c-span's congressional directory is a complete guide to the 112th congress. inside you'll find each member of the house and the senate, including contact information, district maps and committee assignments. also information on cabinet member, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. you can pick up a copy fors

12ds.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org/shop. later today, the federal reserve's open market committee meets and this afternoon at 2:15 eastern, fed chairman ben bernanke holds a news conference. he'll talk about the fed's economic projections and policy decisions. you can see that live here on c-span3. and we're live at the brookings institution in downtown washington, where florida senator marco rubio will speak today about u.s. leadership in the world. senator rubio is often mentioned as a possible running mate for mitt romney.

we're waiting to hear from senator rubio to deliver what's being call add major speech on u.s. foreign policy. an update on some campaign news. this morning the "new york times" writes that newt gingrich sounds like a man who's throwing in the towel. at an appearance in north carolina, mr. gingrich conceded that mitt romney would be the

party's nominee, and suggested that he would be transitioning out of the race in the next several days, saying, "i think you have at some point to be honest with what's happening in the real world as opposed to what you'd like to have happened." that quote from mr. gingrich. also today, the republican national committee announced plans to formally coordinate wit romney campaign's in a statement, rnc chairman previs made him the republican nominee. we'll start to present a unified team to beat barack obama. that from rnc chairman priebus.

we're waiting for senator rubio to speak who is often mentioned as possible running mate for mitt romney. newt gingrich saying today that he expects mitt romney to be the nominee and call the party to unity behind the former massachusetts governor. some media outlets are reporting that mr. gingrich will suspend his presidential campaign officially next tuesday. as we wait for senator rubio, we're now going to go to see an interview from this morning about the supreme court. the supreme court considers whether arizona has the authority to enforce a state immigration law enacted in 2010. that's happening today before the court.

we just heard that senator marco rubio has entered the build sewing we're not going to enter that video on the supreme court. can you go to our website for that under the "washington journal" heading.

gank to all of you. it's my great pleasure to welcome you all to brookings today and a particular welcome to those of us who are going to are viewing this event on our webcast and we have a lot of other media here as well, which, of course, is a great deployment our two guests of honor. we're also especially pleased to have five distinguished members

of the diplomatic corps here today as well as four brookings trustees and always an honor to have a member of the senate come down from the hill to think tank row, so it's a double honor when we get two senators. and the fact that they represent different parties testifying to their bipartisanship, which is a rare, if not endangered commodity, in this city today. one that we here at brookings do our best to foster and protect. senator marco rubio is a member of the senate foreign relations committee. he is a member of the select committee on intelligence, and he has already established himself as a vigorous advocate of intense and widespread u.s. engagement and leadership in the world. she an nattiest. he is an international issist.

he will be trued by joe lieberman who is a long-standing friend of this institution and i might add a very good friend for quite a number of us here today. and, joe, we're going to miss you when you leave the senate, but i have no doubt that you will remain a forceful voice in the national and the international arena. when senator rubio finishes making his remarks, marvin kalb of our foreign policy program is going to moderate a discussion here on the podium, and then engage as many members of the audience as he can for the remainder of the program. so, joe, over to you. >> thank you. thank you very much. thanks, strobe talbott, thanks to brookings and a special thank you to bob kagan for

orchestrating and inspiring this event today. i am really honored to have been asked to introduce senator marco rubio, a rising star in the next generation of america's foreign policy leaders. marco came to the senate at a moment in our history when america was looks inward, focused on our economic woes. it would have been very easy for him in that political climate to have given attention only to domestic issues. and i would guess that many people advised him to do exactly that, including probably a media consultant or pollster or two. but instead, marco sought membership as strobe has said on the senate foreign relations and intelligence committees, and has devoted much of his time and energy to foreign policy and national security. he has not done so because there

are votes to be gained, but because of his steadfast belief in the importance of american leadership in the world, and his understanding of how much that leadership determines our security and well-being here at home. marco rubio's foreign policy is principled, patriotic and practical. it grows, i believe, from his own life's journey from tyranny to freedom, but also from his dedicated study of history and contemporary challenges. his foreign policy, as i've come to know it, puts him in a proud bipartisan tradition that links together our greatest republican presidents, like ronald reagan and our greatest democratic presidents, like harry s. truman. it is a tradition that recognizes that america is defined not by the land under our feet or even by the blood in

our veins, but by our founding values. first among them, being freedom and equality of opportunity. whose promotion and protection will always be our first national purpose. it is a foreign policy tradition that is bipartisan and idealistic, and recognizes that there is evil in the world that we should not be afraid to call it by its name that we havemys who cannot enemy whose cannot be negotiated into peace but must be confronted with our strength, and it is a bipartisan foreign policy tradition that recognizes that the survival of liberty and prosperity in our country ultimately depends on the expansion of liberty and prosperity throughout the world. in word and deed, marco rubio

that become a leading advocate for freedom fighters and political dissidents throughout the world. from venezuela to iran, from syria to north korea. you can regularly find him on the floor of the senate speaking out for those whom dictators seek to silence. at moment when america faces many serious challenges, both here at home and throughout the world, and when it has become fashionable to suggest that our best days are behind us and we ought to pull back, senator rubio brings to the public arena a contagious personal optimism and an abiding and patriotic faith in america's destiny. ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce to you senator marco rubio of florida.

>> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, senator lieberman. you know, one of the best thing about working in the senate is the opportunity to learn and to know from colleague whose statesmanship is an example for the rest of us. in my brief time in the senate i've had a chance to get to know joe lieberman and learn from him. he represent as view of america's role in the world in the tradition of democratic leaders like franklin roosevelt and harry truman, john f. kennedy, scoop jackson. in my experience with him, joe lieberman is a statesman who takes positions on every important national issue, because he believes they best serve our country's interests and values. so thank you, joe, for your introduction, and more importantly, thank you for your example. i'm privileged to serve with you. i want to thank brookings for this opportunity. i wanted to contribute today a few thoughts of the current debate over america's role in

the world, and in this the 21st century and i wanted to give this speech today to share with you my ompgss of someone who has a longtime interest in foreign policy but now finds him in the role of foreign policymaker. i'm always cautious about generalizations in politics. but until very recently the general perception was that american conservatism believed in robust and muscular foreign policy. that was certainly the hallmark of the foreign policies of both president bushs and of president reagan. but when i arrived in the senate last year i found that some of the traditional sides in the foreign policy debate had shifted. on the one hand i found liberal democrats and conservative republicans working together to a a about dough cate from libya and i found bob menendez and senator casey on a more forceful foreign policy. the resolutions i co-authored with senator casey on syria and the resolution i co-sponsored

with senator menendez condemning fraudulent elections in ni nicaragua were held up by republicans. i recently joked the other day that today in the u.s. senate on foreign policy the further you move to the right, the likelier you are to wind up on left, and i found this sentiment to be true not just in the senate but back home as well. for example, many of my loyal supporters were very highly critical of my decision to call for a more active u.s. role in libya. now, the easiest thing for me to do here today is to give a speech on my disagreements with this administration on foreign policy. and i do have many. but i wanted to begin by addressing another trend in our body politic. one that increasingly says it is time to focus less on the world and more on ourselves. i always begin by reminding people of how good a strong and engaged america has been for the world. and in making that argument i have been recently relying on,

heavily, on brookings fellow timely book "the world america made." he did not pay me to say that. he begins his book with a pretty useful exercise. he asks readers to imagine what the world order might have existed, what world order might have existed from the end of world war ii until the present, if america, absent american leadership? could we say for certain it would look anything like america's vision of an increasingly freer and more open international system? where catastrophic conflicts between great powers are avoid, democracy and free market capitalism flourished? where prosperity spread wider and wider, and billions of people emerged from poverty. would it have occurred if after the war america had minded its own business and left the world to sort out its affairs? without our leadership. almost surely not. as bob persuasively argued,

every world order in history reflected the interests and beliefs of its strongest power, just as this largely reflects ours. many of these thing was not achieved by us on our own. they weren't achieved because we succeeded in all international endeserve, not because everyone always agreed with everything we did, and they weren't achieved because we the most popular country on earth. they were achieved because the united states had a vision. the will and means to do the hard work of bringing it into existence, and then of maintaining it. we had the will and the means to defend its norms and institutions and the security of our partners. face down it's challengers. assist other people, and in attaining their liberty. keep trade routes open and support the expansion of free market capitalism. that accelerated the growth of the global economy. and we did it without coveting other countries territories or seizing assets or robbing them of their opportunities.

the purpose of the institutions we established for the united nations, to the world bank and the imf was to spread peace and prosperity. not to a certain narrow of american interests. other nations consented to our leadership, because they saw what the economic and political values of the american world view had achieved for us. and they wanted the same for themselves. they followed us, because they believed that our way, the american way, the principles of free people and free markets, was the best way to advance their societies. but as bob also points out, we haven't really of solved this role, and yet despite our worries, doubts and occasional resentment we're proud of it, and we should be. bob's book highlights a number of facts worth repeating here today about the post-world war ii world america made. for example, the global gdp has risen 4% annually since the end

of world war ii. four times faster than the average in past centuries. 4 billion people mostly outside of europe and north america have been lifted out of poverty during that time. the number of democracies in the world proliferated nearly tenfold and we have had the longest period of peace between the great powers of. now, before anyone accuses me of claiming that america has ushered in the biblical promise of a new heaven and a new earth, let's stop and remember that the world america made is better but it is not perfect, but it is vastly more peaceful and prosperous than any other age in recorded history. so this is the world america made. but what is the role for america now? it's now finally the time for us to mind our own business? is now the time for us to allow others to lead? is now the time for us to play the role of equal partner? well, i always start by reminding people that what

happens all over the world is our business. every aspect of our lives is directly impacted by global events. the security of our cities is connected to the security of small ham letts in afghanistan and pakistan and yemen, and somalia, our cost living, the safety of our food, value of the things we invent, make and said are a few examples of every day aspect of our lives directly related to events abrd and make it impossible for us to focus only on our issues here at home. next question i'm asked, then is why doesn't someone else lead for a change? why do we always have to be taking care of the problems of the world? isn't it time for someone else to step up? and i always begin my answer to that question with a question of my own. if we start doing less, who's going to do more? for example, when a world order where china, tleecht as we know china right now was the leading power, exposed to the political

and economic aspirations of other nations as we are? now, look, i still have hope behind the curtain of secrecy that veils the chinese state that there are voices that advocate for the peaceful and responsible rise of that nation. voices that reject the idea of a global power as a zero sum game. we hold out hope for a new china of tomorrow, but for now, we must deal with the china we know today. a china which enjoys its closest relationships with countries like north korea and iran. so at least for now, it would be foolish to be confident in the idea that china can be count and to defend and support global economic and political freedom, or to take up the cause of human rights. by the way, the rest of the world has especially their neighbors, figured that out, too. and they would prefer not to take that risk. the short answer is that at least not yet, anyways. there is no one else to hand off the baton to.

even if that were a good idea. the most difficult transnational challenges of our time, who will lead if we do not? the answer -- at least today is that no other nation or organization on earth is willing or able to do so. so finally, i'll be asked, if we still have to lead, can't we at least be equal partners with somebody else? in fact, shouldn't we rely on other nations to carry more of the burden? after all, we all know that they resent us telling them what to do. right? well, in this new century more than of before, america should work with our capable allies in finding solutions to global problems. not because america's gotten weaker, but because our partners have grown stronger. it's worth pointing out, by the way, this is not a new idea for us. our greatest successes have always occurred in partnership with other like-minded nations. now, america has acted

unilaterally in the past and i believe it should continue to do so in the future when necessity requires. but our preferred option since the u.s. became a global leader, has fwon work with others to achieve our goals. so, yes. global problem dos require international coalitions. and on that point, this administration is correct. but effective international coalitions don't form themselves. they need to be instigated and led. and more often than not, they can only be instigated and led by the united states. and i believe that's what this administration sometimes fails to understand. yes, there are more countries able and willing to join efforts to meet the global challenges of our time, but experience has proven that american leadership is almost always indispensable to its success. you can see this in the actions of, or sometimes lack thereof the world trade organization, or the u.n. security council.