said they are unhappy, it would be unrealistic to except that. >> what about the second priority, which is financial reform? >> there are squadrons of financial industry lobbyists out there. they have not given up because there are a lot of conflicting ideas about what to do, but they could not get that done the year after wall street was a smoking crater. the idea that they could get it done another year later when devastating from memory as i think is unlikely. they are going to have to settle for something a little more scaled-down. >> george soros is among those saying to not come down to toughly. how do you respond to people like george soros?

>> it is also a political catastrophe, so and the economic catastrophe you might want to do not come down on the banks very hard. the president has got to balance both things, and as it would the folks of the white house said, if their system is so fragile, wire they paying so much in bonuses? >> what should we look for next week? >> we might see more jobs. there might be more movement on health care, but this is all about the economy at this point, and that is the number- one thing. >> thank you for being here. tell us about your new book. >> it is about corporate espionage laws, and it comes out in february. >> thank you for your time.

>> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow on "washington journal," the role voters might play, and also the chinese influence on the global economy. after that, look at child of obesity in the u.s., and first lady michelle obama's national campaign with arkansas's attorney general. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tonight on prime minister's questions, the house leader sylvan forbes gordon brown. she answered questions on british banks, -- the house leader filled in for gordon brown. tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span.

>> tonight, the history of executive power, from george washington to george w. bush. officer john yoo -- author john yoo talks about his new book. >> over the weekend, the congressional delegation attended a forum in switzerland to discuss the global implications of the obama administration's legislative agenda on health care, energy, the environment, and financial regulation. this is about an hour. >> welcome, everybody. >> our task is to try to get a global perspective to the legislative agenda and the

united states. this is only panel specifically focused on legislative agenda in any one country, so all the talk about change, it is changing. there is still something important about what happens to the united states and congress. when i lived in europe, europeans always used to ask, when do i get to vote in an american in elections? i used to say, that is fine with me. there are a number who might have a word or two to say about that. i do not imagine that will happen anytime soon, but did these you can vote on this panel. the framers would they invented the u.s. government envisioned the united states congress as the first branch of government, the places where all the issues

and pressures and the man decided to come together and be resolved. that did not always work as efficiently as they wanted it to work, but it probably work the way they -- it worked as a crossroads to the political system. i do not know about you on this? and how you feel about your jobs, but when i covered this, and was one of the most interesting jobs i have ever had. we're lucky to have five competent and straightforward members of congress before we began, i want to

discuss some issues to. tipper o'neill used to said all politics is local, by which any think he meant no politics in succeed unless the public -- the political leaders closely bonded to the needs and demands of the people who gave him his job, but in a world of global issues, can all policies really be global? offsets what is the american presidents policy? how can you implement these into your own political needs semaphore on the left is a chart -- how can you implement these and your own political needs? >> i come from a red stayed --

south carolina. it is a beautiful place with plenty of challenges, but let me give you an example of the reality of the world we live in. it is a global economy, but if you have axd manufacturing job, your real fear is that your job is going to be a bizarre by the local economy, so trying to find ways to translate rational trade policies in a global economy with people facing the downside of the world in which will live- in, what i try to do is let folks know the truth as i see and, that i cannot build a wall around south carolina when it comes to the influence of china or india, but i think the chinese are manipulating their currencies. say maybe a dozen commodities because they have certain advantages, but i think

politicians the to translate to people the realities of the global economy but not intellectually it -- emotionally, so i try to talk about the world will live-in in real terms but let folks know that free trade is part of a global economy, that so is fair trade, and they seem to trust me with the idea that i have got someone who understands the world economy of, but they have not -- i have not forgotten about them. the day they think you have forgotten about them is the day you lose your job, and i think it should be. >> if you take energy as an issue in massachusetts, the reality is half of the trade deficit in the united states is importing oil. people understand that, and they understand we need policies to deal with that issue.

energy policy in a state that has no oil, no gas, no coal now goes to creating new jobs and a renewable efficiency with electric vehicles, which can be invented out of our universities. the same thing is true in the biotech sectorw3, and you couldo down the line. a lot of this is positioning massachusetts in a global economy. the country itself only has 3% of the world's population for the 21st century, so massachusetts is a subset for the period we have to decide where we're going to position ourselves, so to a large extent, it is an innovation economy. it is coming up with the ideas, creating the products, and selling them across the planet.

ideologies cool energy companies or the telephone companies and internet companies, and this constant reach generation of new ideas is the source of new employment, which leads to higher real-estate rates, higher real estate prices that helped fuel the school system, etc., so it is constantly related what it is going on around the world with what we need to do with policies such things that will help the lives of regular people. >> the democrat of the state of washington. >> i think you're right, but i want to put it into context. if you ever forget you're in there to serve people who elected you, you will lose the job quickly. at the same time, there's a real risk that one uses global issues and the sense of

demagoguery in one direction or the other and thereby loses the nuance and complexities of it, and it is tempting to grasp the rather simple and viscera of global issues, eccentric that and hope they look good the other issues there are pressing. the delicate balances to serve your constituents but to speak for global issues, even if that is at odds with the support or opposition group, because you have got to simultaneously care for the people who got you here but also care for a much broader level, and that is not always easily. >> susan collins. >> staying connected to your constituents is absolutely

essential. this is are rare moment for me to not be amazed. i go home virtually every weekend, and in doing so, i still -- stay connected to the people i am honored to serve. my first obligation is to the people of maine. i am fortunate my constituents care greatly about the global implications of public policy, and that energy sector particularly resonates with them. we are trying to establish the state of maine as the world's leader in the development of offshore wind energy, and people in my state are excited about that. they understand global

invitations because they know somewhere in the world, offshore wind energy is going to take up, and why not haven't been the state of maine, which is the leader? similarly, since we are in the midst of two wars, people in my state with a high level of veterans and a high level of those serving, particularly national guard members, those issues are still on people's minds, so i do not see it as an either/or choice, but certainly, anyone who does not understand ñiwhere once first obligation lives quickly becomes a former member of congress. >> barney frank. >> i want to challenge a little bit the premise, and it is not use saying it, but the general

approach -- not you saying it, but how do avoid being a parochial politicians, and i think a number of important issues -- our constituents were right. one theory of democracy was the fall in the people who wore the shoes knew where. in trade, many of us --ñi we hae been begging the financial establishment histo please do something to alleviate the stress created by trade. ñiit is often between countries. there was a refusal to demolish

the pain being inflicted on for us, and the result of not listening to them was to our detriment. i will tell you, and this is the area i were the closest -- i work the closest, but between the experts and business community, and my constituents who were suspicious, they were right in the experts were wrong about what the banks are doing. i have to say, maybe this was contributing. they were more right than not. i will say this, and i have one advantage.

in financial regulation, clearly international cooperation is in our interest because we want to put in tough rules, and you cannot have tough rolls in one country. tough bank regulation is not going to happen. the last find when i think the constituency is ready, and that is we hear a lot about people saying the dollar should not be the reserve currency. i will said the the side. the pentagon should not be the reserve currency. i am tired of us spending hundreds of billions of dollars so no other country can do anything. we have of the deficit to reduce and needs that have to be met. the only way we can do that is to begin to substantially reduce military commitments worldwide. you cannot cut the defense

budget and maintain those commitments. i am going to be told this is isolation. i reject that. i sink in number of americans are skeptical about the extent we're so heavily engaged in protecting everybody it from everything. staf i would say the public is t simply a measure we have to deal with. f >> this brings me directly to the first issue i would like to grapple with. this has always been a place where warring parties came together to try to solve their differences and make peace. today we retreated to the global off banking industry and barney frank. tell us what you told the

bankers this morning and whether what they told you makes any difference. >> yes, and no. one point they are making -- we're talking about financial institutions. coleman sex may decide not to be a bank, but that will not get them out of regulation. to the extent that the large financial institutions tell us we should regulate, we ignore them. to the extent they accept the need and are ready to work with us in order to do it, that will work well. this is evolving today. the question of proprietary trading, which we are going to go ahead with, which they gave the power to go forward. i have spoken to mark karr need of the canadian bank and others.

the notion is you get the proprietary trading by a volume because there is a certain amount of have to be done to keep things going. i believe the major financial institutions understand it is in their interest to give us the kind of advice we need to do it in the best way. that includes a tough way but a smart way, and the other thing is the european union, the united kingdom, japan, canada, the u.s., are working together. i think this is very important and the financial industry understands tough regulation is coming, and there is no overall sovereignty. seth you done not need to have it all one because there is no sovereignty, but it will be done in a coordinated matter -- manar

so you do not have people saying we will be at a disadvantage, so i am very encouraged on that one. for me, the interes mnstients i, which is tough regulations that does not create legislative arbitrage. >> is there a republican point of view that is going to become an important factor in this? >> i introduced a regulatory reform bill a year ago. i spent five years in state government overseeing the regulation of banks, insurance, licensing boards, and i believe we did have a complete failure of regulation. i think part of it was the tools were not in place, and i think part of it is the regulators did

not use tools they did have. the los important regulatory reform -- the most of -- i believe the most important regulatory would be aboard responsible for identifying systemic risk to our system and identifying regulatory black holes. inevitably, no matter how skilled reform legislation may be, there will be an new risky product or process that will be merged, and -- will emerge, and we need a system of flexible enough to spot the influence of derivatives themselves through the cracks that were regulated either as a banking product or an insurance product. >> you have 30 seconds. >> if i could just finish one.

-- because i know what yielding to barney is leg. >> -- if i could just finish one minute -- because i know what fielding to barney is like. republicans agreed the system has failed, and whether regulatory reform will be allowed to come together in the end, i hope so. >> the council was in the house of. a senate version is being done. the only thing i would say is we empower the regulators to do the new stuff. there were highly paid people figuring out the next loophole, and we did give the regulators enough we hope to do it. >> i will be coming to you in the audience shortly for questions, so if you have a question, try to signal.

do we have microphones? we will get them to you. we will continue up here for a little while. the second piece of housekeeping, parliamentary rules are not in a side. -- not in a fact. let me turn to another global issue of that is clearly very timely and raises some of the similar issues, and that is climate change. president obama said offshore drilling and nuclear power has to be part of energy policies designed to reduce carbon emissions. that was widely seen as a concession to you, so let me start by saying you have long been a cup -- a proponent of nuclear power though all so clean energy and curbing of carbon used. is this a concession that has to

be made to achieve climate change protocol but will work? >> the bill was endorsed by the nuclear energy institute. when you put a cap on carbon, when you move towards a low carbon economy, that benefits the nuclear industry. we also had a green bank of $75 billion that the nuclear industry could apply to for low- interest loans in new nuclear technology. in addition, the ban of drilling off the coast line of the united states was lifted two years ago, so there is no better right now, so in addition to the edison electric institute endorsing the bill, in addition to many of the major industries in america

endorsing the bill, the steelworkers, ellen and -- aluminum workers, and others, we are trying to build a coalition that will be able to sustain the question of whether or not we're helping or hurting american industry. on the senate side, lindsay is leading the effort to get 68 votes over there. there'd doing a great job to accomplish that goal. we are looking forward to him as the leader completing legislation over there, and he and i have been talking all along towards final completion of legislation, but i do not think our goal is inconsistent. it is to affect -- protect the american economy, reduce the amount of pollution by 2% over

the next 40 years or so, while backing out imported oil and protecting the health of our country. we agree on the larger goals. we can work of the details and accomplish all of it because it cannot happen if we do not have bipartisan support for the legislation, so i am looking forward to working with lindsay. >> are the pieces falling into place for energy legislation? >> i would like to acknowledge that collins is on a cap and its dividend bill. she has been involved in global climate change before i could be involved. i never voted for any of this legislation. the reason i jumped in and is because i see a wonderful opportunity to do a noble thing. america is running out of time to solve a lot of problems, and 70% of our oil comes from

overseas, and a lot of it comes from people using the money for the purposes. now as a wonderful opportunity to break our dependency on foreign oil, and we're the most pro-nuclear stayed in the nation. we have more nuclear per capita than an -- pro-nuclear states in the nation. we have more nuclear per capita than any state. >> how come they do not love france? >> we love france. i make jokes of the french expends. they probably make some at mine. it makes the point. what percentage of french power comes from the nuclear industry? 82. surely, we can be as bold as the french. i am here to publicly thank the

french government and industry for proving the nuclear power has a responsible place in energy production, and you really cannot replace these with wind and solar. nuclear is part of the solution. from my point of view, if you want to create jobs, building nuclear power plants, redesigning our cars and homes to be more energy-efficient. that is where america is going to create jobs that will never go to china. we have a magical opportunity to become energy independent and clean up the air. the reason we talked about the president's speeches because it was different. the nuclear bill is not going to get 68 votes, but i appreciate what was said today. the president did something that has never been done before.

he talked about nuclear power, offshore drilling, and clean air. that is where america is at, and he said, you can disagree about the phenomenon of global warming. i do agree that greenhouse gases are contributing to the heating of the earth. how much, i do not know, of the he said, why don't you join me in providing cleaner air and pure water and help create jobs. that, to me, resonates. the president made our ability to put a bill together much more likely. i appreciate what he did. >> i am going to come to the audience. before i do -- >> a lot of the discussion has been the lack of the passage of

bill that has happened trade on it. i am rather -- that has cap and trade on it. i am rather skeptical we are going to pass a bill that has kept and trade. that does not mean that the u.s. cannot be seen as an active player in reducing co2. .

we solicited questions for this panel. when came from derek will want -- one came from derek wilmont. what role does the battle between republicans and democrats not supporting each other played in helping the economy? >> there is no question in my

mind that there's too much partisanship. it is exacerbated by the new media. people are going to their own choice a radio and television and in their own choice of internet bloggers instead of listening to what the other side does. we are listening to only people we agree with. both party leadership's literaly lock democrats out of conference committees. we have not had great partners on the republican side. we will have to get past that. if you take the health care bill or the energy bill, rather than crafting very large packages, we should start with small points and say what do we agree on and

build from there. people really want to see us get something done. if you take something as important as energy and as important as health care and say that we passed it with a one- vote majority or with one vote from the other side when it affects all americans, i guess, you may pass it into law, but you will have further problems. >> would will not happen this year is that the the republican victory in the senate race in massachusetts last week was the crucial vote in everything that happens in the senate. does that make it more likely or less likely that there will be things happening in congress this year? >> could difference between 50

and 69 is enormous. -- the difference between 50 and 69 is enormous. you are responsible for everyonthing. scott is when to give us a chance to start over on health care and have a more rational solution. everybody can tell you what they think about the massachusetts election. i never saw that one coming. now every republican is potentially the 60th vote. the democratic colleagues can say, is there not one? xdñiñiñii think it will create e of opportunity that was not thereñ)r before. the democrats will be required to look forñi that person or grp of people more so now. they were burned by the partisan

approach to health care. they're not stupid. they're very smart. they do not want to go down that road and have a cap and trade fight. we do not believe we are the party of no. i want to prove it. >> senator dodd, which i think is one of the more unfairly criticized political leaders who has done a good job at working with his republican counterparts and other people, senator gregg, for example. there's always going to be a degree of bipartisanship. in the house, it was more partisan on financial regulation. in the senate, i it has always been more of a negotiation.

i think this will not make any difference. there will be some differences over consumers who are pushing for more, but i do not think it will return to this. i expect the president to be sending a pretty substantial reform package. >> the democrats always wanted to be a vote for health care and we. >> they did. that is true. [laughter] let me make two points in response to your question. i have a different take on scott brown. i am ecstatic to have another republican from new england in the republican caucus. he is one who i believe will be a more moderate voice. i think that is good for the republican party. i think it is good for new england. i think it is good for our country.

the second point i want to make is that i believe that the election of scott brown gives the president permission to reach out more to republicans because he can tell the left that he has to. i am actually optimistic that it may allow us to proceed on bills that we otherwise would not have. on healthú1iñ there is a bipartisan health care bill to be had. there are several provisions in the senate bill that have widespread support. why do we not sit down and enact those provisions? snow -- small business tax credit, widespread support. it would help reduce the number of uninsured americans. health insurance across state lines and small business

pooling, there are many provisions where we can come together. i think the biggest mistake that was made with the health-care bill was an insufficient focus on cost. it is the high cost of health care, the floating cost of health care that is the biggest problem. had that been the focus of the bill, i believe we would have produced better legislation. instead, it was an afterthought. >> in energy and climate, there was never a day when it was a question of 60 votes. all democrats. it was always going toñr be republicans with whom we were going to have to work. many are ideological and many are regional.

people have taken health care as if it was the model. >> it might have been a catalyst in the massachusetts election. but we did not have a debate in massachusetts about how to regulate wall street for 100 other issues. at the end of the day, we all realize that we have to work in a bipartisan fashion. the reason that we drove the price of a barrel of oil up to $124 a barrel, amongst other things, was a failure to regulate derivatives or international markets. secondly, the congress, on a bipartisan basis, could not pass laws to increase the fuel economy standards for the roads

that we drive. 20% imported oil in 1970 when a to 6% imported oil two years ago -- went up to 60% imported oil two years ago. a lot of the problems that were caused in our economy were related to energy and financial policies. but it was not because democrats and republicans were fighting each other. some democrats and some republicans had more votes than some democrats and some republicans had to maintain these things on the book. as a result, it will take democrats and republicans within these areas to identify the problem and put in place the preventative policies. >> on health care, there are things that are attractive.

betting preexisting condition rules, -- banning pre-existing condition rules, cost control, but that is an issue that everyone is in favor of an beach measure becomes controversial. if we can pass a bill that says that we will reduce health-care costs by x%, it would be unanimous. if we had not fought the war in iraq, which did us more harm than good and spent $1 trillion on that, we would not be worrying about a whole lot of things that we are worrying about now, including how to pay for health care.

if we continue to participate in war activity, we will not have the money to do the things we need to do. >> there were things like best practices panels that would tell us where the best business was. that translated into that we will deny you coverage in the name of big government. the idea that you provide people end of life counseling so that they can make a decision about how to deal with and live decisions became deaf panels. it became a dishonest issue. it became bipartisanship and that was lamentable. >> the worst distortion on the

right were the death panels. the worst distortion on the left was that a single-payer system would be free. there were distortions on both sides. >> that was not a factor in the legislation. the death penalty issue, unfortunately, that terrible distortion affected both. >> if we have some time, we will return to some of these questions. who has the microphone? i have a question right appear. -- right up here. >> within an investment management firm. -- i am within an investment management firm.

it looks from the outside said it can complicate your job. it means you'll have to appeal not only for money for your campaigns, but you will be faced with some really big bucks, advertising and taking issue with some of the things you think ought to be done. if i am right and if you do believe that is when to complicate your job, is there anything congress can do to change that supreme court decision or would it require a change in the constitution? >> if i could make one change in the united states congress, it would be this. ban on all political fund- raising by any individual. to run in a competitive district, which mine is, you have to raise $2 million every

two years. it comes up to $20,000 every single week. you see people who want to be studying policy. instead, you are tied to gging complete strangers to give them money. that is a terribly inefficient return on your time and investment. it raises questions about whether you are voting on principle or for financial reasons. doing away with that would set our foreign policy state and their fiscal policy street. >> first of all, i think it is a terrible decision. it is a great treasure -- it is a great example of radical activism striking down dozens and dozens of state laws. the next time you have a conservative state saying you do not want the courts interfering

with public will, that will strike down hundred years of lost in america. free speech exists almost nowhere in the world except in the u.s. because they define the rights to give the money to candidates to contribute to free speech. i do not think that is rational. the only time they are for free speech is when it is not free. they have sometimes been able to spend money on their issues. this allows them to give to candidates. i think that is where the danger is. finally, there is something that falls within the jurisdiction of the committee high chair. the supreme courtñiñrw3ñrçóñrñre contrary, god did not make corporations. ñrwe are their creator. we can alienate some of those

rights if we do it in a fair way. ow studying what can be doneñrçó consistent with the sue court decision to make it go public and make the shareholders vote. there are ways that shareholders can make more effect. we will be legislating to make rules on what corporations can do. >> the perception of this decision is that it would be good for your team. >> i supported campaign finance reform. i was disappointed in the decision. i have a different take. i do not think the justice kennedy is a judicial activist. corporations, in the eyes of the court, have a free-speech rights when it comes to political advertising. i believe that public policy in america is in for a rude

awakening. it is hard enough right now to get democrats and republicans to work together. barney and i disagree on a lot of things. we would say that moveon.org did a great disservice in trying to get to joe lieberman out of the party. i would dare say that things are going to come out. if i stepped out and try to find some common ground on immigration and climate change, at the end of the day, the big problem facing america is not the lack of funding by other nations for the military. barney is right. nato needs to contribute more to their military to take some pressure off of us. but our problems are entitlements. our budget is locked down with social security and medicare and medicaid bills that are unsustainable.

if you try to solve these problems, the power of special- interest groups who are against whatever solution you put on the table has gone exponentially greater. can you imagine right in the united states constitution in today's environment -- can you imagine writing the united states constitution in today's environment? the power of money on the ability to find consensus on the hard things has gotten greater. i am not true that is going to hard decisions. i worry about this decision. >> we could not have gone the constitution if it had been negotiated on c-span. >> corporations do not want to be hated, for the most part. they have many ways to pour more money into the political process if they wanted to and they have chosen not to.

to cross that line and suddenly decide that, as a corporation, i want to defeat lindsay gramm of north carolina and those corporations are in sentences co, boston, and new york city, that is -- are in san francisco, boston, and in new york city, that is the favor you can give lindsay gramm because he can make an issue of that. both lindsay gramm and barney frank might ultimately agree on knowing where that money is coming from into north carolina# massachusetts. you can take all thaqi money you want. ñithe more you take it, the more they tried to influence the election, and the more you're going to deal with a modest amount of money. this could be a reverse takedown aspect.

corporations have to be careful about it. they could end up with black guys that will haunt them on many of their issues as they go for -- black eyes that will haunt them on many of their issues as they go forward. they can raise the tens of millions of dollars in a week. that is a revolution. it has to be handled with both parties. pac money was considered to be reform in the 1970's. çóçóñiñvy theçó 1990's, the fare calling for a ban on pac money. çówhat a curse it is on the political environment. ñithe best way to deal with thi, you'd be surprised, in the hands of able politicians how effectyv1eá$(p' be used to disarm what looks like to be an overwhelming opponent.

>> we're down to our last five minutes. >> i am from sausalito, california. i am one of 600 young global leaders. last night, president calderon was convincing as to become public servants, to become politicians. only less than 5% of those polled public office yet 75% of us want to end public office. ñirajivñrñi shaw is leading the mission in haiti and van jones. the van jones affect put the

nail in the coffin for men and women from entering politics on u.s. policy. what can you do to bring business leaders and other such leaders into the whole of government? >> your country needs you. it really is that simple. despite the tremendous frustration that each and every one of us have experienced in public life, the fact is that there are few areas that you can go into that also gives you more satisfaction. when you write a law that addresses a real problem, it is a wonderful feeling.

it is an opportunity to make a difference. i do not mean to sound corny or not leavnaive about the difficu. you really should go for it. there are very few ways -- perhaps teaching is another way -- that you can have such an impact on the society in which to live and truly help to make life better. despite the frustrations, despite the shortcomings, i really hope that you will enter public service. i say that having no idea what your views are. >> i am retiring at the end of this year. it is a crowded field. [laughter] >> it is not that far from sausalito.

it is the single greatest honor of privilege of my entire life to serve in the u.s. congress. there's a wonderful book called "washington's crossing." people literally walk with no ammunition, knowing they would have a high likelihood of getting a bayonet in the stomach, and they knew it because they had a vision of a greater country that had existed on earth prior to that. they achieved it. but they achieved it at extraordinary costs. yes, it was unpleasant to be targeted the way most of us have been. believe me, there are difficult times in this job. but, at the end of the day, the ability to serve in elective office, somebody has to decisions for your country as a man has to make decisions for the world. we desperately need young people to step forward. hopefully, when youñi do, learn from our mistakes. do things differently.

you will not always do things perfectly, but there will be moments that are sublime. you will be of the said, i spoke for something and it made a difference. >> if people think of running for the senate or the u.s. house, there are still very important jobs at the local and state level. ed and i started to get it in state legislature. entry-level jobs are very important. you may find that is -- that it is easier than you think to know these people. you do not need a lot of money at that level. most of us who were in the u.s. house and the u.s. senate started out in other jobs. there are other exceptions, but that is generally the way it is done. there are trade-offs.

we have two parallel universes. we have conservatives listening to media that they like and liberals on the internet. when some of us try to work out compromises, we are accused of the b train unnecessarily. they don't believe us when we say that we do not have the majority for single-pay. other people do not understand that. there are people out there who want you to compromise. but none of them have telephones. we never hear from them. we hear from the people or are the most energized. ñr-- people who are the most energized. getting into our line of work, you lose being able to luxuriate

in your irrelevance. [laughter] we think that is a trade-off worth making. >> thank you so much. political experts is an oxymoron. it is a contradiction in terms like jumbo shrimp or carnivores budgetary in. there is -- carnivorous vegetarian. we are experts in one thing, that is politics. that is what we are dedicated to. the van jones incident is a good example of something that should not be taken as something that is widespread. he was appointed. -- he was appointepointed. he was caught up in a controversy and he had to leave his job.

there are people across america who dedicate their lives to appointed government will service. if we do not have the best and brightest to except those tens of thousands of jobs, then it undermines the overall ability for ourñrñiñi country toxd ensut we stay number one in the world, looking over our shoulders at no. 2, no. 3, and no. 4. if you are talking allow people who are not appointed, like the van jones problem, most people lose. you have to be -- you have to be ready to lose. am i ready to have my mother know that i ran for something and lost. you also have to be willing to have people say that you

couldn't have said something as stupid as what i just heard. you have to fight every day for the things that you believe in. at the end the day, we'll feel that it is worth it. in my district, when the american revolution began in 1775, in lexington, they were kicked off at the government -- they were ticked off at the government. there were not talking about a king or a president or a prime minister appeare. they wanted a member of parliament and the british government would not give that to them. the least we could have is the best and the brightest of this generation and say that they are willing to run for office and ensure and maintain that level of commitment to excellence. it is very rarely achieved.

trying to accomplish. i would urge everyone of those çópeople less like to talk about and then dismissed public service in any of its forms as being worthy of their talents. i would urge them to reconsider. whatever problems exist out there will not be sold unless those very people are willing to -- will not be sold unless those very people are willing to put dissipate, through planning boards, congress, senator. that is the only way that the work of every country is going to be accomplished. >> when you decide to run, run against someone other than us. [laughter] ñi>> ofçó course, if you seek pc

office and do well,xd you may gt invited to a panel here. [laughter] thank you very much. >> house leader harry harmon filled in for prime minister gordon brown. she answered questions on the british bank, the economy, the iraq war in korea, and the afghanistan a conference in london. -- the iraq war inquiry, and the afghanistan conference in london. tomorrow, there is a discussion on the role that independent voters may play in the 2010

midterm elections. also, there is china's impact on the global economy. after that, there is a look at childhood obesity in the u.s.. then there is first lady michelle obama's campaign. >> in the nation's capital and across the country, listen to c- span radio in washington and xm satellite radio. it is also a free application for your iphone. >> there is a look at the role that women play in peace and security efforts in muslim countries. . >> "washington journal" continues.

first iñtell us about your organization. guest: yes, we are a >> we believe that women, when they are involved in the peace process should be there not because it is their right, although we believe that to be the case, but because, when women are involved, peace negotiations are actually more durable and sustainable. it will be more lasting and more sustainable when women are involved in negotiations. we have a network of about 1000 women around the world who are active in their communities and influence peace and nbc to promote the inclusion of women. host: what was ,>syour

organization's role in london, withççç ç karzai there, and happened there? guest: what happened in london, >> a lot of donors and multilateral organizations get together and talk about where they need to go next. often, groups of men sit around talking about these priorities and issues and interests that affect women in particular. and rarely are those women's voices included. so often we advocate for women to be on these negotiations and for women's priorities and interests to be represented. in the case of afghanistan, they had a donor conference in london, and okfáwe had groups o

afghan women come. and they identified what are afghan3ymwomen's priorities fo reconstruction. and it was useful as the afghanistan çgovernment did no have women xdin these negotiations. and the question was asked, who speaks for afcp' women? there are groups zviçi]ççóof around and geúconvened this group and have them identify their specific priorities for reconstruction and they presented that to the delegate. and told what things were priorities for them and what to keep funded. host: you can call in your calls çto the democratic line, republican line and independent line. and we are looking at the role

of women in peacemaking and security efforts in those muslim countries. there is a story ççfrom rueted afghan çwomen speaking for themselves çxd is only 25% and one of three women's names are put forward. guest: that's true, there they do not appreciate the role that women have in resolving the conflict. there were to support the women who are in afghanistan and said

that these are our issues and this is our country. we will be here in the future. we sustain the country during war and we have a role to play in keeping peace in the future. there is a minimum of 25% of women and the afghanistan parliament. they are working to be involved in the decision making. they want to be members of parliament and leaders in their communities. when we think of afghanistan we don't çthink of women as leaders, and we are trying to elevate the voices of women themselves in this politics. óçobligation w3imçç dóqñ that yyare there before and aftç the war.ççç host: what can when we talk about the security

sector, we talk about women that are in the police and the military. we also talk about women who are in parliament and the executive branch of government. one of the most fundamental arguments is that, when you have a critical mass of women, 30%, in any organization, a few things change. first of all, the issues that are discussed differ. you have different topics and different priorities. yes have a way that the organization functions change. the behavior of men and women change. with respect to the security sector, there is research to show that when women are police and military officers, they tend to be less likely to escalate tensions and more likely to be escalate violence situations. it is also really critical that,

following a conflict, for people to see women in the police and military as they are rebuilding their country. people need to see their communities in the police force. we cannot have all white men as a police force and expect people to be able to relate to that and expect to understand people's priorities. when women are involved in the securities sector, particularly after conflicts, you have a different set of priorities. security is not when weapons stopped firing. it happens all my neighborhood or in my home. women talk to other women and report issues of domestic violence or drug use, etc. then the police are much more aware of what is going on in the community. >host: let's go to chris from maryland.

caller: c-span never used to screen calls all the time. now it seems to be pushing this type of socialist or marxist propaganda. there is the quiet revolution which rose ford by timothy mathews and explains what this woman is pushing. she is pushing a socialist marxist ideal within her society. >> first of all, we screener colors to make sure that you have gone 30 days between phone calls to make -- we screen our callers to make sure that you have gone 30 days between phone calls. we want everybody to have a chance. >> i can answer the question. there is no culture in the world in which women do not want to have an influence in the decisions that affect our lives. i do a lot of work in sudan and

darfur. people say that it is not culturally appropriate. that is wrong. there are women involved in decision making there may not be women as president of the country. if they're not seen any formal decision making position, they think they are not there. at face value, they're not playing this role. i am used to dealing with somebody in this role. it is a man. therefore men are involved. we'll have the responsibility to look much deeper and look at other levels of influence in this community. in afghanistan, women play tremendous roles as teachers and educators. we cannot look at the culture- treated 5 and said that is afghanistan -- the culture- created vibe and say that that

is afghanistan. i have never met a woman who does not want to have an influence on the decisions that affect her life. affects çt(t(i]çokov çher ó çthis culture we have ççççxó host: çt(t(çççt(çédokçm caller: i wanted to ask your guest. have you ever attended an islamic social function, like a wedding or a party or something along those lines? i have. i attended a pakistani wedding. all the women sit on one side of the room. all the men sit on the other. there's no inclusion. it is a very segregated function.

it is out of cultural respect and religion. how can you expect to foster gender neutrality in a cultural religion that does not even symbolically recognize this? >> yes, i have, quite a few times. i traveled in sudan where i was lucky to attend weddings almost every other week. i want to pick up on something you said. he said cultural neutrality. or gender neutrality. we are now looking for equality in terms of exact equal treatment. what we're looking for is for zero men and women to have an equal influence and 8 -- is for men and women to have an equal influence and an equal voice. they each have different parties

and it is important that we listen to each of them and what they have to say. >> can you give us an example how to visualize, in afghanistan, how a woman is able to be a police officer while still respecting her customs and culture? host: they have been trying to recruit women into the afghan national police force. there are a number of issues and concerns that their families have. first of all, uniforms. will they be able to cover their hair, which is very important to them? they have the same types of uniforms that they have around the world. there are also issues of training. are you going to have to be housed in the same location as a man or in the same physical

environment overnight? now. it is not culturally -- no. it is not culturally appropriate. they have separate facilities so they can sleep in different quarters overnight. a lot of what we're trying to point out is that women just have different needs and different interests. there are culturally appropriate ways of meeting those that are not necessarily as complicated as we like to make them out to be. not as complicated as we try to make them. host: good morning, we have harry joining us. caller: good morning, can you define peace, how do we know when peace is achieved? guest: great question, peace does not occur when weapons are

firing. when open warfare begins, and peace is not sustainable until people are secure in their environments and communities and neighborhoods. and you have to take a very personal perspective on peace, women are not going to feel peace in their lives or in a better situation if they experience domestic violence if -- in their home. or if they are in a refugee camp, and in fear of rape. that's not peace. and we are saying that women need to be involved in defining peace. as henry is talking about, it's not just when armies move in a different direction and guns

stop firing but when all members of the community are able to live in physical security in their homes. host: bill, independent caller line from illinois. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. my question is how do we address women as first-class women as second-class men. and that's what you look at, what is peace and security in their environment. a mother is the first one to teach that child love. and there is a yearning to say how do we get back to that peace, not the absence of war but the yearning to go back to it and how the mother got it in the first place? guest: there are arguments about women's innate qualities. and we will make that point

that one women in herself will change the dynamic. but it's a good point, women have an influence over various spheres of life. last week in washington, d.c. we had women here and a group from pakistan. and one group was the peace council in the swat valley that many are familiar with through the conflict in afghanistan. they try to influence the men in their community to effectively not join the taliban. and these women had amazing stories sitting around in people's homes and sitting on the floors of their kitchen talking to first of all mothers. and saying what the information that some taliban leaders are telling you is not true.

they are interpreting things differently. i am from your culture and here are other appropriate ways to talk about things. pnd let's think, do you really want your son to go off and do this. and she's got examples of the moral influence that women have over their sons and not to join the taliban. absoluty, bill, women can play an influential role as mothers and other types of peace builders. host: let's go to c.w.on our democratic line. hi, c.w. caller: hi, good morning. thank you. i got a question, i have two of them. the first is how much of the synergy of the women presently do you think is in the military

of afghanistan and how many are in the security force, the police? and how much would your organization like to see of the representation of women in afghanistan? guest: thanks for your question. in afghanistan there is a constitutional quota for parliament that women should be 25% of parliament and they have met that quota. i think that 25-30% is a reasonable number. as i mentioned research proves that 30% approximately constitutes a critical mass. what you are not doing when you have four to 5 percent, and we have a couple of women and that will change everything. you need to be sure you have enough women that the dynamic of the organization are reflected. and the two choose their career path and considered by others as a

regular functioning member of the police. and i think that 25% is a good number and you will find that number in a lot of places around the world. in afghanistan the parliament has 25%. and it's something that a lot of americans don't realize, the u.s. congress has just under 17% women in the u.s. congress. the u.s. ranks 74th in the world in representation of women. so i think it's really, we don't think of the fact that around the world there are a lot of places with significant numbers of women in the parliament and police and military forces. host: let's go to dawn. caller: hi, i think they are using this unjust war to infiltrate their own cultural

beliefs. and by pushing the opposite you are causing a culture to disintegrate and breaking down their family units. who are we to violate their freedom, they are a independent n independent government and they are trying to disguise this . guest: i am happy to answer this question, who is defining afghan culture? we are looking at a government that is effectively enforced by the taliban. they were not elected nor chosen through a democratic system. you didn't have the people of afghanistan say we want to do this. you had a system of government that was called later on called afghanistan culture that was

enforced upon them. i believe with the underlying principle. you have to be sensitive and we can't expect it to look and feel like the places we live in. and it's critical to see who is speaking for afghans, and 50% of that culture is women. and women have a real interest in defining their own culture. and of the culture argument, cultures shift and change. the culture created by afghan and created by conservative elements of that society are not the only ones that speak for afghanistan or anyone else. if you look deeper, they want to have an influence. we work with women around the world. when you give them a chance to talk to you. first of all, you are in their country and they want to have a say of what you are doing. some object to it and

rightfully so. but some say come and ask what we want. you will do reconstruction and rebuilding of schools and roads. don't you think we have an interest of that. when you are there, you have an obligation to dig deeper and look at underlying layers of influence , in this culture argument you have to be careful of that. host: when you go in, how much of your staff and resources are from outside the country. and how much are you able to network and have women inside the country take control? guest: sure, we don't have a presence in afghanistan, we work with women and we identify with other women leaders in afghanistan. and our sole goal is to give them a voice. it's to say, people are not coming to ask what you are saying, what do you want t/ say and how can we get this message

ãacross. that's the conference in london, to bring the afghan women to london to speak directly to their culture and government and the future as a country. we very much focus on not going there and me saying, ok, i am a white woman here from canada, for example, let's talk about what your country should look like. absolutely not. it is who are leaders in your community and what do you want to say.ñ host: let's hear from chaz. caller: hi, first time caller. i remember certain culture norms that we devastated and heavilily so. y -- happily so.

slavery and women's voting. what is behind these question when people are concerned about the religious right. afghan or iraqi. but don't give a hoot about their political rights. so really i asked everyone who is concerned about the cultural norms of other people and exploit people like yourselves, and myself. what is really behind your question? because my particular background is latin american, my parents are from cuba. ountry, they e from cuba. didn't want to participate in those politics. but i visited others there and in latin america, and they are making a change. and the so-called patriarial

power structure was in real power. and power is distributed more 4 becomes richer. guest: absolutely, chaz, i couldn't believe more. i liken it to going to the movie theater and half the screen is covered. so you only watch half will movie. when you don't involve women, you are not getting the whole picture, you are not getting subtles or nuances, you are getting half the picture. we have to be careful because a lot of people purport to speak for the entire population but they don't. and it's t >> tomorrow, a discussion on what independent voters will

play on the midterm elections. also, china's impact on the global economy. after that, a look at each of obesity in the u.s.. and first lady michelle obama's national campaign. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> in the nation's capital and across the company, listen to c- span radio. it is also a free application for your iphone. c-span radio covers washington like no other. >> tonight, q&a with terry teachout.