one caller talked about the call centers because they should come back here to america and it's better than $10. everything else was going up. gas went up to $4 a barrel when people were losing their jobs and still even have to get to work and still then be told because the jobs were leaving. that nafta thing has to be repealed. but we have problems here in america here also. . ll . z

host: couple of other sections to talk about. "the new york times" today. "fed to reveal its strategy for raising interest rates." bar nanky having survived a surprising challenge to his second term as federal reserve clarme. -- chairman. guest: the economy through the fall of 2008 and through last year, in an effort to help banks and credit markets and to prevent the financial system from imploding. they did that by lower the interest rates, and now they have to pull that back. they have to pull the federal

reserves investments in the economy back. and they have to do that carefully because they don't want to cause problems in doing so, which is something that could happen. it will be delicate. markets are watching when this will happen. if he doesn't do it right, you will see plunges in stock values. host: what is the update? guest: last week senate dodd announced he was at an impasse with senator shelby, and it's not a good sign. there are some republicans who said they were committed to get a bill. one thing to watch is bob corker, a new senator from tennessee, he's working with mark warren, the former virginia governor, and they are

working on some aspects of the bill. if they can get an agreement that could roll into a larger package. host: one last caller. caller: my comment is straightforward. i can't be more blunter. i noticed throughout the years, every time there is a republican in office, this country goes downhill and no jobs. and when democrats get in, there are plenty of jobs. and it seems to me people are forgetting who created this problem in the last eight years and trying to put the chain on obama's neck and it's not right. host: final thoughts. guest: in terms of who is to blame, there is a lot of blame throwing. obama has not forgotten, he

mentioned that he inherited a rotten economy. and gets from republicans that he's been in office for a year, and it's time for him to take responsibility. both parties have their aessages they are trying to get host: thanks a lot for your time and insight this morning. >> you're watching c-span, created by the nation's cable companies. offered as a public service. here's what's ahead. next, a look at the homeland security report. then a conversation on civic lit rass see. later, first lady any she'll obama talks about childhood obesity.

>> the blizzard continues in washington and much of the east coast. you'll hear from the russell senate office building at the u.s. capitol. federal government closed for the third day in a row. the house and senate both now. the house won't returned until february 2. senate back tomorrow afternoon. an announcement from capitol hill, vern ehlers is going to retire. he first was elected in 1993. he represents michigan's third district and was set to announce his retirement this morning at a news conference in grand rapids. >> it's the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist, "american presidents: life portraits" by chaz fagan now on display in purdue university in west lafayette, indiana through february 21. the exhibit looks at the lives of the 43 men who held the office delu prints and audio regardings sponsored by c-span

and the white house historical organization. you can go to americanpresidents.org. tune in c-span 2's "book tv" for a three-day president's weekend beginning saturday. authors include former treasury secretary henry paulson talking about warren buffett. afterwards is hiss torial gary wills on how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the u.s. and the world. it reairs sunday at 9:00 eastern and pacific. and all day monday, books on american presidents. h.w. brands on f.d.r. jabari on president obama. for the complete schedule go to booktv.org. >> last week the obama administration sent the first homeland security report to the u.s. congress. here is about the administration's next efforts

to redefine its homeland security mission. daniel kaniewski working for president bush from 2005-2008 and on the table is homeland security report, what does it look at? guest: first it's an important document, i applaud this administration and that it meets the congress attempt. i feel it provides a road map for the future for the department of homeland security. in reality homeland security is broader. and i feel this document will lay the future. host: what are the topics in this report? guest: there are no surprises, this is not controversial.

preventing terrorists attacks is the number one priority. no surprise. but other items resiliency before disaster. i arrived here before hurricane katrina and i am happy to see that this is one of five major themes identified in this review. host: and it's the first such review that the department relatively knew. what piece of information are members of congress looking for in this? guest: this is the first process and the ideal state is that this document will help build future budgets. the 2012 budget it will be interesting to see how closely the homeland security budget lines with this document. host: our guest is the director

of homeland security institution, daniel kaniewski, and the phone numbers on the bottom the screen. topics what is next for d.h.s., when was this department first formed? what did it come out of? and how big now? guest: after the legislation in 2002, it was a combination of several efforts on the hill, there were committees working on this issue before 9/11. and it surprised us that the bush administration looked to congress to help them build this bill. and a year later, in 2003, the department opened it doors with 180,000 employees, it was a huge undertaking. in the seven or eight years since the department of

homeland security existed, it's a growing process. it's not just like flipping on a light switch and the department is ready to go. this quadrennial review comes at a the right time and the department looks back and says what are our priority. host: what is the budget? guest: it's a little over 200,000, and the budget request for 2011 is 2% increase from last year. and this is not news, but the other departments and agencies budgets are frozen or declining, but homeland security is up 2%. host: is that enough money to do the job effectively? guest: there is always room for improvement. i want those budgets to be larger.

host: first call from greg to daniel. caller: i think that the trial of mohammed should be held publicly with a citizens grand jury so we can get to the bottom of who really did this. thank you. host: any thoughts? guest: this is a controversial issue and a top issue on the agenda for the obama administration. president obama made the pledge to close began -- guam guantanamo bay. the issue that came forward just now in the last few weeks is the cost of this trial.

and are we as americans willing to sacrifice our resources to have these trials in the united states. in 2009 there was $2 million allocated for these trials. given what will happen in new york, it may be difficult to find a location in the united states to have these trials. but more importantly, $200 million of these trials that could have taken place at guantanamo bay. come at a cost. they are significant costs to state and local programs. those costs and expenses and opportunities are wasted because we want to have these trials domestically. i would rather see that money spent on state and federal homeland security programs.

host: our caller on the republican line. caller: did you say anything about closing the borders of mexico and canada? guest: mission two in the report talks about security and managing the borders. guest: sure, security is managing but not closing the borders. it speaks of free commerce. the administration understands and i am happy to see this, understands there a balance between security and free commerce and free trade. both are important. if you lock down the borders you could be cutting off trade. and that would be good for nobody and bad for the economy. host: how do you strike that balance of free trade and securing the borders? guest: it's difficult, similar

to the securing of the borders and security. like the christmas bomber, the privacy issues take a back seat. i say that not to be coy, the bottom line there was not support for full-body scanners prior to the christmas bombing incident. and now the question is why don't we have these in more airports. the political will was not there, facing pressure from outside groups and commerce with grave concerns about the full-body scanners. and in the wake of the christmas bombing incident, $215 million has been requested for these full-body scanners. host: mission one, preventing

terrorism, speak to how you think the current administration is doing in office? guest: i think they struggled at first, when you look the homeland security's director in& it tells me you are obviously in denial and it tells me as much as we'd like to forget about terrorism it will create havoc and you simply can't predict every act of terrorism.

fact the number one thing is preventing terrorism throughout. i'm sorry it took several months or a year for this administration to focus on this. i think they're focused on natural disaster preparedness which is good to see. something we tried to do, especially in the wake of hurricane katrina. but i applaud the obama administration on this that they are very clear that responding to natural disasters is homeland security. and that's simply that the bush administration, we struggled with. in fact, we never were very clear that that was a key mission. host: and does the report specifically go to improvements that can be made or is it a status report, does it mix the two? guest: i think it lays out the priorities. more importantly i hope it plays a key role in the fy 2012 and future budgets. where they can matchup these to priorities. host: back to calls, francis. caller: hello, this man is very articulate and i am sure he can

answer questions. the last time i called into c-span, the two guests wouldn't answer my questions. i have three questions and you it answer them clearly and truthfully, i would be very grateful. on the homeland security act when it was passed was there a midnight rider put on it to block [inaudible] children's vaccines? host: let me stop you there. guest: i haven't heard of that, i don't know but i don't think it's come across. caller: mitch daniel was the governor who supposedly did that. the second question, in southwestern united states, they are building detainee camps that hold whole families

by homeland security? guest: i think there is some truth to the fact that the federal government should be planning to handle a mass influx of people. but not if detainees. i am not aware of that. but if you mean those who cross the border because they need to be detained because they are unlawfully crossing, of course, there are facilities for that. host: one more question. caller: a 15-year-old boy was arrested in north carolina and in a secret prison in u.s. patrit -- patriot 1, will this be used against or citizens? guest: no, i am an advocate of supporting the civilian government, we want the

military to assist of but not that military play a law enforcement role. host: we have a call from will from atlanta. caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. mr. kaniewski i would like to address the man from north carolina that suggested in the trial of mohammed fella be held by a citizen's grand jury to see if he committed the crime. if you read the book about bush and cheney that committed 9/11. you did a good job and your priests raise you to be a part of the system and only the catholics that supported the hitler's grandson draft dodging. >> host: to say?

guest: no. host: we have fred on the republican line. are you there? caller: yes, i am. thank you for taking my call. i want to ask your guest, mr. richard trupp president of the afl-cio gave a speech where he talked about unionizing the employees, and that they would be better off if unionized. and that flies in the face of a fella that is head of israeli surety for ll airlines. at least he was. and he allocates nurses and if

failure by security people they would immediately be fired. and he would tolerate no failure on their part. and i wonder what your guest feels about unionizing tsa employees? guest: that's a good question i don't feel that's needed to unionize tsa employees. host: more table of contents, the break-down of this quadrennial report, and anything else on your opinion on money spent and the money on southern border and northern border, what is your take? guest: there is one concern and that's the reduction of the

number of border agents in the fy-11 budget. while the security review is to look forward and that border security is important and spending money on border security is important. you see in the fy-11 budget there is a cut. if you dig deeper it's not a large cut, 180 border agents would be let go by attrition. every year 1,000 retire, so this is not a big deal. if your viewers hear that the border agents are cut, it's a small number and through attrition. host: they touch on labor relation laws, what does that say? guest: it whasz the bush administration says, we will

look toward high-tech solutions at our border. we will look at opportunities to ensure that only lawful, people can only lawfully enter this country. i will say there is not a lot new on the immigration side. even overall, there is not a huge change from what is being said in this document from what is said previously in bush administration documents. obviously where you sit is where you stand, i think that's good to have a continuation of bush policies. and this administration has made tweaks where they feel is necessary and keep up with the times. host: we go to waco county virginia. caller: yes, i want to say a few words, i never understood

when the world trade center was bombed and why they didn't get people out of florida and put them on the fastest plane out of here. and to find where you hide and everything. host: comment on that? independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i have a couple of questions, one is the failure of homeland security in the christmas bomber when he actually boarded the plane i think in the netherlands. and now we will have body scanners in the united states. what are we doing about the foreign countries that are letting these people get through to come through. and then of course the trials of the 9/11 folks i called the

senator's office and fly everyone to impanel a jury to gitmo and go there. host: let me stop you there, the caller mentions other countries, what is happening there? guest: that's a great question. in fact no matter how good our security is at domestic airports, we would not have stopped that christmas bomber. that's an important part and the secretary said it was not there fault but that's an easy way out. it's important that we reach out to our allies and that they have security support. after all the terrorist will approach the weakest link, and if that's a foreign partner, that's where they will go. europeans have taken immediate

actions. and in amsterdam where this individual flew through, they put in the full-body scanners almost immediately after that incident. host: caller, what is your other question? caller: back in the beginning of the obama administration they have several, i guess they call it ice now. they had several raised that went into a factory that rebuilt engines and arrested a bunch of people and napolitano told them not to do that anymore. we still have immigrants, i live in jacksonville and we had the same situation where there were 100 people working on the new white -- court house that were not documented. if we don't penalize the people that hire the illegal

immigrants, then we are not going to take care of th problem. and it seems like the obama administration doesn't want to enforce the laws. and they are letting these people slide by. and i will hang up and wait for the answer. guest: i think that the issue you speak about is just one part of comprehensive immigration reform. until comprehensive immigration reform is resolved we can't deal with other aspects like security. security is very important to me. and i realize and security and enforcement are just one small of immigration. until there is leadership on this issue and some level of agreement on comprehensive immigration reform we will continue to face the security concerns that the caller raised. host: a question by twitter, how much of homeland security is run by contractors, don't

contractors have limited oversight and not work for profit, not public good? guest: the department of defense relies on contractors. and the department of defense or homeland security couldn't function contractors. there are not enough employees in these areas to perform those functions. most importantly if a private sector company with do it more efficiently and at a lower cost, i think they should be contracting. host: we touched on a lot of issues with this report, what is the biggest problem? guest: i think the department is still going through growing pains. the department and its secretary had a steeper curve,

pandemic influence, that was one of the first major challenges. and now the christmas bomber and all sorts of issues in between. i think it's been a difficult time, a difficult first year. but i am more comfortable now that the department his learned the political issues. and political staff aside, even the career staff had a difficult time the first few years. i see them gem -- getting more comfortable with their mission and understanding their roll. -- role. and i applaud them for acknowledging that homeland security is so much broader than just the department. and for example, the influenza

or bioterrorism, it's the role there. and animal health issues that we dealt with, with swine flu, that's usda, department of agriculture. supporting department obligation whether in haiti or military, it's the military that has the equipment to assist. a@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host: back to florida, west palm beach, jim, republican. we are talking about the future of homeland security. caller: yeah, hi. i had another question but i'd like to talk about the christmas bomber since he mentioned it so much, and i'd like to point out that the naked body scanners were at the

airport that this guy went through. and, also, he was let on by a state department official. he didn't even have a passport. so i think there's a lot more truth that needs to come out with this, and you can go to a website. i'd also like to talk about you mentioned yourself that through immigration until the immigration process is done on what we want to do with all these immigrants that security is not that important. i'd think that would be the most important, don't you? my point is it's difficult to look at these issues separately. security and enforcement are important pieces, but in the broad scheme of immigration re form, they are just a couple of pieces. there are many issues and much more complicated. absolutely security is important, but my view it's more difficult to fix that security issue unless you look at the comprehensive piece

first. you are right, there are body scanners at the airport. however those scanners were not used for u.s. bound passengers. a lot of reasons for that, one is privacy concerns. today those scanners are being used for u.s. bound passengers. so you are correct. so is the homeland security saying that scanners are using it now. host: where can people read on this report? guest: it's on the homeland security website and you can google it, quadrennial review, it comes out over four years. host: here is the website, what happens with this report. congress gets it and you mention they will look to future budgets and that type of thing but whatever? guest: it was congress that

mandated this in 2007, and they have the biggest interest in this. you will see now many committees in congress will each look at the portions of this report that apply to them. what many people don't understand is that there are 80 committees and subcommittees in congress that have some oversight role with respect to homeland security. . . when that department was created, they decided they would hold on to customs issues. so today a very large portion of the department of homeland

security, customs and border protection is overseen by that committee. and in fact right now the nominee for the head of c.b.p. has been not acted upon. and it's not been acted -- it's not that the senate homeland security committee has not confirmed this person or had the hearings for this person. it's that the senate finance committee has not acted on this. so one of the issues here that they're going to look at is senate finance will look at customs issues that we discussed. you could look over on the house side, the house transportation, infrastructure committee. they care very much about fema because fema is one of the agencies that they oversaw prior to the department of homeland security. so what's really interesting is there's no one single answer. each of these committees is having a particular interest in each of these. host: billy is calling from

north carolina. you have been very patient. democratic caller. caller: thank you very much for taking my question. i know you have been in business going on eight years, homeland security. and the bothereders have not been secured. you know, we have people coming over the border with tons of drugs. now i know they can easily get a dirty bomb or whatever in across the borders and all these areas and you guys have not -- now, if you notice this homeland security was created after 9/11. if somebody had opened their eyes, that could have been presented -- prevented easily it was the people we had up there, the leadership was not working. now, we have gone and created another bureaucracy which costs $100 billion per year per i don't see where they have helped us out. i don't want to be critical of you but you have to tell the truth. during the election of george

bush on the second term, people were running scared. they used that to get bush reelected. they never really thwarted any attacks. the only ones they thwarted or on airplanes. we're looking at money now. this is government spending there. we have to look at where we are getting the bang for our buck. i understand homeland security is important but you have to look at health care. there are more people dying because they cannot get health care than any terrorist could kill. if i was osama bin laden. , we can't do anything about it, that is crap. we're spending $100 billion per year for what? c'mon, man.

host: i think he is gone. guest: the viewer feels very strongly. i respectfully disagree. if we spend an unlimited amount of money, can we do a better job of security at the borders? sure, but that is not the environment we work in. there are other priorities out there like health care. unless we have an unlimited amount of money, there will always be a trade-off. there will always be a prioritization between what we spend our money on within the department of homeless security whether we spend it on disaster preparedness or securing the borders or on broader issues like public policy. you raise a lot of concerns and a lot of questions but if there was an unlimited amount of money, this would be easier.

host: independent caller from kentucky. caller: i was calling in about -- in reference to janet napolitano bridge probably made the most devastating statement about returning war veterans from afghanistan and iraq, saying that this was a special group that had to be observed because of the fact that they may turn to violence against their own country. i was very upfront about this. -- i was very upfront about this. -- affronted about this. i think she should have been removed from office. pre-9/11, during the clinton administration, people don't understand the budget deficit that went on. yes, the deficit was zero under clinton but they cut the military in half.

many people that i knew, we had foreseen that if an incident occurred, they would have to spend five times the rate to be able to reinforce the military again. we have seen armaments go and body armor being limited. we knew we did not have enough cruise missiles. 9/11 happened and our deficit for spending went amuck. people do not even look at that. my main thing is about janet napolitano. i think she is the most incompetent person i have ever seen. guest: i have heard comments about her. she had a difficult year. i have said that before. the right wing extremists report that you referenced was taken out of conference -- context, i think. i think was handled very poorly. that was one of the first challenges that she faced. there have been several other

challenges this past year, including the christmas bomber, where she misspoke. unfortunately, the obama administration took a hit. i do not disagree with the callers or frustration. i hear you and i feel a similar way. when i see things like that happen, when i see things not handled well. i think a criticism for the military veterans is unfortunate. i hear you and i hope that the department leadership here is you as well. host: 01 to get your take on the lead editorial of "the new york times." they say the republicans are trying to scare americans by making it appear as if democrats do not care about catching or punishing terrorists. the republicans did that in 2004

to get the president reelected. that is a big issue that has gone back and forth on capitol hill from both sides as somebody close to last president in this area, what do you think of that kind of critique? guest: i vehemently disagree with the fear mongering part. to think that someone in my bush administration did anything intentionally to spin the threat is ridiculous. we were vexçñ concerned about a terrorist attack. that is why we focus on terrorism. the last year and watched the obama administration not emphasized terrorism away we did was very concerning to me. there are two sides to every story. i will say that if there was any fear-mongering about terrorism before or now there is, you have to think it is because of the christmas bombing incident.

he did republicans are saying i told you so or the obama administration is saying they are tough on terrorism now -- it will be an ongoing debate. host: a couple of more topics from the quadrennial report. what is the report say about cyberspace? guest: cyber security has been a tough issue in the bush administration and the obama administration. to put it in black-and-white and to say this is not only a priority, it is a priority of one of the top five issues. it is certainly not new. because it is in the report, it does not mean there was nothing on this. the bush administration was focused on this. i applaud them for making this public. host: in showing resilience to

disasters? guest: this is not something new. this was in relation to disaster response. what is new is that they have on equipped -- they have unequivocal said that responding to natural disasters whether they be hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, or pandemic influenza, kudos to the obama administration for doing this. in the bush administration, many of us felt that way but we were not able to get it said quite as clearly as the obama administration has. a lot of that has to do with congress. many in congress felt strongly that all my security does not incorporate responding to natural disasters despite the fact that fema is in dhs. putting in the document that responding to disasters is a response broke -- responsibility, security is

important. host: massachusetts, republican, you are on the air. caller: i have a question about air marshals. my son is one and he will fly from boston to new york and he says the bureaucracy -- when they go on vacation, they classify him as an air marshal. there are only like 3% of all domestic and international flights with air marshals. it is a joke. this, and security -- this homeland security is ridiculous it is like the tsa.

ñguest: i think it is complicated. the federal air marshal program has good intent which is to provide another layer of security to prevent terrorist attacks via aircraft but is it is not the be all and end all. i will say that the statistics, there is a good reason it is not public. regarding where federal air marshals are flying for it would not make sense unless we had federal air marshal's braylls. we don't have the funding to provide a federal air marshal on every single domestic and international flights. it is unrealistic. i don't think we ever will. it does not make sense to provide the level of funding to the federal air marshals not to these other levels of

security. by keeping it random or putting them on the highest-risk flights determined by the department of all my security and keeping it secret, i think it keeps the terrorists questioning and on edge3 . they don't know whether there is an air marshal on a certain flight or not. i think that is the best case scenario right now. host: massachusetts for this last call, a democrat. caller: by mgm from melrose. -- i am jim from melrose. i appreciate cspan because it gives the american people a chance to be heard. my first question is -- how do you balance privacy vs. security?

let me give you two instances of which propel my question. i9 believe it was norfolk maybe three years ago. i paid cash. i encountered eight not to courteous security person. i was given the once over. they were too close to my private parts which i found objectionable. before i knew it, a big woman who looked like a professional wrestler gave me a once over and i saw two policeman and a policeman were very reasonable they said the reason was that i was targeted is that i paid cash provide but that was in physician -- but that was insufficient. i told -- and showed them my retired military corporate instance two -- this was in corpus christi, texas. i got the same ones over and the guy asked to take my belt off.

i ask what would hold my pants up and they said you are. i'm a rookie because i do not travel by plane very much. they confiscated my deodorant in the can. i ask what they did with this stuff. they said they destroy it. told them to give it to a nursing home or something. how do you balance the need for security and privacy? guest: i think it is a great question. it is an abiding concern for it has been a concern before 9/11. if you think of a pendulum, after 9/11, the pendulum swung toward security. there is no question that in the days and weeks and years following 9/11, there is an emphasis science -- on security and people will put up with inconveniences'. several years past 9/11, i think we risk swinging the

pendulum too far toward privacy. iythat breeds complacency, unfortunately. the question is always, how can we remained vigilant? how can we insure the security measures are taken while still ensuring a level of privacy? how can we defend the country from any terrorist attacks? as concerned as you were about the search you had, all of us wish that the christmas bomber winter such a thorough search. i will always be sensitive to the privacy issue but security is number one in my mind. host: thank you for beingng with us.

director for response policy. thanks a lot for your time this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> here's what's ahead on c-span. next, a conversation on civic literacy. and first lady michelle obama talks about childhood obesity. and representative buck mckeene on defense spending. -- buck mckeon on defense spending. >> and on spending, the $787 billion economic stimulus program signed into law about a year ago, over $33 billion has been committed. $179 billion has been paid out as of february 2. you can keep track of the spending and projects at our website. take a look at hearings and

briefings and watch watchdog groups on spending and tracking on c-span.org/stimulus. tune in c-span 2's book tv for a three-day president's day weekend beginning saturday. authors include former treasury secretary henry paulson talking with warren buffett on the 2008 economic complaps. afterwards historian gary wills on how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the role of the u.s. and the world. afterwards reairs sunday 9:00 eastern and pacific. and on monday, president books. craig shirley on ronald reagan. for the complete schedule go to booktv.org. >> it's the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist, american presidents, life port rates by chaz fagan now on display at purdue university in west

lafayette, indiana. now through february 21. it looks at the lives of the 43 presidents who held the office. sponsored by c-span and the white house historical association. and if you can't get to west lafayette, see the entire collection online at c-span's website. americanpresidents.org. >> how much do you know about government history and civics? we talked about it for about 45 minutes. host: our guest now is richard. very snowy in the east but lots of folks are home. we could learn something. guest: absolutely, paul. thanks for having us back. host: you guys put out a new report on civic literacy, it's called "the shaping of the american mind." here's a look at it right now. l current college students know about their

government and foreign affairs and economics. they're not doing very well. they don't know we have three branches of government and do not know traditional review and basic things about the economic system. host: why not? guest: it goes back to the curriculum. kids can not know what they are not taught grade civics is not a priority starting from kindergarten up through college. we think that college is a good place to start. that is where our teachers are trained. that is where our future leaders are trained. host: speak more to the collection of american believes. guest: what we want to do other than looking at how much people know or don't know, we want to see what that impact is on public opinion. we also ask them a battery of questions about american ideals and institutions, public policy,

economic policy. for example, is america a force for good in the world? are the founding document of america obsolete? does the free market provide prosperity? and then we saw ask them how -- and then ask them how they answer those questions? we saw a diverging impact on a per if you go to college, that impact is on a very narrow step of divisive social issues. if you go to college, you are more likely to favor abortion, you are against school prayer, you are much more in favor of same-sex marriage. there is a question about whether there is indoctrination that might be going on on the college campuses in relation to civic ignorance. it is both sides of the same coin. they are not teaching well the foundations of the republic but they might be influencing opinion on some of these issues host: they are serious issues but we will try to have fun with some of the questions.

the phone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. education and civic literacy is the subject. one question you ask -- what was the mainñi issue in the debate between abrahamçó lincoln and stephen douglasñi in 1858? what is theñi answer to that question? guest: it wasñi actually the extension ofçó slavery into new territories. that was important during that time because there was a border war going on between kansas and missouri. ñrslavery had been a huge issue through the republic. ñrthere had been a compromise which is important to know. ñrñiasñi we expanded westward, e was a question of how to balance ñieventually, it came to a headn the civil war. you get host: thisñi test to a couple of thousand people. ñiwhatñi percentage got that fit question right? sqáj than

45%. that was in college graduates. that was an interesting finding from the report last year was the college did not add to much to it. they did better on the question slightly but it was stimn a failing grade. host:ñr here's another one -- ñe u.s. electoral college doesñr what? it has five choices. what isñr the answer to this? question because resurveyed elected officials asñrñr well. they got this question wrong more than the general public. one of the "-- one of the possible answ$y was "it trains our futuzez elected officials." maybe we need more training for elected officials but the answer ñiis "it picks our president of the united stats5" that was the issue something other than a general popular vote for the president. host: first call for our guest,

pat, republican. how do you think your civic knowledge is? caller: well, it's probably about maybe 80 percentile. guest: well, that's probably better than most americans. host: what was the source of the following phrase? government of the people, by the people, for the people. there are four choices here. it's the "i have a dream" speech, the declaration of independence, the u.s. constitution and the gettysburg address. caller: everybody knows the answer to that question and that's d. host: well, not everyone does know that question. less than 25% of americans knew that question like you did. you're obviously better educated. guest: and we actually noted that c-span callers, talk radio people are more civic lit rate. host: does that figure surprise you, 25%?

caller: can i make a suggestion and comment? host: yeah. caller: you know, the president talked about a week or so ago to the american people. on television. and there's a lot of in america in the united states our populous has never really understood what a divine leader of a country is. not since the japanese imperial -- the person who was in charge of japan, the emperor, he was considered a divine person. now, in the united states, obama is not but around the world he is considered a divine person.

now, look at it this way. when he was talking on television, you know, he said that everyone misunderstood him. they were snowing him with being a bush-avic. guest: what i'll say to you, pat, the american founders certainly agree to you that we didn't want a divine right of kings or anything like that. we put into place a separation of power system with the separation of government. we asked that question to american graduates. less than half know the three branches of government. that is startling as a political science professor to me. host: and a disconnect between what that caller said, what everybody knows and the figures. guest: i think people are startled when they hear about that. host: perry, you're a democrat. caller: hi. host: you're on the air. guest: hey, perry. caller: the question i want to

ask, i know in my high school they teach sievics and they talk about state government and city government. would you encourage the public school system to teach civics to kids? guest: absolutely. i sit on my public school boards and that's one thing i ran on is try to improve civic education at the k-12 level. look, half of the states require even one course on civics and so, perry, you're absolutely right. this is something that was par for the course for folks when you grew up and somehow we got away from it. . we rolled into social studies. the amenities that hakerz@ @ "@b

>> a comment made in the early going here, he seems to feel that the colleges are doing what might be called in

conservative terms leftist indoctrination job on the college students today. is that the case? or did you misspeak? >> well, walter, one of the reasons we did the new study, we were finding just definitive results that colleges weren't teaching basic american history and government. we said what other impact might college have on our civic life? when we asked those questions, the only impact a college had was on these very divisive, polarizing social issues and it moved college graduates toward a quote-unquote left wing view on abortion, same-sex marriage and made people more identify with the liberal an democratic wings of the american political spectrum. we'll leave it to you to decide if that's a good or bad thing.

study after study, not our studies, but independent analysis, show that college professors are 10-1, 14-1, especially in the humanities are liberal. explained again why you think they are not teaching this and the lower grades. guest: clearly, the curriculum is getting crammed with so many other requirements. there's a huge focus on math science. that is not a bad thing. we believe that republics are special and fragile and the founders realized this and wanted -- and jefferson want to make sure that he's carved out a school in every town so they could educate future citizens.

self-government is tough. we have gotten away from requiring these courses and teaching them well. there's an over-reliance on the part of teachers and textbooks. this gets back to how the colleges prepare our teachers. it is much more how to teach as opposed to what they know about the actual content. host: guest is a doctorate in american politics from american university. he has taught all over the place. he is currently chairman of the civic literacy program. what is that? guest: it is a division of the collegiate studies into a sinst. we do that in the k-12 level. we are always assessing how much money we put into k-12 and what are we getting in return.

we do not do that in college so we want to try to enter that debate and give parents and taxpayers some information about how well or not will colleges are doing host: here is another question host: montrose, pa., what do you think? caller: it is the power to defend the united states. guest: absolutely. caller: the senate can declare war. guest: many people -- over half of americans think the president can declare war. that is a big concern.

caller: you just exhausted it extensively in the previous callers discussion. this was about the indoctrination or whatever you want to call it that our kids get. ii have a son in law and a daughter who are both k-12 teachers. my daughter got her master's degree a couple of years ago. my son-in-law got a bachelor's degree at about the same time even though&qíjy are non- traditional students. neither one ofw÷ them --8v1 theh have learned what they know about this stuff from watching things like cspan, not from what so4they learned at school. they learned?íp --]v what they learned at school would lead him d-astray and they know that. guest: in our study last year,

we ran some statistical analysis to demonstrate that you can actually learn more than a college degree by doing the same things you are talking about, reading independently, discussing current affairs with her family and friends, and participating in a life of your community. the kind of self-education got to do better on our civics test and actually going to college. that is kind of startling. host: what does the lack of civic education mean to people growing up? hv)guest:;'d+z that's a good q. qtw to dwell on these is because you could do well on "jeopardy." . it is about exercising judgment or wisdom. we are doing a radical thing to 1thexpect ordinary human beingso be able to exercise sound judgment about our political leaders. we get to choose them and look

at it they are doing well. how do you do that in a vacuum? civic ignorance creates a vacuum where you will be accessible to hucksterism on the campaign trail as opposed to knowing what a certain policy is. you can agree or disagree. host: we have james on the line from east orange, new jersey, a democrat. a question for you -- caller: you've got made. -- you got me.

guest: i will give you the answer and you could maker, agreed the answer is that it helped lead to the adoption of the bill of rights. that is something that is important to teach because there was a big debate about whether to adopt this new constitution and states were concerned that the federal government was getting too powerful. doesn't that sound familiar today? these things occur over and over again. they said they want to make sure that the same limits on state government also exist at the national level. caller: i'm amazed what the

college graduates don't know about the constitution. guest: i was watching the television show "are you smarter than a fifth grader." the fifth graders have more knowledge than college graduates about the constitution. guest: maybe there is some hope there. maybe we are doing it better in these earlier grades. good point. host: we keep throwing these questions the callers and most of them are doing better than the general public. we have dave online, an independent, from north carolina, are you ready? let's throw one at you.

jut tqcaller: thomas jefferson's letters host: there you go. guest: 8 people think that as part of the constitution. jefferson was riding in the context of trying to write in the separation but that cut incorporated in our lot in a supreme court decision. . people confuse that. caller: i have a question and comment. north carolina is adopting a new high school studies program with the board of education, part of which would have a high school district courts beginning in 1877, the end of reconstruction which is the beginning of progress ofism which prep them for college, liberal college in north carolina the actual

question would be -- is there a good way to get the constitution taught starting in middle school and through high-school and make it mandatory for high- school graduation? they could even have supreme court course is to get people to let them know they actually control the government? guest: that is a great question. to back up a little bit, when you were talking about when this stuff should be taught, you will through judicial review -- you will through judicial review and other things and those will go over their heads. should they be starting to reside portions of the constitution in third grade? absolutely. how'd you get this done?

it has to be through a good old- fashioned democratic mobilization. you have to put pressure on state legislators and governors to require this stuff. if you think that is important and if you don't think it's a good idea -- to teach american history after 1877 mrs. a heckuva lot -- misses a heckuva lot. we are not very old country. that first part is important host: what is the parents' role in all of this tax guest: parents are the primary educators' of our children. kids' role model after their parents. some of it has to do with how you spend your free time. i live near philadelphia. go down there and check out historical sites. they are all over the country. the kids will balk at it. you get them out there and they start remembering it. it starts building up a kind of

civic culture within your own family. host: we have a republican from fairfield, california, good morning. caller: have a question -- with gun sales up to a high in the united states, the u.n. is talking global gun-control plus new law's being talked about. how was the second amendment covered in high school and college? guest: the entire bill of rights is not covered very well, i think. people do not but the second amendment probably is the most neglected because it's kind of a debatable issue and things of that nature. of course there are two parts of that second amendment that sometimes people don't get. the first clause is, talks about a well-regulated militia. that's why we have the right to bear arms. it was a public function that was supposed to go along with

it. i think that knowing that kind of a balance actually might depot larize some of the debate around gun ownership in this country. >> here's a question for diane, a democratic caller from florida. if you're there, susan b. anthony was a leader of the movement to do what? host: what do you say, diane? caller: guarantee women the right to vote. host: there you go. what would you like to say? caller: with all due respect, i would agree there needs to be more civic education for students, as my daughter was in high school and i was going back to college for a degree in

international studies, she took a.p. classes an did quite well and had a wonderful time. i found that in high school and college, kids couldn't wait to get out of classes. as the professor was say his last line in the class they had to attend, students would be slamming their books closed. slst something wrong with the way it is taught. now as far as a liberal bent, i think that's a low blow. the classes i've attended, and i went back after 30 years, the classes i've attended gave no indoctrination, i think the kids like to think about sex, like to talk about sex that all had to do with sex, civics is boring. how can you make it more interesting? i guess that's my question. i think you are right, we

don't do a good job of training college professors to be stimulating. many times, you do not get ahead in 10--- in tenure and promotion by being a good teacher pay is the research and other things like that. i absolutely agree with you there it on your experience about the lack of indoctrination, i'm glad that you had that experience. however, when we do a random sample of college professors and all americans, you get to factor out the anecdotal case by case examples. that's tough washes out a little bit. that is all i would say on that. you are right, we need to do a better job of getting our college teachers to teach welker and host: how long have you put out the studies? guest: since 2006. we will look at support dissipation next year.

-- we will look at civic participation next year. this might factor into public opinion but might factor into how often people voted we will look at that next year. host: what is the role of geography in the role of teaching our kids? guest: if we did an assessment of geographic literacy, it might be worse. that is even within our own country. i am from indiana and i am on the east coast. host: if you gave a test like this elsewhere and the world, how would other countries corte? guest: new citizens to this country, a lot of these questions were taken from the

citizenship exam. the three branches of government question, new citizens who have never seen the question did as well as college graduates on identifying the three branches of government. that could be an indication that the people that are trying to become citizens are may be more educated than we are host: let's go to fort lauderdale, fla., max is an independent. here's a question for you -- caller: teaching evolution. host: thank you. guest: i think our callers are 90 percent of. they are off the charts. host: what do you think about the idea of civic literacy? caller: i don't see how anybody could not be all for it.

the reason why listening -- blisters are doing so well is because they watch your show and are interesting in this. i want to follow on something you said earlier. disregards colleges and you indicated the college's seem to push their students into liberalism and that sort of thing. the fact that many of them are that way indicates that where is the college leading them. i take umbrage with that. perhaps the reason that many college students and graduates are leaning that way as far as not being anti-abortion, is that they are more intellectually curious. they go to college and hopefully the college does not just shove

and permission down their throat. maybe they teach them to think for themselves. they come to these attitudes on their on, maybe, because it is open-minded and it will -- they will not just follow what their parents or religious leaders have forced down their throats. guest: i think that is an interesting observation. i think it bears repeating that it -- impacts on public opinions are a vast parade just going to college will have an influence on what you think and also your race, your gender, your religion, where you are from, all a kind of stuff. i would point out that what we are trying to do is to demonstrate the impact independently in college of opinion. college graduates are only 20%

believe in abortion on demand, only 40% believe in same-sex marriage, we are not saying that going to college makes you one way or the other it may push you toward distinct left-wing views on those particular issues. we think that bears some scrutiny on the part of the american public. host: new york is on all line, republican, your ticket is the following question -- caller: germany and japan. good morning. have you read the book about the dumbing down of america?

guest: i am not familiar with that book. i am familiar with the book called "the dumbest generation." maybe they make the same jet -- observation. caller: i get a lot of information from the ron paul campaign. this is for all of the americas. it looks like we don't down our country to bring up the rest of the countries. guest: i will take a look at that. host: let's hear from north dakota, here is a question for you --

caller: the answer to that would be missiles in cuba. host: what would you like to say? caller: what is the background of the intercollegiate institute? and where debt -- where do you get your funding? guest: we get over half of our funding from individuals. we get funds from other foundations. we are nonprofit, nonpartisan, we are what i would call a small conservative group in that we're pushing for a conservation of a core curriculum and a return to traditional approaches to education. it looks like north dakota in washington d.c., right now operated as knowing a lot.

caller: i ask that question because the examplesñr that you said were things that were definitely anti-liberal. i am wondering how objective your group is. guest: i think we are not saying that it is a bad thing or a good thing to be a liberal or conservative. we are pointing out, and this has to do with reams of evidence that shows the political identification of college professors, that it could be, and this wouldñi bear further scrutiny, it could be the fact that some of this impact of college on people's beliefs and those issues has something to do with who is teaching them there are other impacts on public opinion and we will not sit here and say it is all because of that. if you teaching college the way

i have for 10 years, it is pretty clear who dominates the academy. host: this book is "choosing the right college per-quo what is the idea here? guest: this is like a consumer's guide to college. instead of going by the u.s. news and world rankings which take the college word for how good they are, we kind of doing independent audit of not just the academic client but the social climate of the place as well as the types of curriculum they offer, who was a good professor, who is a good professor or a bad prof. not in our terms but their own rankings. we think this is a good way to educate consumers of higher education about where to send their kids to college. host: revised student loan practices -- arne duncan wants

to send a bill to congress. the want to address the ideas of costs and debt for college. what is your take? guest: it is clear that the price of college continues to go up. we have gotten ourselves in a catch-22. we're expecting anybody who wants to be somebody to go to college. we want to create more affordability but by increasing -- it is kind of a supply and demand thing -- by increasing the grants to colleges, it will actually increase the cost of the price tag because every time you increase a pell grant or anything like that, you see an increase in the price the colleges pay. if you demand more for product, you will get a higher price. that is a question we ask on our test. host: out and folks take this test at home?

guest: go to our website, isi.org and it goes right to it. you can't take the test online and see how well you do. i encourage people to do that. host: you go well beyond the constitution and utah grab economic matters. here is an economic question for our next caller, an independent. they are talking about a progressive tax. what is it? caller: i am not certain because it is not being publicized but believe it is"c." host: that is the correct

answer. caller: could george guest -- could your guest give a brief summary of [unintelligible] guest: dread scott was only the second instance where the supreme court had validated a federal statute. it was declared unconstitutional which create a line above and below the parallel of the state of missouri. they not only declared that law unconstitutional and said the federal government could not regulate slavery, it also said that even african-americans in three states had no civil rights grid many people believe that dread scottñi was the straw that broke the camel's back and created such a climate of distrust that led to the civil war. host: one last call, it is from virginia, on our republican

line. one more financial question -- ñr >> which is the policy tool of the federal reserve? do they raise or lower income taxes, increase or decrease unemployment benefits, buy or sell government securities, or increasing or decreasing government spending. caller: i think it's c. host: that's correct. caller: i have a quick comment and a -- comment and a question. my comment is, i just graduated from college and i've been trying to find a job as a history teacher and i've run into a problem where a lot of the social studies departments want to put people in that are

coaches. my question is, do you find there is a de-emphasis on social studies and do you think a lot of problems with history classes is there's too much of the teacher's policy being taught instead of just the facts? because i find that a lot of people know their political opinions, but they don't necessarily know the political facts and that has a lot to do with history and social studies and what not. >> thank you, scott. this question about priorities at k-12. clearly you've got a budget and some of this will go to athletics, some to academics. i share your concern, i'm a huge sports fan, i played sports, my father's a coach, -- a kvetch, that's an important part of development. but that academic portion is

important too. i'd be concerned that people are making choices not based on subject expertise but as far as k-12 influence on this stuff, we actually found that there was a small impact of being a k-12 teacher and it actually went the other way, there was more affiliation with the conservative/republican self-identification. that's kind of interesting that college teachers are going one way and k-12 the other. i think that bears further review. >> we're just about out of time. what should our takeaway be from our study and report this year? >> i think going back to this, two sides of the same coin. i suppose if colleges are doing a good job of teaching this stuff then the question of whether they are influencing public opinion would be almost moot and you could make an argument that enlightened opinion equate wts liberal opinion but the fact that there's a disconnect between

civic ignorance on the one hand and subtle indoctrination on the other, and the fact that if you do better on our test and have more knowledge moves you the other way, suggests that is it the case that this is being neglected? or is it the case that maybe it's not being taught for other reasons? so we just want to get people into the game. the first order of business is just to teach the stuff straight up and teach it well and let students make up their own minds about the politics and leave the subtle indoctrination at home. host: dr. richard brake's organization, the intercollegiate studies institute, put out this report, the study of the mind, you can take it at their website and ours as well. richard brake is chairman of the civic literacy program at the i.s.i. thank you for your time. >> thank you.

>> here's what's coming up on c-span, next, first lady michelle obama talks about childhood obesity. after that, california republican congressman buck mckeon on defense spending. later a hearing on the federal budget and national debt. >> snow continues to fallen the u.s. capitol. the federal government is closed again. a hearing scheduled for today on the toyota vehicle recalls has been post-pobed because of the weather. the head of toyota north america was scheduled to testify at that hearing but today representative daryl issa, the top republican on the committee investigating the recalls, says he wants the president of the company to testify. associated press writing that congressman issa said that he

should meet with lawmakers and testify before the house oversight committee on february 24. toyota has recalled nearly 8.5 million vehicles since november. >> his film "hillary: the movie" was the focus of a recent supreme court decision on campaign finance. documentary producer around head of citizens united david bossie on sunday night's "q&a." >> it's the only collection of presidential portraits painted by one artist. now on display at purdue university in west lafayette, indiana, through the february 21. the exhibit looks at the lives of those who have held the office through prints, photographs and audio recordings. if you can't get to west lafayette, see the entire collection online at c-span's

website. americanpresidents.org. >> now first lady michelle obama speaks at the official start of a nationwide campaign to prevent childhood obesity. she's been meeting with cabinet officials, health experts and state officials in recent weeks to discuss the issue. this is about an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, mrs. michelle obama, accompanied by tiki barber. [applause]

>> thank you all for being here this soon to be snowy day in washington, d.c. i used to live down this way and i don't remember snow being so bad or so many flights being canceled but i guess that's the fate we're stuck with right now. it is a pleasure for me to be here in the white house sitting next to michelle obama, it's an absolute honor for me, especially when we're talking about what we're about to talk about. childhood obesity has become an epidemic. we all know it, we've all talked about it, we've talked to our kids about it but somehow change has not come. when our kids are born we make a promise to them to live a better life, to have a better education, to be healthier, to do things and live a life better than we did ourselves. sometimes, you can't keep all promises. you can't make the ballet recitals, you can't make the baseball games, you can't take them to the play dates.

but there is one promise we have to start keeping to our kids, and that's living a healthy lifestyle. for the first time in decades, the mortality rate of our children and the life expectancy of our children is shorter than their parents. that, i think we all know, is unacceptable. let's move. i remember when my mom used to go to work and say, don't get in trouble. if you do, you'll have to pay for it. but i was always outside. i was always running around. i was aults doing things that kept myself active. we look at where our country is now, kids don't do that anymore. in part because we're scared to let our kids be outside independently. it's part because of the proliferation of video games and thing that force our kids to live sedentary lifestyles.

it's also because our schools aren't taking care of the physical needs of our kids and not feeding them correctly. half the calorie ours kids get are in school. our focus should be on giving our kids the best opportunity to have a future that's better than ours, to live a lifestyle that's healthier than ours. that's why we're here today to talk about why we all collectively can do that. it's my honor to introduce a woman i did some interviews with this morning, freezing out on the white house lawn this morning, because you don't have cameras in here, you know, except when michelle obama is sitting here. dr. judith balfrey who represents pediatricians across the country who have long been fighting this problem and hopefully can help us find a solution. [applause]

>> thank you, tiki and these wonderful youngsters behind me. my name is dr. judith palfrey. it is an incredible honor and privilege to stand today with the first lady michelle obama and her other partners calling on our in addition to commit to improving children's health. over the past 20 years, the united states has seen an alarming rise in the number of children who are overweight and obese. about 30% of children are in the overweight and obese category. this means that the united states leads the developed world in overweight and obesity. putting not only our children but also our nation at great risk. we face a medical and moral imperative to rescue our

children's health. overweight and obesity can have serious medical consequences, including heart disease, diabetes and bone problems. every day we see overweight toddlers who struggle to learn to walk or run. overweight can cause our children to have respiratory problems. a youngster who develops diabetes in his teens may need a kidney transplant by the time he's 30. and we've gotten where we are today by a somewhat unusual route. for the first time in history, our health problems stem from abundance and excess. families are inundated by too much food, too many advertisements, too much driving around hurriedly from place to place. quite simply, too much busy-ness. at the same time too many

communities lack access to healthy food and safe polices for our children to play. because this is a new and complicated problem, it requires a sophisticated solution. pediatricians know we can play an important role in this effort. through regular well-child visits, pediatricians promote good nutrition and exercise and care for those children who suffer the consequences of overweight and obesity. but we can and we will do more to prevent obesity before it starts. that is why today on behalf of the 60,000 members of the american academy of pediatrics, i am prud to announce our commitment in partnership with the first lady. first, the american academy of pediatrics will call on every pediatrician to calculate body mass index, or b.m.i., for every child other the age of

at every well-child visit. b.m.i. is a simple but important tool in starting a conversation with families about their children's health and well being. pediatricians will take the time to make sure parent -- parents understand what it means for their children to have a healthy body weight. second, the academy will also urge our pediatricians and other health care providers to give out official child friendly prescriptions for healthy, active living, including good nutrition and physical activity at every well child visit. using these prescriptions, we will engage in conversations with children and parents so that they can set their own goals for areas they want to work on. for instance, one child might choose to get up to that five flutes and vegetables a day by adding fruits that contain the letter b to their meal. a parent might plan to keep a chart of the family screen

time, plotting to cut back on week-time television and increase chapter book reading. we're suggesting some of tiki barber's books. a youngster might set a personal best for running laps or bubble dutch. it will show them they have the ability to succeed in what they set out to do. we know families can improve their health with other modest changes. the american academy of pediatricians recommend mothers breastfeed their babies, families eat colorful, well-balanced meals and eat them together and parents and children play physically active games. this is a long-term commitment to our children's health. the american academy of pediatrics shares a and supports the first lady's goal of overcoming obesity in this generation of children through

our combined efforts with all of the groups that are gathering together. we cannot expect the solution overnight but we pledge we will do everything we can to end the epidemic of childhood obesity. it will take a concerted effort and thoughtful collaboration among the whole nation to help create healthier communities for children. we must take on this challenge. the health of our children, the future of our country is in our hands. together, we can reverse the numbers and we can make a difference. we will turn the tide on childhood obesity. thank you. [applause] >> i did ask her for the book plug but the check is in the

mail. we all can talk the talk but it comes down to execution and we all know that urban environments often have a lack of access to organic and fresh foods. the next person coming up is an urban farmer he brings this to the people. mr. allen? [applause] >> thank you. first, i feel very honored to be here today. i want to tell you, i've been farming for over 50 years and you've been a wonderful inspiration to me along with a lot of other folks. when you put that garden on the lawn out there, that moved a lot of people. i hear over 10 million people

started gardening this year because of that garden. i know in milwaukee, wisconsin, mayor tom barrett called me and we became the fourth city to have a garden at city hall. so thank you very much. to start out with. [applause] i'm here today to really talk about our food system and i don't want to do a lot of framing but i'll do a little bit of framing. today as we sit here and stand here, we're losing farmers. as we stand here and sit here, we're losing farmland. and we have to change that. for us to have good food, food that our grandmothers would actually recognize as food, because a lot of stuff we eat, our grandmothers would never recognize as being food. we have problems in our cities

because of all the areas inside our rural communities, let's take our rural communities, for example, back 50 years ago, there was an agricultural industry throughout the south. those areas where people in those communities actually worked in the field and had jobs in the farming industry if you go through the south, mississippi, alabama, arkansas, those same towns are there. but there's no farming industry for those folks. the industrial farm industry has taken over, we're going cash crops, soybeans and corn. they create, of course, a lot of sugar that our young people are consuming, that's part of the problem they have today. when we look at our inner cities we see food deserts. we see areas where major grocery stores have pretty much redlined and decided they're

not going to put grocery stores there. and our folks have no place to go but the corner stores that have a lot of really bad food and fast food restaurants. so that is what we have right now. we've done a lot of talking. we've met, done a lot of feasibility studies, we talked about this, we've begun through the 50, 60, -- the 1950's, 1960's, 1970 where this movement has grown, now we're in the 2000's where everybody seems to be coming together, where corporate companies, universities, political folks, are all coming together to sit at the table with folks like me, farmers and folks that have been working on this issue for many years. and that's an important piece because for us to solve this problem, we have to have everybody at the table.

we have to make sure that everybody is on the same page and we can't just start looking at each other and blaming each other anymore. what we need to do is take some action. this is the year, 2010, for us to really take some action. instead of just talking about it. because our kids are suffering. you just heard from dr. palfrey who brilliantly outlined what's happening with our kids, and tiki talked about it also. it's a social justice issue. for us to not tackle this issue, it's a social justice issue. everybody -- every child in this country, every person in this country should have access to good food. and to make that happen, let's look at what's happening in milwaukee, in chicago, in madison, wisconsin. in madison, wisconsin, and milwaukee and chicago, we've been able to obtain about 100

acres of farmland to grow intensively. we have systems that are growing food vertically. we're able to grow food year-round. i know the weather is tough here right now but in wisconsin, we live with this weather. year after year after year. so we know how to do it. we know we have to eat this food not just 20 weeks out of the year when farmers are in business, but remember, when farmers are in business, schools are out. so we need to make sure that we have access, our kids have access to this food throughout the year. and to be able to do that, we're going to have to go inside greenhouses, inside vacant buildings, we're going to have to have a garden at every school. we're going to have to activate all those vacant, as i travel around the country, i see vacant geen houses at schools not being used. we have to train our teachers to be able to do hands on education. because this is what inspire ours kids to learn.

if they can touch it and feel it, then they're more apt to want to go the next step and dig into a book and really learn. the other thing that can happen around this food system that we need to create this local food system is create jobs. this food system will create thousands of jobs. i think that's one of the things that's been missing is we talked about jobs. i think we need to put more funding into this local food system, we don't need to be shipping food 1,500 miles, 3,000 miles, bringing food over from foreign countries we need to grow it in the community and involve everybody in the community to keep that money in those local communities. that's what we've been table do at growing pow for the milwaukee and chicago and madison, wisconsin, is to be able to keep that money in communities and grow intensively. our typical farm produces about

$500 an acre. with this new type of agriculture, or i should say old type we're doing again, is $5 a square foot, about $200,000 an acre. 're losing our farmland. the urban sprawl, we're losing our farmland and we have to grow farmers. that's what we do in our training program, we've been able, for the last 17 years, we have 40 employees, plan to add another 60 employees this year as we take on another 50 acres of land in chicago and milwaukee. thank you for this opportunity, it's not whether we have to do this, we must to d -- we must do this if we're going to survive. we must do this because we're very unhealthy society and the entire world and this is really a, for me, i've been taking

about this, this is really a security piece, a national security piece. we're the ones that get blamed for bad food. we're the ones who get blamed for everything. there are 600 food riots around the world and they blame us. we have to fix this problem not only here but all over the globe. thank you very much. [applause] >> the state of mississippi has the largest obesity rate in the country. there are many reasons for this. one is because of the fried food and the lard, it tastes so good, i'll tell you. my grandmother used to cook it. but we have to do things in moderation. some people would say even moderation, but especially eating we have to do in moderation.

mayor johnson of fernando, mississippi, is a great example of how we express this is not a political issue, it goes across parties. he's done phenomenal things down there in mississippi, building parks, building playgrounds, walkway, where people can get out and exercise but also bringing back farmers' markets and places for organic and fresh food. [applause] >> i am hn nored to be here, i thank you -- i am hn nor -- honored to be here, i thank you for inviting me. you may wonder why a mayor is up here. i want to talk about things mayors can do and boards of aldermen and council people. there are things we can initiate. one of those things are partnerships. i've found that the state board of health, the health department, they want to work with us. they have all the knowledge. but they don't quite know how

to get it to the people. that's generally what we're good at, getting the word to the people. we partner with those people, partner with the boards of education, we partner with the national boards of city and robert wood johnson. there are other partnerships we can form, i'd like to talk about those. in a minute, you'll hear mayor toney come up and speak, you'll notice some differences between us. first, he has an accent, i don't. he comes from a large city in the northeast, the other thing is, we come from different political parties. but i think on this childhood obesity initiative we're in lock step and beginning to work together. that's something the entire country is going to be in lock step on, regardless of which side of the aisle we're on, we want our children to grow up and be healthy and live as long or longer than we're going to live. that's what this is about.

while we're at it we might accidentally balance the budget. you may wonder why i say that. just in my state right now, we're spending $982 million a year, almost $1 billion a year on obesity related illnesses. $500 million of that is on medicare and medicaid. that makes you wonder where the other $400 million is. that's paid for with insurance premiums and those insurances are paid for by businesses. in higher premiums. this will make everything better if we can get this under control. it's a lot of money. i think the paper today said $142 billion a year nationwide on obesity related illnesses. that's why this is important. in "usa today" i saw the first lady was quoted as saying, we need to quit quoting statistics, which i was doing, we needxd to uit and get going. i want to cite a few examples of how a small town like

hernando got going. people say you're doing a lot of thing, but we're nowhere near where we need to be. in august a year and a half ago, we decided to do a farmer's market, everybody said, it's too late in the season, let's do it next year. we said, let's do it now. within eight week we had 23 vendors that gave us time to figure out what we'd done wrong and the next year, it was better. we started a community garden. i had to get my neighbor to bring his tractor down and till it up we got the people in the neighborhood together. we had some hiccups but people were eating out of the garden. now we've had all winter to figure out what we did wrong so this is going to start the second year of our community garden and we'll move forward. we didn't have any youth sports to speak of in our town, we started a youth basketball

league. they said, you don't have a gym. with eshare facilities. we can't afford to build a gym we got the school to let us have youth basketball. i'm plugging someone, there's a group called implant, they have some model -- model policies to share liability. people worry about liability. i get tired of hearing about liability, i think we should just do things. but there are ways to get past that so we can share the facilities that are there. we started a soccer league. we didn't have any land to play soccer -- soccer on because the fall soccer is the same time as fall football we couldn't kick the football guys off the field we found a person in the community had land, said we could lease it a dollar a year. we've been installing walking paths with grant money. we look for wildlife and fisheries grants, we do them one at a time, piecing it in there. you can do things so simple.

it's finding 100 linear feet of sidewalk that needs to be replaced. 100 feet of sidewalk doesn't cost much, people will come at and help. a lot of it has to do with policies. myself and the mayor aren't beginning to be here forever, they'll throw us out one of these days but the poll vis what say stay. we put a policy in place mandating sidewalks in all new  developments an redevelopments. we have miles and miles of sidewalks in our town that were paid for by developers and not out of tax dollars. those policies work. the secretary -- secretary sebelius was quoted as saying we should involve not just the kids but their parents. i agree with that, absolutely. one thing we've done is almost all of you have state health departments that have a program called body works. you can send your people up and get them trained and come back and start it in your town. we're doing that. we call it healthy eating,

active living, heal. we have 40 people attending that every week, we're not putting them on a diet, just teaching healthy lifestyles. it's all about partnerships. i'm excited we're all here partnering together on this. . sometimes we get stuck doing it at 10,000 feet.

we don't come down to the base level and keep it real, so to say. this next mayor has done that. i love his slogan, shape up, summerville, get in shape. and he's done it. he's put himself in the community and i think it's working. mayor curtatone. [applause] >> thank you. good morning. thank you, tiki. it's great to be here with all of you, the first lady, secretaries, on this very important occasion. it's also for me an honor to be here with my colleague from hernedo, mississippi, chip johnson. this issue touch across all party lines. it affects every demographic, every community, rural, urban, suburban. and it affects us all no matter what our ethnicity, race,

societyio economic, status. and you will hear a lot in my message and chip johnson's message that is similar. he took my line that he actually had the accent. i have the hair. [laughter] sorry, tiki. you know, when addressing the u.s. conference of mayors during our winter meeting last month, the first lady noted, it's going to take all of us, businesses and nonprofits, community centers and health centers, teachers and faith leaders, coaches, parents and elected leaders all working together to help families make commonsense changes so our kids can get and stay healthy. in sommerville, massachusetts, that's what our shapeup sommerville message is all about, engaging members from all sectors of community life to transform the health of our community. it takes the leadership and support of an entire community to create an environment that supports children's health from the time they leave their homes to go to school in the morning

until the time they return home in the evening. you know, in 2003, we learned the troubling statistic that 40% of our schoolchildren were obese or overweight. in partnership with tusk university and dr. christina aconomos, we began to look at the child's environment on their weight gain. we launched a community-based environmental approach aimed at reversing the trend of childhood obesity. our guiding principles have been, eat smart, play hard, live well. every policy decision we make is influenced by these tenants and our schools. we've instituted more nutrition and health-based curriculum, implemented robust school policy and established a school garden program. we are committed to incorporating physical activity throughout the school day and our community, our efforts to increase access to healthy

schools go beyond our schools. we have shapeup approved markets, a number of community of dropoff sites. we are transforming our virme for the long term. we've instituted policies and infrastructure changes to support walking, biking, public transportation and access to open space, including zoning upgrades that promote smart growth. and a long-range plan to renovate some of those existing parks and playgrounds. all of these efforts have had a positive impact on the health of our children, their weight gain and their physical activity. shape yum sommerville is designed to improve the quality of life of our residents. and the good news is that sommerville's initial cisthat

create environments that improve the quality of life for all those who want to live, work, play and raise a family in our community. we know that healthy communities are productive communities and the healthy choice must be the easy choice. so i want to thank the first lady for her leadership, vision and commitment to children and families. we stand with you, mrs. obama. together we can raise the social consciousness of an entire country to overcome this epidemic and eliminate childhood obesity. today we can make our cities and towns and entire nation healthier, happier and more productive. so let's move. thank you very much. [applause] mayor johnson and mayor curtatone, you talked about making new policies. i would be remiss if i didn't acknowledge and thank secretary duncan tore what he's doing in our schools and the policy changes that he's forcing in our states to help education and accountability.

our schools, our kids are about responsibility and enforcing that responsibility. you see examples everywhere but you see fail yours everywhere. my next guest is a great success because you have -- where is tammy? tammy has the privilege -- had the privilege last year of helping mrs. obama plant her garden when she was in fifth grade. now she is a sixth grader at bancroft elementary. you're nervous but don't be. do you want me to do jumping jacks or something, make a fool of myself so you're ok? tammy, please join us. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is tammy nguyn. i attend sixth grade here in the district. today i'd like to say something

about change and the way it happens. as you can see, a lot has changed for me. i've moved on from bancroft elementary to a new middle school where i am at the bottom, not the top. i have new teachers, friends, classes and assignments. i couldn't really do much about this kind of change. it just happened to you as you get older. [laughter] but another base change in my life since last year has come because of a partnership my classmates and i at bancroft elementary had with mrs. obama and the white house. my fifth grade class was invited to help dig, plant, harvest, cook and eat vegetables from the white house kitchen garden. we picked the peas right off the vines and popped almost as many in our mouth as we put in the bowls. we discovered health -- how

delicious vegetables can be and we -- that the chef introduced us at harvest time. in school we researched vegetables, where they came from, where they traveled to and their many variety. we care for them in our own school garden and we're proud to show them when mrs. obama came and even helped us plant seedlings from her house down 16th street. my friends and i have learned a lot about change, about eating healthy foods and making the right choices. we've learned skills that will last a lifetime and our lives will last a lot longer. as for change, sometimes it doesn't happen. and i'm kind of glad about that. my fifth grade classmates and i plan to keep that color on the plate and i don't mean m&m's. i am really glad that mrs.

obama is interested in continuing to teach kids about eating healthy and making good food choices. another thing that has not changed is what i said to mrs. obama when she visited my school last year. mrs. obama, you are an inspiration to us. thank you for motivating us and including us in this exciting garden project. ladies and gentlemen, it is an incredible honor for me to introduce someone who has done and been so much for me, my friends, my school and my family, the first lady of the united states, mrs. michelle obama. [applause] >> wow. thank you, everyone.

thank you so much. it is a thrill to have you all here in my home. i want to thank tammy. oh, i could just start crying. you're so sweet and so smart. you've gotten so tall. you're on your game, girl. thank you for that wonderful introduction and for all your outstanding work. i mean, it's important, tammy, for you to know how much you and your classmates have all played a role in where we are today. look at this room. look at all these important people with cameras and lights and it's because of what you helped me start at the white house garden. so i'm so proud of you all. and i hope you're doing well in sixth grade. i know it gets harder. home work gets tougher. but you can do it. i want to also recognize the cabinet members here. some of my good friends and partners in crime, secretaries vilsack, sebelius, duncan, salazar, donovan -- did i leave anybody -- solis. as well as surgeon general

benjamin, who has just been a tremendous support in this. i want to thank them all for their excellent work, their leadership. you all are doing a phenomenal job. again, we wouldn't be able to do this without you. i also want to thank some of our other guests, senators harkin and gillibrand. thank you all for your leadership. representatives delauro, christensen and fudge. thank you for being here and the work you have done to get us to this point. i want to thank tiki, good emcee. pretty sharp, good on your feet. he's still upset because he's shorter than me. it's ok, tiki. that's the first thing he said. he said, i didn't know you were so tall. i said, yeah, i know. i know. but thank you. thank you for your work, your passion. thank you for braving the weather to be here. we're glad to have you onboard.

dr. judith palfrey, thank you all for your wonderful work, as well as will allen. wonderful words. mayors johnson and curtatone. you are all doing a fantastic job and you represent what we can do together. thank you all so much for being here. and thank you all for coming today and breathing this weather and risking get rg stuck here. -- get rg stuck here. thank you for -- getting stuck here. thank you for all the work you do to help our kids lead healthy lives. and one final congratulations is in order. i hear that the watkins hornets -- are some of the hornets here? all right. stand up because i know you're bored. just barely hanging in.

but we want you here because this is all about all of you. we have other kids, but these guys are the national football champions, right? you guys can sit. we're almost done. just so you couldn't be in school. but we're all here today because we cared deeply about the health and well-being of not just these kids up here but for all kids like them all across the country. and clearly we're determined to finally take on one of the most serious threats to their future and that's the epidemic of childhood obesity in america today. and obviously it's an issue of great concern to me, not just as a first lady, but as a mother. and as tiki said often, when we talk about this issue, we talk

about the sobering statistics like the ones we heard today. and we can't say it enough because we have to drill this in. that over the past three decades, childhood obesity in this country has tripled. nearly 1/3 of children in america are now overweight or obese. that's one in three of our children. but these numbers don't paint the full picture and it's important to say this. the words overweight and obese, they -- those words don't tell the full story. because this isn't about inches and pounds and it's not about how our kids look. it has nothing to do with that. it's about how our kids feel and it's about how they feel about themselves. it's about the impact that we're seeing that this issue is having on every aspect of their lives. pediatricians like dr. palfrey,

all over this country are seeing kids with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, more and more kids with type 2 diabetes. as we all know that used to be only a disease of adults. our teachers talking to a lot of them. they're seeing the bullying, the teasing. our school counselors see the depression and the low self-esteem. coaches are seeing kids struggling to keep up or worse yet, sitting on the sidelines unable to engage. our military leaders report that obesity is now one of the most common disqualifers for military service. economic experts tell us that we are spending outrageous amounts of money treating obesity related conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. and in public health, experts, as tiki said, tell us that the current generation is actually on track to having a shorter life span than their parents.

and none of us wants this future for our kids and none of us wants this future for our country. so instead of just talking about this problem and worrying and wringing our hands, it's time we get going and do something about it. we have to act so let's move. let's get this done. let's move to get families and communities together to make healthy decisions for their kids. let's move to bring together our governors and our mayors, doctors and nurses, businesses, community groups, educators, athletes, moms, dads, you name it, together to tackle this challenge once and for all. and that's why we're here today, to launch this wonderful new campaign called let's move. let's hear it, let's move. [applause] this campaign will rally our nation to achieve a single but

very ambitious goal, and that's to solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation so children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. but to get where we want to go it's important for us to first understand how we got here. so i'm going to ask all the grownups in the room to just close your eyes for a moment and think back, think back to the time when we were all kids, as tiki did. he's there causing trouble. >> that was my brother. >> like many of you when i was young, we walked to school every day, rain or shine. and in chicago it was in the wind, sleet, snow and hail. we were all out there. remember at school we had to have recess. had to have it. we had to have gym. we spent hours running around outside when school got out. you couldn't even go inside until it's time for dinner. and then in so many households we'd gather around the table for dinner as a family.

and in my household and many there was one simple rule, you ate what was on your plate, good, bad or ugly. kids had absolutely no say in what they felt like eating. if you didn't like it you're welcome to go to bed hungry. and fast food was a treat. it was something that happened occasionally. it was a big treat for us. and desert was normally a -- dessert was normally a sundae fair. and in my house the food wasn't fancy but there was always a vegetable on the plate and we managed to lead many healthy lives but many kids these days are not so lucky. cuts in recess and gym mean a lot less running around for our kids during the day, school day, and lunchtime may many a lunch heavy on calories and

fat. for many kids those afternoons spent playing ball and running until dusk have been replaced by afternoons inside with the tv on and internet, video games . and these days with parents working so hard, longer hours, some cases two jobs, they just don't have the time for those family dinners. and with the price of fruits and vegetables rising, 50% higher than overall food costs over the past two decades, a lot of times they don't have the money or they don't have the supermarket in their community so their best option for dinner is something from the shelf of the local convenient store or gas station. so this is where we are. many parents desperately want to do the right thing but they feel that the deck is stacked against them. they know their kid's health is their responsibility but they feel like it's completely out of their control, and they're bombarded by contradictory information at every turn. they don't know what to believe

or who to believe. and this leads to a lot of guilt and anxiety and a sense that no matter what they do it's not going to be right and it's not going to be enough. and i know what that feels like because i've been there. look, i lived in a wonderful house since the day i am -- and today i am blessed with the more help and support than i could have ever imagined but i didn't always live in the white house. and it wasn't long ago that i was a working mom. struggling to balance meetings and deadlines and soccer and ballet. and there were plenty of nights when you got home so tired and hungry you just wanted to get through the drive-thru because it was quick and it was cheap or there was a time you threw in that less healthy micro waive option because it was -- microwave option because once my preedtrigs pulled me aside and -- pediatrician pulled me aside and said, you might want to think about doing things

differently. for me that was my moment of truth. it was a wake-up call that i was in fact in charge even if it didn't always feel that way. and today it's time for a moment of truth for our nation. it's time for a wake-up call for all of us. it's time for all to be really honest with ourselves about how we got here. because the truth is our kids didn't do this to themselves. our kids don't decide what's served to them at school and whether it's time for gym or recess. our kids don't commooze to make food products with tons of sugar and sodium and supersized portions and then to have those products marketed to them everywhere they turn. and no matter how much they beg for pizza, fries and candy, ultimately they are not and should not be the ones calling the shots at dinner time. we are in charge. we make these decisions. but fortunately that's the good

news here because if we're the ones that make the decisions then we can decide to solve this problem. and when i say we i'm not just talking about folks in washington. this is not about politics. there is nothing, democratic or republican, liberal or conservative about doing what's best for our kids. and i haven't spoken to one expert about this issue who has said that the solution is having government tell people what to do. instead, i'm talking about what we all can do. i'm talking about commonsense steps we can take in our families and communities to help our kids lead active, healthy lives and this is not turning the clock back to when we were kids or preparing five-course meals from scratch every night. no one has the time for that. and it is not about being 100% perfect, 100% of the time because lord knows i'm not. there is a place in this life for cookies and ice cream and burgers and fries. that is a part of the fun of

childhood. often it's just about balance. it's about really small changes that can add up like walking to school when you can. replacing soda with water and skim milk, trimming portions sizes just a little. things like this can mean the difference between being healthy and fit or not. and there's no one-size-fits-all solution here. instead it's about families making manageable changes that fits with their schedules and budgets and tastes and realities. and it's about communities working to support these efforts. mayors like mayors johnson and curtatone who is building sidewalks and parks and community gardens. it's about athletes like and role models like tiki who are building playgrounds to help kids stay active. community leaders like will allen who is bringing farmers markets to underserved areas. and companies like the food industry leaders who came together last fall and

acknowledged their responsibility to be part of the solution. but there is so much more that we have to do. and that's really the mission of let's move. to create this wave of efforts across the country that get us to our goal of solving childhood obesity in a generation. and we kicked off this initiative this morning in my husband's office when he signed a presidential memorandum establishing the first-ever governmentwide task force on childhood obesity and the task force is going to be comprised of representatives from key agencies, many of them are here today. and over the next 90 days, yes, more work for you, these folks will review every program and policy relating to child nutrition and physical activity. they're going to develop an action plan to marshal these resources and make sure we are continuously on track to meet knows goals. the task force will set some real concrete benchmarks to measure our progress. so we can't wait 90 days to get

going here and we won't. so let's move right now starting the day on a series of initiatives to help achieve our goals. first, let's move to offer parents the tools and information they need and they've been askinging for to make healthy choices for their kids. we've been working with the f.d.a. and several manufacturers and retailers to make our food labels more customer friend plea so people don't have to spend hours squinting at the words to make sure if their food is healthy or not. in fact just today the nation's largest beverage companies announced they will be taking steps to provide clear, visible information about calories on the front of their products as well as on vending machines and soda fountains. and this is exactly the kind of information that parents need to make good choices for their kids. we're working with the american academy of peed at ricks and support their groundbreaking efforts to make sure that

doctors not only -- write that prescription dealing real steps that parents can get their kids healthy and fit. in addition we are going to be working with the walt disney company, nbc universal and viacom to launch a nationwide public awareness campaign educating parents and children how to fight childhood obesity and create a one-stop shop website so with a click of a mouse, parents can find helpful tips and step-by-step strategies including healthy recipes, charts they can use to keep their family's progress on track. but let's remember that 31 million american children participate in the federal school meals program. and many of these kids consume as many as half of their calories daily at school. and what we don't want is the situation where parents are taking all the right steps at

home home and then their kids undue that work at school with salty, fatty foods from the cafert. -- cafeteria. let's move to get healthy food at school. we'll start by updating and strengthening the child nutrition act, the law that sets nutrition standards for what our kids eat at school. and we proposed an historic investment of an additional $10 billion over 10 years to fund that legislation. with this new investment we're going to knock down barriers that keep many families from even participating in school meal programs. in that way we'll add an additional one million students in the first five years alone. we're going to dramatically improve the quality of the food we offer in schools, including in school vending machines. we'll take away some of the empty calories and add more fresh fruits and vegetables and other nutritious options. we also plan to double the

number of schools in the healthier u.s. school challenge. this is an innovative program out of the department of agriculture that recognizes schools doing the very best work to keep kids healthy. they're already providing healthy school meals, requiring physical education, incorporating nutrition education into their curriculum. and to help us meet that goal i am thrilled to announce that for the very first time several major school food suppliers have come together and committed to decrease sugar, fat and salt, crines whole grains and double the fresh produce in the school meals that they serve. [applause] and also for the first time food service workers, along with principals, superintendents, school board members all across this country are all coming together to support these evers. and with all of these

commitments we will be able to reach just about every schoolchild in this country with better information, more nutritious meals and we'll be able to put them on track to a healthier life. these are major steps. but let's not forget about the rest of the calories our kids consume. the ones they eat outside of school, often at home in their neighborhoods. and when 23.5 million americans, including 6.5 million children live in food deserts, and these are communities without a supermarkets, these calories are too often empty ones and you can see the areas here, this beautiful map in dark purple, the food deserts. this is the new usda food environmental atlas that we're unveiling today. this atlas maps out everything from diabetes and obesity rates all across the country as well as food deserts. and you can see them mapped out

in orange. this is going to be a very useful tool for parents and for the enfire community. so let's move to ensure that all our families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities. that's the third part of this initiative. today for the very first time we're making a commitment to completely eliminate food deserts in america and we plan to do that within seven years. now, we know this is ambitious. that's why it's going to take a serious commitment from both the government and the private sector. so we're going to invest $400 million a year in a healthy food financing initiative that's going to bring grocery stores to underserved areas and help places like convenient stores carry healthier food options. and this initiative won't just help families eat better. it's going to help, as will allen said, create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods all across america. but we know that eating right is really only part of the

battle. experts recommend that children get 60 minutes of active play every single day. and if this sounds like a lot, consider this. kids today spend an average of 7 1/2 hours a day watching tv, playing on the cell phone, computers, video games, and only a third of high school students get the recommended level of physical activity. so let's move, and i mean literally, let's move. let's find new ways for kids to be physically active both in and out of school. and that's the fourth and final part of this initiative. we're going to increase participation in the president's physical fitness challenge, and we'll modernize the the program. not every kid will do pushups and sit-ups, but what's important is how active they are. we are going to double the number of kids who earn a presidential active lifestyle award in the next school year. that award recognizes those students who engage in physical activity five days a week for

six weeks. and we recruited professional athletes from all over the place, a dozen different leagues including the nfl, major league baseball, the wnba. they will promote these efforts through sports clinics, public service announcements and so much more. so that's just some of what we're going to do today to achieve our goal. and we know it won't be easy. we won't get there this year. and we probably won't get there this administration. we know it will take a nationwide movement that continues long after we're gone. that's why today i am so pleased to announce that a new independent foundation has been created to rally and coordinate businesses, nonprofits, state and local governments to keep working until we reach our goal and to measure our progress all along the way. this foundation is called the partnership for a healthier america, and it's bringing

together some of the leading experts on childhood obesity, like the robert wood jansen foundation, the california endowment, the kellogg foundation, the brookings institution, and the alliance for healthier -- for a healthier generation, which is a partnership between the american heart association and the clinton foundation. and we expect many others to join in the coming months. this is unheard of. so this is a pretty serious effort. one that i'm very proud of. proud of everyone for being a part of it. and i know that in these challenging times for our country, there will be those who will wonder whether this should really be a priority. they're going to be many who might view things like healthy school lunches and physical fitness challenges as extras, as things we spring for once we've taken care of all of the necessary its. there are going to be those who ask, how on earth can we spend money on fruits and vegetables

in the cafeterias when many schools don't even have books and teachers? or how can he -- can we build parks and playgrounds when we can't afford health care costs? these are false choices. because if kids aren't getting adequate nutrition, even the best books and teachers in the world won't help them get where we want them to be. if they don't have safe places to run and play and they wind up with obesity related conditions, then those health care costs will just keep rising. so, yes, we have to do it all. we're going to need to make modest but critical investments in the short run, but we know that they're going to pay for themselves likely many times over in the long run. because we won't just be keeping our kids healthy when they're young. we're going to be teaching them habits to keep them healthy their entire lives. and we saw this firsthand with the white house garden, when we planted our garden with

students like tammy last year. and one of tammy's classmates wrote in an essay that her time in the garden, and in is a quote, has made me think about the choices i've made for what i put in my mouth. isn't that good? [laughter] another wrote with great excitement that he learned that tomatoes are both a fruit and vegetable and contains vitamins that fight diseases and armed with that knowledge he declared so a tomato is a fruit and now my best friend. [laughter] what more could you want? but just think about the ripple effect. when kids use this knowledge to make healthy decisions for the rest of their lives. think about the effect it's going to have on every aspect of their life, every bit of it, whether they can keep up with their classmates on the playground and stay focused in the classroom, whether they have the self-confidence to pursue the careers of their dreams and then the stamina to

succeed in those careers, whether they'll have the energy and the strength to teach their own kids how to throw a ball and ride a bike, and whether they'll live long enough to see their grandkids grow up, maybe even their great grandkids too. see, in the end we know that solving our obesity challenge won't be easy and it certainly won't be quick. but make no mistake about it. this problem can be solved. this isn't like a disease where we're still waiting for the cure to be discovered. we know the cure for this. this isn't like putting a man on the moon or inventing the internet. it doesn't take a stroke of genius or a feat of technology. we have everything we need right now to help our kids lead healthy lives. and rarely in the history of this country have we encountered a problem of such magnitude and consequence that is so imminently solveable. so let's move. let's move to solve it because i don't want our kids to live

diminished lives because we failed to step up today. i don't want them looking back decades from now and asking us, why didn't you help us when you had the chance? why didn't you put us first when it mattered the most? so much of what we all want, as tiki said, for our kids isn't within our control. we want them to sked at everything they do -- succeed at everything they do, everything. we want to protect them from every hardship and spare them from every mistake that they'll ever have. but we know we can't do all that. we can't do that. what we can do, what is fully within our control is to give them the very best start in their journeys. what we can do is give them advantages early in life that will stay with them long after we're gone. as president franklin roosevelt once put it, we cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for

the future. this is our obligation, not just as parents who love our kids, but as citizens who love this country. so let's move. let's move. let's get this done. thank you all so much. thank you. i look forward to working with you in the years to come. you all take care. [captioning performed by natonal captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> coming up on c-span -- california republican congressman buck mckeon on defense spending. then a hearing on the federal budget and the national debt. and after that -- >> taking a look at the $787

billion economic stimulus program, more than $333 billion has been committed. with about $179 billion having been paid out as of february 2. check our website for updates on the stimulus program. also, hearings, briefings, speeches as well as congressional debates and links to the government and outside watchdog groups at c-span.org/stimulus. >> tune in c-span 2's book tv for a three-day president's day weekend beginning saturday. authors include former treasury secretary henry paulson talking with warren buffett on the 2008 economic collapse. on afterwards, historian gary wills on how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the role of the u.s. and the world. afterwards reairs sunday night at 10:00 eastern and 7:00 pacific. h.w. brands on f.d.r. on president obama.

and craig shirley on ronald reagan. for the complete schedule go to booktv.org. it's the only collection of american presidential port rates painted by one artist. american presidents: life portraits by chaz fagan at purdue university in west lafayette, indiana through february 22. it looks at the lives of the 43 men who held the office through paintings, photographs, prints and audio recordings. sponsored by c-span and the white house historical association. and if you can't get to west lafayette, see the entire collection online at c-span's website. americanpresidents.org. >> former representative charlie wilson of texas has died at the age of 76. the associated press writing that he died of cardiopulmonary arrest. and wilson represented texas' second district in the house from 1973 to 1996. he was portrayed in the 2007 move "charlie wilson's war,"

which chronicled wilsons a efforts to arm the mujaheddin mujaheddin against the soviet union in the 1980's. the ranking member on the house armed services committee spoke out recently against the president's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal for the pentagon. buck mckeon of california says weapons procurement is underfunded in the budget. from the heritage foundation in washington, this is about 45 minutes. >> good morning. thank you for joining us at the heritage foundation. i'm proud to welcome those who are joining us on the heritage.org website. we'd ask everyone in-house to make that last courtesy check that cell phones have been turned off.

and we remind our internet viewers that questions can be submitted throughout the programming simply emailing us at speaker.heritage.org. we will post the program within 24 hours for everybody's future reference on our website. hosting our discussion this morning is jim talent. mr. talent serves as the distinguished fellow and government relations here at the heritage foundation. as a former senator, he specializes in military readiness and welfare reform issues. one of his objectives here at heritage is to raise the awareness within congress and throughout the country of the importance of assuring stable, robust funding of america's military in peace as well as war. he began his political career in the missouri house of representatives where he served for eight years, the last four of which were as minority leader. he then represented missouri's second district in the u.s. house for a term of eight years. and from 2002 to 2007 he served in the united states senate.

please join me in welcoming my colleague, jim talent. [applause] >> thank you. i hope everybody's had a chance to get a cup of coffee, a bagel to get ready for what i'm certain will be a certain enlightented speech today from my friend. buck mckeon and i came into the house of representatives in 1992. neither one of us has aged in the least. that's the only thing you will hear from this podium that isn't true today. america's in a difficult time. this is the reason that we do what we do in the foreign policy and national security section of the heritage foundation. i have been wanting to say recently, as i talk about these issues, that i think america's facing greater dangers today than it ever has in my lifetime. which is a fairly considerable amount of time.

one of the real right things to happen in the national security constellation was the succession of our guest today to the job of ranking member on the house armed services committee. buck mckeon is a great congressman, great man and a person, whom you will hear today, understands these issues on a strategic level. he knows that we face a spectrum of risks coming from a broad number of sources and that we have to be prepared with a broad spectrum of capabilities. mr. mckeon began political life in the plate 19850es as the mayor of santa clarita. i bet you didn't think i knew that, right? from there he went to the house of representatives in 1992. he's had an outstanding career in the house, including his work on the house, labor and education committee. he became chairman of that committee in 2006. he became the ranking member of the house armed services committee in june of 2009.

he's doing a great job in that committee, and he will be a key figure in preparing america for the days and the weeks and years to come. ladies and gentlemen, it's our pleasure at the heritage foundation to introduce to you congressman buck mckeon from california. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, jim, for that warm introduction. i hope you're around to speak at my funeral. not too soon. as jim said, we served together on the education and work force committee. and when we won the majority in 1994, some of us were fairly new in congress because a lot of people got off -- a lot of republicans got off of that committee so we had some young subcommittee chairmen. one of the issues we had to issue was erisa. and one retired and we thought that he was the only one in

congress that knew about erisa. fortunately jim was there. and his expertise and labor law and help in that area was greatly needed. and he stepped up and served very strongly in that area. and we hated to see him leave to go to the senate. but he's had an illustrious career. i think it's great that he's here at the heritage foundation. i want to thank the heritage foundation for hosting me this morning, giving me an opportunity to share my views on how president obama has performed as commander in chief over the past year and where i believe we need to push the president to do better in the year ahead. heritage is an invaluable resource to the congress. your hill presence, your policy papers, the many events that you put on help us to do a better job. i'd be remiss if i didn't take a moment to acknowledge the thousands of america's sons and daughters who are currently

bravely serving in iraq and afghanistan and around the world. we have done a good job and have done so for nearly a decade. they deserve our prayers and our respect and our support. when it comes to protecting the american people and our values, we mist begin with the end in mind. we strive for peace, security and vibrant freedom. our people must be protected from those whose only aim is to destroy our way of life. make no mistake, americans yes or no for peace -- yearn for peace. but to achieve it we must fight those who only want war. how do we move from the conflicts of today towards our goals for tomorrow? as you can consider my comments this morning, i'd like you to answer these questions. are we adequately equipped as a nation and as a military to handle challenges posed by radical terrorists, north

creaa, iran, -- korea, iran? it is importantly our -- are our leaders equipped to properly defend america's values and america's people? in washington, we generally move from one election to the next. planning generally means looking forward six months. by long-term planning, politicses usually mean what's in it for me at the next election? unfortunately, those who wish us harm across the globe are not bound by two, four or six-year cycles. in the defense community we focus on what went wrong in the last war or the war we're currently fighting. but this fails our nation, and especially our next jen operations for whom we fight. who is thinking about the war in 2015? what about the war in 2030? is our country doing what it needs to do today to win the

war of 2015 or the war of 2030? the pace of the world's technological and political change grows expo nentionly each year -- exponentially each year. we cannot afford to play catch-up in a need to keep up. our ability to keep the peace today is inextricably linked to our ability to keep pace with tomorrow. as we all know, president obama came to office promising change. he promised to change our politics. the american people have been troubled to find that instead he is trying to change our principles. as a result, support for the president's policies are waining and the political winds are starting to blow in a different direction. more importantly, the president's misdirected domestic agenda has distracted from his vital role as the leader of the free world. and pushed national security

into a small corner at the white house. today, americans and all people yearning to be free needs leadership. we need a president who like the presidents in our history recognizes the power of american values is even greater than its military or its economy. and we need a leader who has the courage to fight for those values, not just on the battlefield but also from the bully pulpit. time and again we've seen this administration reject notions of american exceptionalism and only reluctantly assume the role of the world's lone democratic superpower. we must never give up on our belief that america is truly great. and that we have the responsibility to help make others great also. our military is, of course, good in the world.

our troops responded when an earthquake hit pakistan and a tsunami hit thailand. our military was called into action once again to help when an earthquake hit haiti. thousands of our marines who were spread around the country were recalled, equipped and on their way to haiti within three days. america leads like this time and time again for two simple reasons. first, because we can but, second, and more importantly, because we must. we can help because america remains home to the greatest economic and military resources in the world, but we must help because america remains home to the most compassionate, giving and selfless people in the history of the world. these are indisputable facts proven time and time again. i yearn for the days of an american president who

proclaimed around the world that america is a shining city upon a hill. i fear these days have passed for now. this is certainly a change in my view on -- unwelcome. i take this view because every fiber of my being believes in this nation's greatness but because of the impact it's having around the world. i'm increasingly concerned that the rejection of america's exceptionalism reflects a fundamental view of this administration that has permeated american national security policy. at its core, this view holds that america should never lead alone, that it must aspire to do less and acquiesce more to the will of others. in other words, we must do less with less. what i'd like to do for the remainder of my remarks is give a number of concrete examples,

where i think we're seeing the declinist vision and often at the same time an alternative approach. -- offer at the same time an alternative approach. let me start with the wars in afghanistan and iraq. al qaeda from safe havens provided by the taliban planned and launched the attacks on our homeland on 9/11. because of its history as a crossroad between east and west and north and south, an afghanistan controlled by the taliban would once again be a refuge for al qaeda terrorists. and would place our citizens and allies at a greater risk of future attack. in iraq we found a country in the heart of the middle east ruland by a ruthless dictator who coveted weapons of mass destruction and regional domination. while the going has been rough, our forces have delivered freedom to a people who have never known it during their lifetimes. a secure and stable iraq and

peace with its neighbors and itself can only be a great asset to these united states. like almost all republicans, i support the president's decision to serve in -- surge in afghanistan even though it was a long time coming. i believe that with the additional forces combined with giving general mcchrystal the time, space and resources he needs, we can win this conflict. we do not have a choice. we must defeat al qaeda and the taliban. this means taking all necessary steps to ensure that al qaeda does not have a sanction wear in afghanistan or pakistan or anywhere else. this is also the president's objective. it's my hope that the president's december 1 speech and the subsequent testimony of secretary gates and general mcchrystal concluded the war debate in this country.

yet, the president's decision to provide 30,000 troops, which i believe was less than the commander's request, and begin drawing down our forces in july, 2011, gives me pause about his commitment to seeing this conflict through to victory. general mcchrystal, however, assures me he can live with these constraints. part of our job will be to ensure that the pace of withdrawal is based on conditions on the ground. either we're committed to investing the resources and the time needed to win this war or we are not. the emphasis on ending the conflict rather than winning reveals that we have a reluctant war president. with all the president's major domestic policy announcements, he has a pretty straightforward formula he uses to win over public support. he gives a major speech and then he travels throughout the country to rally americans behind his plan.

how many times have we seen him use that strategy on domestic issues such as health care, climate change or jobs? on afghanistan, however, he didn't follow that formula and public support for the mission waned. he gave one speech at west point and then moved on to other things. a reluctant wartime president, i fear, abstains from using words like victory and winning because he's more committed to ending the conflicts we're in rather than winning them. this is a risk of a war strategy driven by an unchecked declinest national security policy. so far it is not undermined our effort in afghanistan. now, to the conflict in iraq. despite then senator obama's opposition to the war in iraq and his public doubt over whether the surge in iraq would work, we have a chance in the coming year to redeploy from a secure democratic iraq capable of defending itself that it is

an ally of the united states. the strategic significance of such an outcome is self-evident. the success of our incredible service men and women is indisputable. while all americans, all americans want our troops to return home as soon as possible, i fear that the president's redeployment schedule may be too aggressive. we must continue to ensure the president makes decisions on troop withdrawals in iraq based on conditions on the ground. again, there seems to be a more focus on ending rather than winning the conflict. we should not drawdown forces if it means risking the security of our troops and the success of the mission. iraq and afghanistan are not the only theaters of the global war on terrorism. as the christmas day terrorist attack reminded us, al qaeda and its affiliates continue to threaten the homeland.

arguably, the greatest example of the perils of a declinest policy is the president's mishandling of the war on terror and the guantanamo detainees. let me share an example to illustrate the point. the nigerian who attacked a u.s. airliner on christmas day trained in yemen in an organization known as al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. .

and kile cells. the simple truth is that relaxing our gitmo policy puts americans at risk. we can draw a bright and terrifying line between releasing those war criminals and harm to our people. yet there was no reversal of policy or even a review. it was only the result of congressional pressure that the administration announced it would stop transferring gitmo detainees back to yemen. in fact, it's the president's strident position on gitmo that i find most alarming. on the same day the president acknowledged that his administration failed to present the christmas day -- prevent the christmas day attack, the president say thed -- stated, we will close the guantanamo prison which has damaged our national security interests and added that gitmo, and this is a quote, was an

explicit rationale for the formation of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. in other words, the president used the christmas day attack to justify his failed gitmo policy. this utterly, totally and completely backwards. and it represents a dangerous new policy of blame america first that must end immediately. instead of blaming the enemy, the president chose to blame our nation's security policies. instead of recognizing that terrorists targeted america long before guantanamo bay had held enemy combatants, he attempted to rewrite history to the benefit of our enemies and the detriment of our own people. put bluntly, the president believes that american policy was not -- was a root cause of a.q.a.d.'s attack on the homeland. i believe differently. i believe that america is a force for peace in the world, not a cause of strife.

i believe that we are the target of militant radicalism, not its source. and i believe we have a responsibility to defeat our enemies wherever they are, not treat and release them as if they were run of the mill domestic criminals. treating the co-conspirators of the 9/11 attacks as criminals and prosecuting them in a federal court in downtown new york reveals how misguided moralism endangers american lives and wastes hundreds of millions of dollars. we have a military system, a military commission system in place, one that we worked hard on in the last reauthorization and a courtroom in gitmo to handle these cases. it's time for the president to reverse his decision on trials in federal courts. whether we continue to hold detaineings in gitmo as i proposed or move them to gitmo north in illinois as the

president hopes to do, the problem remains the same. no amount of self-flagellation will appease those who sthice with al qaeda. like it or not, the war against al qaeda is global. so long as our objective is to defeat al qaeda as it should be, the detainee problem will persist. closing gitmo only imperils our security. no more mir andizing terrorist --my randizing terrorists. no more trials in downtown manhattan, no more terrorist transfers to yemen. the american people need a new terrorist detainee policy. our war on terror policies are not the only casualty of the

policies. this attitude also reflects how we engage countries worldwide. part and parcel of a declinist foreign policy is faith in diplomacy and the international system. thus challenges to the international order replace threats to our national security and engaging adversaries becomes our principle endeavor. the 2010 qdr is complete with such receipt -- q.d.r. is replete with such rhetoric. whether dealing with russia or iran, i'm concerned that engagement has trnls later into weakness. we cannot let this approach compromise our commitments to our friends and our allies. for example, the so-called russia reset policy should not signal a willingness to reset our commitments to transatlantic security. unfortunately this is the signal we've sent. when we gave up our russian -- our european missile defense

interceptors before starting -- before negotiating the start treaty or when the president called for a world without nuclear weapons, we not only threw away our best negotiating leverage with the russians, we emboldened the likes of vladimir putin and other leaders who will be able to fill a power void with their own influences. thus european allies fear a declining u.s. role in europe will only invite future russian aggression. this does not bode well for the security of emergency -- emerging democracies in georgia and the ukraine. similarly when we engage iran and north korea diplomatically we must do so taking into account the over 30 allies who rely on u.s. nuclear security umbrella. in other words, engagement with adversaries cannot indicate retreat. likewise, whatever steps the obama administration takes to prevent tehran from obtaining a

nuclear weapon, the approach must be credible enough to prevent iranian domination in the persian gulf and proliferation in egypt and saudi arabia. this administration has spent a year trying to engage iran with little to show for the effort. the president spoke of growing consequences for iran last week. it remains to be seen what this means. in my view, it's time to try something new. when u.s. dominance is in question by allies or adversaries, global security is at risk. put bluntly, the obama administration's predisposition thus far to engage with adversaries, past or present, has not made us safer. the teddy roosevelt mantra of speaking softly and carrying a big stick should still be in voge. let me move now to my final example of the obama administration's declinist policy. its impact on defense programs and spending.

in testimony before congress last may, secretary gates emphasized the need to balance the department which eventually translated into over $50 billion in program cuts. secretary gates assured congress that his program decisions shifted the department in a different direction. like many in congress, i believe that these cuts took the department in the wrong direction to. help us understand the obama future for the pentagon, picture the following scenario. secretary gates calls for more balance by moving $60 billion over the next five years from within the department to pay for programs supporting current operations. military personnel costs consume an increasingly larger share of the military investment accounts, migration of the enduring costs of the pentagon and the larger portion of the supplemental to the base budget occur without top line relief and finally having to face the still outstanding bill

of the $60 billion to $80 billion to reset our forces from the current conflict. the victim of a lower defense budget will be procurement and r&d accounts. top defense budget experts testified last november that we can expect a dramatic decline for weapon acquisition funding. from 35% of the fiscal year 2010 budget to 24% in fiscal year 2020. that is a sizable and unacceptable decrease. in my view the secretary's plan for balancing the military has come at too high a cost. congress this week received the department's defense review, the q.d.r., which assumes the base defense budget will be essentialy flat for the next five years. this, combined with the reality of the scenario i described above, signals the defense department in decline. i want to thank jim talon and

eric gettleman for serving on the independent review panel which will give us, i think, a more conservative approach to the q.d.r. article one, section eight of the u.s. constitution states that congress' main job is to provide for the common defense to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain the navy. i've been around a long time and i've seen us cut defense investments over the years after wars. that's been our mote us op ran die, as soon as we finish a war, we cut back on defense so we'll be prepared for the next one but i've never before seen us make cuts during a war. cuts to defense investment in the midst of two wars is unacceptable. 1% real growth in the defense budget over the next five years is a net cut for investment and procurement accounts.

the pressures on the defense budget i've just described warrant a higher top line. when one considers the current threat investment and some alarming gaps in our capability, the need for more dollars going to defense becomes critical. the q.d.r. seems to continue the trend as we saw in the previous budget cycle where military requirements seem to disappear by overstating our capability. just take a look at the four structure requirements for fighter aircraft and ships in the q.d.r. at some point these decisions will catch up to us. this might work if we lived in utopia. the fact is we live in a world where our enemies and adversaries strive to do us harm. this reality warrants a higher top line. this credibility gap i expect will lead to hollow contingency plans and could embolden adversaries. simply shifting into neutral puts america at risk.

let me conclude with how this all impact it's -- impacts industry. i have a business background, i cut my teeth building my family business from the ground up. that's how i learned what it takes to run a business in a down combhe. there were times when i was the only guy manning the store and i felt the burden of meeting payroll every month. my sense is the president lacks a team with hands-on business experience. declining procurement accounts and drastic reductions to research and development is a recipe for losing more american jobses. underutilized defense, industrial capacity will reduce cash through the supply chain and could lead to another round of defense consolidations like that of the 1990's. but where will we cut this time? satellites, military aircraft, ship building? the result is less diversity and an increasing reliance on foreign firms to meet our defense needs. this may be the most harmful

impact of a department of defense in decline. a coalition of realists made up of republicans, democrats and independent-minded americans alike must push for increases in defense investment. particularly in accounts which spur innovation and american technological superiority. to stem decline, we must invest in ourselves, short-term low-risk investments that spur innovation are the traditional realm of the private sector. but the long term higher-risk investments required for military programs and our national security are the responsibility of the government. from 1980 through today, our investment in basic defense research as a percentage of g.d.p. has declined by 50%. it's time to invest in ourselves and create real american jobs. we need to enact a national

defense education and investment act which would increase funding for basic defense research and ensure we maintain our technological edge. we cannot continue to take our work force for granted. with our technical work force aging we're in danger of losing our intellectual capital. we need to develop the next generation of engineers and scientists that will ensure the world's greatest innovators reside here at home. we need to invest in american exceptionalism in to stem the tied of decline -- tide of decline. today we've talked about winning today's counteru.s. is fights in afghanistan and -- counterinsurgency fights in afghanistan and iraq, we need to invest in a robust national defense. like it or not, global stability and our economic stability rests on our ability to project power.

a defense budget in depe kline portends an american -- -- decline portends an america in decline. this is an outcome we cannot accept. this is not the type of change the american people signed up for nor is it change we should believe in. instead i believe our prosperity and security are strongest when we embrace and invest in an america that is -- that as reagan said is a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept and god blessed. thank you. >> now if you're still awake, i'd be happy to take some questions. yes, sir. >> i'm john from d.c.

i agree with everything that you said, however i think -- >> wow. >> i think it object i have skates the real question and perhaps many of the things that are on the minds of the 1% of our defense establishment that's actually at the sharp end of the problem -- process. and that is, do our enemies, our potential enemies, either individually or collectively, still feel a sense and a risk of actual destruction? and in other words do they wake up in the morning thinking that this could be my last day or do they look at the united states as being someone who is more interested in arguing about defense than they are in actually projecting power and making it risky to be an enemy of the united states? >> well, let me tell you, that's a great concern, a great question.

i -- undoubtedly there are people in this world who are trying to do us harm that don't sleep well at night. i think we've seen examples of some of the al qaeda and taliban leaders that we've been able to take out through efforts of some great americans and they're running and we're winning. we just need to have the will to stay in the fight until we totally win. i don't think countries per se, may be country leaders are losing a lot of sleep and that's been a concern. we're not engaging in this conflict like we did in world war ii and that's one of the concerns that a lot of people have. if you go to war, go to war. you know, don't do it halfway. but we have special forces and we have pilots flying predators and intelligence gatherers that

are targeting some of these would-be killers, assassins and we're taking them out and we've been fairly successful over the past few years doing that. we will continue to get better at that. good question. anybody else? yes. >> i'm susan cornwell with reuters. >> i know you, susan. >> i know you do. pu said, sorry, i'm -- you said that regarding iran that the president spoke of growing consequences last week and it remains to be seen what this means and you said in my view it's time to try something new. i'd like to hear your suggestions for what new should be tried. are you talking about more sanctions, what kind of sanctions? >> we've talked and we've

talked and week of talked about tougher sanctions. i think it's time to use the tougher sanctions and i think that we could do more than one thing at the same time. i think the government should impose tougher sanctions, but there are people over there leading a green movement, there are people that want freedom over there, we should be supportive of them. whether we do it as a government or whether we encourage people to encourage a human rights effort, i think that should be done. but i think they need to understand that it's totally unacceptable for them to have nuclear weapons and as long as we're just talking about it and not really doing something about it we're putting ourselves at risk. so i guess what i'm -- when i'm saying we should do something new it's time to do something instead of just talk. yes. >> that's probably the best

rebut the al i've heard to obama administration national security and defense policy since he was inaugurated. that speech. >> well, i have several people that wrote it. give them the credit. thank you very much. >> the question is, as you look from your perch as the ranking member of the armed services committee in the house, do you think that there are democrats starting with representative skelton that are prepared to try and move in a different direction that you could cobble together some sort of working coalition with as you address the defense authorization bill? >> you know in my time here in congress i've served on probably one of the most partisan committees and one of the most bipartisan committees. education is a very partisan committee and very little that we can ever work on there together. the armed services committee is very different. chairman skelton and i are in

sync on so many items. we actually in the last authorization bill, defense altogether zage bill, really worked in a bipartisan way. we actually had meetings between the house and the senate, between the republicans and the democrats, the big four probably had at the end maybe eight or 10 meetings. so we really worked the way the process is set up to work. and i think that's probably because we understand the role that we play and that is to defend this country. and i know chairman skelton has come out in opposition to don't ask, don't tell. he's come out -- i don't know how strong his opposition is in not closing guantanamo, but there are a lot of things that he and i really agree on. what we really have to look out

is what we can do in his caucus. as you know the speaker runs that caucus with an iron fist and she is part of the left of the country but she's also part of the left of the democratic caucus. and so there are democrats that believe, much as we do when it comes to defense of the country, and there are members of the armed services committee that follow that. but they're limited in what they can really do. so, you know, i told chairman skelton that i'll be chairman next congress and i'm sure we'll be able to move forward, continuing to work together if he's still here. yes. >> yes, thank you, congressman. steve stewart from the department army. with respect to afghanistan and iraq, some of your comments and a question related to that was,

indicated you were maybe concerned about the pace of the drawdown in iraq. the question is, the interdependencies between iraq and afghanistan from a horse structure perspective, the reality is we build up in afghanistan, those forces are essentially coming from iraq. if we draw down iraq, those brigade combat teams are going directly to afghanistan or coming back to afghanistan. that's how we're building the force in afghanistan. if we slow the withdrawal in iraq, what kind of concerns do you have of the supply of ground forces, particularly the army, to work both conflicts and also have a strategic reserve? >> the schedule calls for bringing all the fighting forces out of iraq by august of this year. and right now it's moving along quite well to that. i talked to general petraeus last week and we went over some of this and he's feeling pretty

good about how that's looking. my concern is that if there's some flairup like we had some pretty severe bombs go off in the last week, if there is some flairup, are we going to continue -- the troops are not in the cities now, they've been pulled out and i'm hopeful that we'll be able to follow that timeline and have them out of there in august, that would leave 30,000 to 55,000 troops there to help continue training and building up iraq's own security. i hope that that goes. i'm just concerned that if it flairs up, will the general have the ability to hold back some of them, some of the troops rather than moving them out? the troops that are going into afghanistan, some of them are

already there, they're, i was with general casey a couple of nights ago and he said that we're in good shape, we're getting much closer to where we can have members of the army, when they finish their deployment of a year, be home for two years. by the end of this year he says we'll be to that point. so i'm feeling pretty good about our ability to get the 30,000 troops into afghanistan and i'm hopeful that we'll be able to follow the timeline of getting the troops out of iraq. but i've been assured by both general conaway that the marines are doing a good job in their rotation now and that the army from general casey will be at that point by the end of this year. >> time for one more. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, congressman. my name is felix, i'm from ewe

knick in germany and i'm captain of the german army. >> you sound like my governor. >> i don't know if that's a compliment. i'm working on -- >> no, it compliments you. >> thank you. i would like to know, from your view what do you think about the role of the partners of the united states, especially the western european partners in this whole topic? what do you expect -- how would you like -- what do you expect of us to support the u.s. army and what do you think about the actual and the future role of the european partner? >> you know, this is something that i think our partners have not received adequate credit but i know that germans a few months ago just before i got to afghanistan in august had suffered their first casualties

since world war ii and we appreciate what you're doing over there to help. we have over 44 countries that are helping us and when the president committed to sending 30,000 troops, it looks like we're going to get another 7,000 from our nato allies. so, at thanksgiving time we went and visited some of the troops, we had briefings in some of the countries we visited and i was not aware of what a great sacrifice many of the nations are making to be with us. when we send 30,000 troops and when we hear that some other country sends 5,000 we don't, i think many of us in america understand that the country's sending 5,000 is sending a greater percentage of their forces than we are with our 30,000. so i think that our partnership

will continue to grow stronger, especially if we achieve the success that i feel we need to achieve. it shows that we can work together and are doing so very well. so thank you and thank you for your service and thank you all for being here. i've got a hearing at 10:00 on the q.d.r. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we want to thank congressman mckeon for that strategic speech. we're grateful for him coming. he had a hard deadline according to his staff which was five minutes ago. that's why we have to cut this off. as a token of our appreciation we want to give you a heritage foundation tie, a beautiful tie, and i want you to know this is a token of our appreciation. >> my favorite color. >> it's not a comment on your current taste in clothing. thank you for coming.

>> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up on c-span, a hearing on the federal budget and the national debt and after that, governor gives idaho's state of the state address.

>> his film "hillary: the movie" was the focus of a recent supreme court decision on campaign finance. documentary producer and head of citizens united david bossie, sunday night on c-span's "q&a." it's the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist. american presidents now on display at purdue university in west lafayette, indiana, through february 21. the exhibit looks at the lives of the 43 men who have held the office through paintings, photographs, prints and audio recordings. sponsored by c-span and the white house historical association and if you can't get to west lafayette, see the entire collection online at c-span's website, americanpresidents.org. >> president obama has released his fiscal year 2011 budget request. some of the proposals, an

immediate freeze in spending for some programs, allowing certain tax cuts enacted by president george w. bush to expire, $100 billion for job creation programs and spending increases for energy and infrastructure programs. now a senate hearing on the state of the economy and what it means for the federal budget. kent conrad of north dakota chairs the budget committee. he and ranking member judd gregg co-sponsored a proposal to create a bipartisan commission to look at long-term budget issues. that measure was voted down last week. from yesterday, this is 2 1/2 hours. >> first of all, i appreciate very much witnesses being here with conditions as they are and i appreciate colleagues who are here and who are on their way. i especially want to thank

senator sessions for being here to represent the republican side of the aisle, senator gregg informed us that he's not been able to get back to washington at this moment and hopes to be with us soon, but airports, as you know, have been closed. so anybody that was out of town's had a difficult time getting back. i think the senate -- i don't know whether the votes scheduled this afternoon are actually going to come off or not. for those who are thinking about tomorrow we have a hearing scheduled for tomorrow. we're going to make a decision about that very soon. because we have witnesses lined up. one thing we're considering is moving tomorrow's hearing until the next day in light of the threat of additional snow. this afternoon and through the evening and into tomorrow. if we do get another 10 or 12

inches, it probably would be very difficult for witnesses to get here. i'm fortunate, i live about 10 blocks away so i can always get here. i want to again very much thank the witnesses. this is an important hearing. the economic outlook and risk for the federal budget and debt , we're joined by an extremely distinguished panel of witnesses, dr. carmen reinhart, director of economics and center for international economics at the university of maryland, welcome, good to have you here. dr. simon johnson, professor of entrepreneurship at m.i.t. sloan's school of management and senior fellow at peter institute for international economics. sometimeon has appeared before this committee in the past. we've always enjoyed his commenttation. -- commentary and his testimony. and dr. donald maron, the former acting director of the

congressional budget office, always god to have -- good to have you back before the committee as well. dr. maron, somebody whose served in a very -- who's served in a very distinguished way in the budget office and we've always been indebted to him for his service there. this is dr. reinhart's first appearance before the budget committee. so we especially want to make her feel at home. we look forward to her testimony and dr. johnson and dr. maron are both well known here before the committee. as the title of our hearing suggests, we're going to focus today on the nation's economic outlook and the risk we are facing that could affect the outlook, the federal budget and the nation's debt. i would like to begin with just a brief review of our economic situation. i think we all know when president obama took office we were in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression. the president moved quickly to

follow up on the steps that had been taken by the previous administration to avert an even sharper economic decline. and those policies, i think, are clearly working. the actions taken by the federal government over the last year have clearly helped pull us back from the brink. we have seen a dramatic turn around in economic growth, economic growth in the first quarter of last year was a negative 6.4%. by the last quarter of last year it had improved to a positive 5.7% growth. now, i think it's very important to say none of us anticipate that that level of economic growth will continue. many of us see a more tepid level going forward. we've also seen a steady improvement in the jobs picture . according to the estimates we received last february or last friday, i should say, in january of last year the economy was losing more than

800,000 private sector jobs in one month. that's up from a previous estimate of about 700,000. so looking back we can see in january of last year the job loss was running about 800,000 a month. by this january the economy was losing about 12,000 jobs in a month. a dramatic improvement but still short of where we need to go in terms of dramatically reducing unemployment. and i must say, all of these numbers that are -- to those who are suffering the consequences of a weakened economy, just numbers on a page. if you are someone who is unemployed or can't find sufficient work, are underemployed, these numbers are cold comfort to you. it is important to recognize that things are improving, at least the free fall that we are in has been stabilized and we're starting to move back in the right direction.

according to estimates we received friday, the unemployment rate did fall to 9.7%. but that is still far too high. last year's recovery package is still providing stimulus, we know that its impact on economic growth likely peaked during the third quarter of 2009. according to an estimate from goldman sachs the recovery package provided about 3.3% of increase in real g.d.p. at its peak during the third quarter. following the third quarter the contributions to growth of last year's recovery package begin to diminish. given the high unemployment rate, the continuing concerns about the economy and the fact that the impact of the recovery package has started to wane, i think it is appropriate for us to be considering additional job creation measures at this time. so i'd like to hear from our witnesses their views on the

benefits of enacting such measures at this time. the economic downturn and the federal response to it has contributed significantly to the worsening of our budget outlook. this is the other side of the picture. in the short-term, measures that were taken to stabilize the economy and stop a per sip to us collapse have been affected -- effective. but we know there is a price to be paid and the price to be paid is increases to our deficits and debt. this chart depicts the projected deficit under president obama's proposed budget over the next 10 years. it shows the deficit coming down from a high of $1.56 trillion in 2010 to $706 billion in 2014 and then slowly resuming its climb back to $1 trillion in 2020. i have said before that i can

understand increases in deficits and debt in the short storm to deal with an economic weakness and to prevent an economic collapse but i am increasingly concerned about the outyears because we're already on an unsustainable path and i'm concerned the president's budget does not focus sufficiently on our long-term need to deal with the debt threat. the nation's debt outlook is even worse, particularly over the long term. the fact is we're on a completely unsustainable course long term. i personally believe we need a two-pronged strategy going forward. one for the near term, one for the long term. in the near term i believe we must emphasize policies that encourage job creation in the private sector but for the long-term with you must pivot to controlling our debt.

the economic security of our nation depends on it. with that i will turn to senator sessions for any opening remarks he might want to make and then we'll go to our witnesses and then we'll have a chance for questions from the panel. again, senator sessions, thank you so much for being here. it speaks very well of a man from alabama to be here with the weather conditions we're currently experiencing in this city. in north dakota this is no big deal but i'm sure in alabama this would be an all-out emergency. >> it's fun for me to be out a little bit, to walk around and see the beauty of the snow. it's really a stunning sight but it does cause difficulties for travel. >> if you like the beauty of this snow, i would like to invite you to north dakota any time in january and february of next year. in fact, maybe spend all of

january and february. >> maybe i would invite you south would be a better idea. thank all of you for coming and i look forward to your discussion. i frankly don't know how well our actions worked after the collapse in the financial markets. those who supported it, promoted it, funded it, ran it all tell us if we hadn't done it we would be so much worse than we are today. but forgive me if i'm not sold. i just believe that a lot of things had to be done and i would have and supported a number of things but the fundamental actions that we took were troubling to me and the fed had to act, we know that, but -- and the congress

had some things that we needed to do, but i'm troubled by it all. the tarp $700 billion had to pass before the asian markets opened the next morning, they originally told us. and then when president bush had left office he hadn't spent his $350 billion, half of it yet. and one man was allocating $700 billion. so forgive me if i'm uneasey about that. that's $700 billion was distributed in ways directly contrary to what congress was told. we were told it was to buy toxic assets and within a week they were buying stocks in companies, insurance companies, then buying automobile companies. so just forgive me if i'm not happy and none of the american people are not happy. second, the stimulus package,

the $787 billion, it's now $840 billion because we are spending more under the commitments we made than we intended when we passed it, i think it's produced little. in fact, i think it's one of the great tragedies this country -- in the history of the country that we've gotten so little out of such an incredibly large expenditure, the largest single expenditure in american history. and i don't think it's gone very well. i don't think it's created the jobs they projected it would create even. the bill that some of us supported, senator boone and senator mccain offered for half the cost according to christine roamer's own analysis, would have created twice as many jobs and half the debt impact on our

country. so, we've got some serious problems. one of the things that happens with budgets that mr. maron and c.b.o., the time you were over there, you might be aware of this, i'm not -- most americans are not, that the only year that really counts is the year you're in. and the year we're in, for example, has a gimmick, if the president's job stimulus package were passed like the one similar to the house version that he praised and state -- in the state of the union, it has $100 billion more in 10, he's counting $170 billion in that next 10 years but he's not counting the $100 billion in this year. it's a violation of last year's budget but we'll have to have a

vote sufficient to raise the spending level through emergency designation, i guess, to spend that money this year. so i guess what i'm saying is, what i'm hearing from president incumbent administration that concerns me, it's always next year, next year. we've got to do all in this year, we're not going to worry about how much debt is being run up this year, we'll worry about it next year. and the chart you put up, mr. chairman, is however the budget that they're citing. so we've got to reduce the budget. now, i offered legislation and had 16 or 17 democrats who support it which say let's take that budget we passed last year and let's follow those numbers which are basically 1% and 2% increases over the next five years. but we didn't get the 60 votes

necessary to pass it. but that would have been a real step, i think, that would help us send a message to the whole world and to the american people that we are going to contain discretionary spending at least for a while. and then we absolutely, mr. chairman, you've led on this, is to discuss how we can reduce our entitlement spendings and all spending really. we've got to act. that's all i'm saying. i hope that -- i look forward to hearing from you, the american people are unhappy with us, they're not happy with us. unemployment is high, the numbers were not good this last week. another 20,000 increase in unemployment and i think it takes about an 800,000 increase to begin to reduce the number -- total debt, total unemployment numbers. so i'm really worried about unemployment. we want to have growth and

hopefully we can. mr. chairman, thank you. i'm sorry senator gregg isn't here. i know he's got a difficulty but i know you and he have worked on a number of issues that are important and i hope to be able to work with you. >> thank you, senator, again, thank you very much forever being here. now we'll turn to the rest of the witnesses, dr. carmen reinhart, professor of economics and director of the senator for international economics at the university of maryland. very timely for you to be here given developments on the international front. please proceed with your testimony and then we'll go to dr. johnson and dr. maron. dr. reinhart. >> thank you, chairman conrad, and other members of the committee for the opportunity to comment on the u.s. economy and the risks for the budget and debt. i'm a professor at the department of economics at the university of maryland. i suspect that i was invited

here today because for more than a decade my research has focused on various types of financial crises and that includes fiscal implications and other economic consequences. one of the main lessons emerging from this work is that across countries and over time severe financial crises follow a similar pattern. in a paper written over a year ago with my co-author ken rogoff, we exammed the deaths and duration of the slump that invariably follows financial crises. the recessions following severe post-world war crises tend to be protracted affairs. asset market collapses were deep, prolonged on a peak to trough basis, real housing de-- prices declined on average 35%

and this decline stretched out over six years. equity prices collapsed on an average of 55%. the recovery was from the bottom was quicker. to put it in context, in the present down turn here in the united states, real housing prices have already fallen 36% from their february, 2006, peak. not surprisingly, banking crises are associated with profound declines in output and employment. the unemployment rate rises an average of 7 -- seven percentage points over the down phase of the cycle which lasts an average of four years. we are following this track. the u.s. unemployment rate bottomed at 4.4% in december, 2006, about six months before the crisis broke. and its recent peak level in october of 2009, the unemployment rose 5.7%.

historically these conditions produced a marked deterioration in budget deficits. accordingly the real value of government debt soars after financial crises of this order of magnitude, rising an average of 86% in the major post-world war ii episodes. the main cause of the debt explosion is not the widely cited cost of bailing out the banking systems nor is it the fiscal stimulus as many countries in our sample did not implement such policies. in fact, the critical factor is the collapse in tax revenues that follows in the wake of deep and prolonged economic contraction. our estimates of the rising government debt are likely to be conservative. the 86%, as they do not include increases in government

guarantees which also soar. government debt has been soaring in the wake of the recent global mail storm, especially in the epcenter countries. in related work with rogoff i completed only a few weeks ago we calculated the increase in inflation adjusted public debt that has occurred since 2007 and for five countries with systematic financial crises which include the united states and the united kingdom, average debt levels are up by about 75% . even in countries that haven't had a major financial crisis, debt rose an average of 20% in real terms between 2007 and 2009. so, our main focus is on the longer term macroeconomic implications of much higher public and external debt. we examine in this work the

experience of 44 countries spanning up to two centuries of data on central government debt, inflation and growth. our main findings is that across those advanced countries and emerging markets, high debt to g.d.p. levels, debt levels, gross debt, about 90% are associated with notably lower growth outcomes. above 90% median growth rates, followed by 1%. average growth rates fall krly mosh -- considerably more. in addition to emerging markets, there appears to be a tighter threshold for external debt, a lower threshold, so that when e term debt reaches 60% of g.d.p. and growth declines by about 2% and for higher levels of debt growth is cut in about in half.

our international and historical experience shows that seldom do countries simply grow their way out of their debt burdens. there are also thresholds in debt 90% while the exact mechanism is not certain we presume that at some point interest rate premiums react to unchecked deficits. forcing governments to tighten fiscal policy. higher taxes have an especially dell tearous effect on growth. we expect that growth also slows as governments turn to financial repression, to place debts at submarket interest rates. of course there are other vulnerabilities associated with debt buildups that depend on the composition of the debt itself. one common mistake is debt sources for government to play the yield curve shifting to

cheaper short-term debt to economize on interest costs. unfortunately a government with massive short-term debts to roll over is ill positioned to adjust if rates spike or market confidence fades. even aside from high and rising levels of public debt, many advanced countries particularly in europe right now are saddled with extraordinarily high levels of external debt or debt issued abroad by both the government and private entities. in the case of europe, the advanced country average exceeds 200% of g.d.p. in private debt u.s. debts exceed 300% and they're at their highest levels since 1916 where the historical statistics

of the united states begin to record this data. current high private domestic and external debt burdens would also seem to be an important vulnerability to monitor. down grades, ratings down grades usually follow debt. given these risks of higher government debt, how quickly should governments exit from fiscal stimulus? this is not an easy task, especially given weak employment hear in the united states and elsewhere. in light of the likelihood of continued weak consumption in the u.s. and europe, rapid withdrawal of stimulus could easily tilt the economy back into recession. to be sure this is not the time to exit, it is, however, the time to lay out a credible plan for a future exit. the sooner our political leadership reconciles itself to

accepting adjustments to lower the risk of truly paralyzing debt problems down the road, the likes of which we are seeing in europe right now. although most governments still enjoy strong access to financial markets at very low interest rates, market discipline can come without warning. countries that have not laid the groundwork for adjustments will regret it. this time is not different. thank you. >> thank you for your excellent testimony. dr. johnson next and then dr. maron and thel then we'll open it up to questions. dr. johnson. >> thank you, senator. about a year ago i testified before this committee and i think our discussion together at that point came to the conclusion that we faced a pretty tough year and i think that that discussion turned out to be exactly right. my recollection is that we discussed contraction in the global economy for the first

time since world war ii, roughly around 1% decline on a year on year basis. the latest number for 2009 is- .8 decline so i think we were in the right place there. at this stage we should be discussing a recovery. when you have a sharp decline, post-war experience for the global economy and for this economy is you have a fairly rapid recovery. and the numbers that you showed us for the third and fourth quarts of last year are of course encouraging in that direction but i'm worried, again, about the dynamics that we face during this year. i think there's a great deal of volatility ahead. some of which is domestic for the reasons that dr. reinhart just talked about, some has a global origin. and i think that while the headline numbers for this year, the year on year average growth numbers will indicate recovery, a modest recovery, if you look

on the fourth quarter on fourth quarter numbers, the look of the dynamic within 2010, year going to see something quite different. in particular, in the second half of this year i think there's going to be a slowdown. i'm not suggesting at this point that we'll have a double dip recession. that would say an equal decline, but i think the pace of growth will slow, the pafse which jobs come back will slow and i think this is a major concern for the budget and for job creation. as you mentioned at the beginning, senator conrad. my overall projection on the fourth quarter and fourth quarter basis which i would suggest is a number we might focus on today is that the global economy will grow around 3%. traditionally that is where the i.m.f. would draw a line on global recession. they've moved the goal posts taken what we've seen in the last two years so now they'll call it global recession to perhaps a 1% rate. 3% global is fairly slow and this rate will be mostly held up by what's happening in emerging markets and i think if

we have time we can probe to what extent that is sustainable also beyond 2010. now, i think the weaknesses in the u.s. economy are well known to you, let me -- and prolveser reinhart mentioned the main points, let me flag for you the consumer sector is weak, lower income households in particular have a substantial debt to overhang housing prices seem soft in most parts of the world an asset prices based on the -- particularly the global picture that i'm painting will remain volatile. so households don't feel their wealth has gone back up matching the recovery in stock prices, for example. residential investment is not going to lead to this recovery. business investment i think may be stronger, there are issues of credible availability for the small business sector which i imagine we'll talk about later, but in any case this component of final demand is not big enough to pull the u.s. back to the kinds of growth rates we want. in addition to all of that, net exports which has been a brighter part of the picture in the united states over the past