independently. no way to that. somebody may want. not everybody can do that. i think that movement itself will encourage youth. everybody is getting together and actually working together. that would encourage the issue

of the ethnic distribution. but i am afraid that there are issues. a lot has happened, but it would take very the will to put everything. >> thank you. came to get as many questions. the gentleman. we will take a question here at the front. in a coming to you. >> thank you. unthinking of the sobering assessment of the afghan youth who feel disenfranchised and dissatisfied, uneducated, and unemployed. a 110 ad, influential. , how can they create a platform so that the disenfranchised army of youth can have a say in whatever is happening in

afghanistan and feel that they are part of the civil society. they are part of what is happening in afghanistan. .. >> 100 foreign servants.

not returning to afghanistan that leads to the brain drain question. >> i want to congratulate you. you should not care if somebody says you are genuine or not because these forces are unstoppable and it will happen all over the country. that congress says they should give to the international community. your priorities are presidential elections so you stole my question but in 2009 there was one. but not by the candidate that you said. there is one here as well. if there is a good candidate you mentioned at and worse of a good credible candidate to come will they support and work to make sure such a

candidate is elected and what impact will he have? >> such a quick comment first. afghanistan, i was in a conference to days ago and with the terrorist attack have been in the west, washington, the london , the government, security forces tried to arrest the terrorist and punish them but in afghanistan what happens unfortunately is home it is not a strong commitment of the international community of the negotiation that is the difference. just like anywhere in the

world when terrorist attack you do not need to negotiate you punish them so they respect the law and that is the issue that we have. with the brain drain, we cannot blame them for those be leaving the country and they are frustrated in to look for new opportunities and new countries but when you have a group of afghans some of them are educated and live in the country country, then you have a group where they want to stay in their committed. also a message on facebook said i cannot condemn the for believing but make sure to build afghanistan a better place they decided to come back. that is important.

we have a large number of afghans and a young generation tying the future and the present. at the level that what we have made so far in trust we have different provinces, the message that we gave, almost all the people that we met find it relevant. they look bad it -- acted to provide them with the new platform for the afghan use that goes beyond the ethnic lines that are committed to the country and also want the afghans to leave.

so we are seeing this. >> high of one more question. >> the way we operate eventually at the district level we're not on the provincial basis. but in many ways the motivated actors around the country are coming in there but also with that youth group to reach out to and that is how we operate. anholated to

the presidential election obviously those who are announced for a more promising pitcher. we do not think that it would not be all clean ticket but electability is very crucial. we have these discussions i can only do so much but we are thinking elect ability but also to show the 5% in electability chance could that have another 10% or is it the difference between 45 and 51? and in terms broadly for the political actors, get out of the show, a combative the back door deal and in many

ways the national consensus or national agreement is wasting time the real job past to have been with the micro district level and the mobilization creating the political process to send a strong signal for the people who feel in many ways disenfranchised that have not been involved and to we believe the achievement lies across the board. the middle-class or though the overclass but to get energized door get them involved. especially the people at the top and forming tickets and about approaching the public. >> is nice to see you here. up until recently the

assistant secretary -- secretary of defense. >> no i don't have to identify myself. [laughter] first, there was a published essay on the institutions web site on afghanistan afghanistan, india, pakistan , very strong to characterize the taliban as past june versus others. negative pashtun. it has been replayed here so my question for the 1400 people is how much is the pashtun representation do you have? cantar? i understand who i am talking to but broadly and not just individuals. what about the helmont

province? and a few do you might consider to make a comment on the brookings institution web site to counter that because i can tell you in the u.s. government there is a firm belief by many people this is just about then pashtun and non pashtun. secondly, a question about the economics to recognize the need for jobs and the emerging u.s. population. what role these themselves play in the economic situation in terms of entrepreneurial activity to start their own businesses and trying to address that economic problems. thank you. >> just on the question of 1400, we have our strongest in canada carr and the helmand province. they were there for the

weekly meetings and he would fly in the weekly and would not meet -- miss when the team from the 1400 meetings and has been pushing us to come visit and also it seems to be more than just 1400 with in any number of applications. >> i think the author of that article explains the assumption. when he came to kabul to meet with them very respected mobility in the house in iraq somewhere in that was exploited to the country than to make a blanket statement. and that is where we come in with the message and it

really isn't about it is presented by to? but the biggest victims of the taliban have been that pashtun also the biggest resistance to them should be imposed on us to come from kandahar and elsewhere. but one thing we do need to know in particular the past 12 years has created a new set of geographies that added convenience they are associated with the taliban when that really does not translate on the ground. you have people who have emerged as a businessman or community enforcers and then to discuss the names in did no way to come back and run affairs with their life to

find out where his sources come. >> one thing the very first question that you asked do you know, where it comes from to only have the pashtun tag to use this weapon in to get into the communities, but to have a cross border relationship so you can no longer talk about the politicians because that will not necessarily solve the problem. we know what they have been doing and it is much more important to go to the other side of the border it is not the pashtun issue but an issue that affects us. with a sense of nationalism

and to raise the ceiling of nationalism in the president is not working well but we are receiving threats. one incident that has happened where there was a fight with the pakistan a forces and army officer was killed and if they did against pakistan but i had my own version. but the first voice was first hint to lullaby then it went to helmand to pass on the message but when it comes to the other side of the border, can we get a

grip from the north to the other end to talk to them? so that could be one of the issues that is one of the realities but when it comes to the issue of employment for youth it is important to which get the issues but if we have 37,000 high school graduates that cannot make it to the university could they get to the institution do continue their education? with a formal or higher education level. everybody wants to be enough to print your or do something that how you started, and sustain that that, that is the question. but then it starts out with the initiatives and programs are project based that is

where the real issue comes in and. not just to raise spending but i have a brochure of the economic development center from the american university and they have been doing a very nice job with 75 contracts to always equipped them with the right skills. in to find one solid recent -- reason or solution for that to find it how to move on to connect with a group based in kabul. why we have 1400.

why not just one group at the end of the day? with the issue of celebrating the security forces there were three different celebrations in afghanistan. 1400 with might others grab the other end completely. her telling these groups we have many, we could manage to get it, let celebrated together but we're not able to do that. but it is with the joint forces. >> we are almost at a time and i will invite a quick question here in the front. >> i worked as a producer

for npr now i am at a private company but just last month when it happened first of all, of of a cigarette to cover the events and take all of these groups called jus inaction and the platform was environment. they try to lobby the government to replace plastic bags with paper bags. but it was in eastern afghanistan. when it comes to the youth groups to be celebrated together, they are part of the pashtun and the concern is not security but to educate.

so they take computers over to the villages or the mosques to the narrative with education. there are infamous groups but those that have this strong ethnic component the majority of the group's even if separately that is what would matter in the future. thank you. >> one very quick last question. >> i with a state department and i have a quick question. with political consensus building to touch on that briefly, i am interested in your general thoughts on the process but more specifically the what

factors would be a part of that process? with the civil society for it to be seen as consistent with international democratic principles before the constitution. >> that is a big question and you have three minutes. >> when we make this consensus to meet together we are not against that but to look at the electability chances because we have people with a 3 percent chance with those visibly are 20 or 25%. so those to energize we are all for that but that time

not to be wasted behind closed doors. elections is approaching and people need to hear that personalities matter but they may make their points clear with the taliban for example, or how duse mitigate the challenges of possible banter. but we are saying don't engineer a big tent than hold the election to minimize the decision. but to create powerful teams then go out in public and energize that is how it will become much easier. but one constituency that will suffer the most is the

new generation. but these are the engineered results. >> eight you very much. i seek we could carry on much longer. and help to we calibrate and to encourage me about the years to come with a strong reminder what we will need to do to help protect the gains that they are enjoying now. [applause] >> with congress on break each evening we offer interviews and discussions with nonfiction authors. tonight technology in the internet. beginning with former marketing director of facebook and sister of

founder mark zuckerberg author of dot complicated and also a children's book. then to discuss the lines of digital networks and the economic recession and called to as a future. also the new books the new digital age. watching booktv in prime time beginning 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> watch american history tv in prime time this week starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern a look at the one heard the 50th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg been a discussion on president kennedy's 1963 speech of the cold war including the remarks from west berlin and then president reagan and president obama. american history tv tonight on c-span3.

>> we will show you what southwest airlines' ceo has to say about air travel as we take questions from the university of denver then open up the phone lines to get your thoughts. what if ice would you give the federal government to improve air travel? we recently asked the same question in alexandria virginia outside of washington d.c. >> i would say keep further streamlining the security to make sure it is safe to get on the plane but at the same time a process that is comfortable for us to feel like we are being completely violated. make it quick. >> to decrease government regulations to have the opportunity to be more competitive for their customers. >> is there any regulation

in particular? >> one would be that they are forced to pay when they sit on the tarmac. they will cancel the flight instead of saying -- staying on the tarmac i think there would be more successful if they took that away there and have a government run their business. >> i would fly no fewer than two or three times per month and i think the government would benefit from reining in because the airlines have gotten lazy and they are gouging prices if you are in an emergency to pay the exorbitant fees so capping those for certain flights would make everyone's experience significantly better. we will get your thoughts following remarks from the southwest airlines' ceo at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> making a transition from journalism to books is completely overwhelming and frightening. >> why did you make that choice? >> five long wanted to be working on a book that allows you to dive into a topic to go into a tangent to really explore in a fully >> living in space, the afterlife and the human digestive system mary roche will take your comments and phone calls three hours live on booktv on c-span2. on friday that washington institute for near east policy on the discussion discussing the obama administration recent decision to provide military assistance to the syrian

rebels. you will hear to opinions won by george washington university institute director who says the u.s. cannot stop the civil war. another from a washington institute senior fellow that argues containment of the fighting is in the u.s. national interest. >> good afternoon. welcome to the washington institute we are pleased to welcome you to this luncheon debate. we don't often do debates it is a debate among serious people of a serious topic is a you don't see the gloves on and the blood flying but it is an important issue to talk about u.s. policy toward syria. and his people know very well the issues that are at

stake, and the humanitarian issues in the strategic issues that are at stake. there is a broad consensus about the urgency of the situation in syria but then considerable debate what the united states should do and be leading to affect the situation on the ground. we at the institute has been actively engaged to present a broad range of the information to the policy community but our speaker today i want to do draw the attention to the web site that includes data from

firsthand visits to the region in detailed reports based on these investigations and policy prescriptions. today, we are brought together two of the most thoughtful and insightful observers of the situation in syria and today's discussion is really about what america should do the city the conflict in syria. and the springboard is an article in the current issue of of corn -- council of foreign affairs by andrew taylor the senior fellow of the washington institute

author of the book based on the eight years living in syria. in the article antar has written his calls serious collapse and how washington can stop it. in that article in true offers his analysis of the situation in syria and a set of very specific prescriptions for what the unit is states should do on its own and in concert with the partners and the allies to stop the carnage, the violence and bring about the resolution. speaking today as well as professor mark lynch and very happy to welcome him back to the platform. we are happy to welcome him back. he is the professor at george washington university he is the the prodigious

author of the call drew aardvark blocky and contributing to foreign policy among many other platforms. if you want an alternative view of vis a vis syria then i suggest reviewing a series of foreign policy posts by mark. . .