impressive facility where workers are instructed on everything from the ininstallation of sophisticated energy hardware and software to the basics of currents and resistance. we need to look no further than the workers standing behind me to see the future that's possible when it comes to clean energy.

and doubling the nation's capacity to generate capacity. and after decades in which we have done little to increase the efficiency of cars and trucks, we have raised fuel economy standards to reduce our dependence on foreign oral while helping folks save money at the pump. but in order to truly harness our potential in clean energy, we are going to have to do more and that is why we are here. in the near term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we will have to make tough decisions about opening up new offshore areas for oil and gas development. we continue to make investments

in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies, even as we build greater capacity in renewables like wind and solar. and we're going to have to build a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in america. that is what brings us here. through the department of energy under the leadership of nobel prize-winning physicist even chew -- although a quick side note. when he was talking to some of the instructors here, and they were talking about currents and this and that and the other, i indicated to him that he could have saved a lot of money. instead of getting a ph.d., he could have come here and learned some of the same stuff. [laughter] [applause]

the instructors were keeping up with him. but through the department of energy and his leadership, we are announcing roughly $8 billion in loan guarantees to break ground on the first new nuclear plant in our country in three decades -- the first new nuclear plant in nearly three decades. it is a plant that will create thousands of construction jobs in the next few years, and some 800 permanent jobs -- well paying permanent jobs -- in the years to come. and this is only the beginning. my budget proposes tripling the loan guarantees we provide to help finance safe, clean nuclear facilities. and we will continue to provide financing for clean energy projects here in maryland and across america. now there will be those that welcome this announcement, those who think it has been long overdue. but there will also be those who strongly disagree with this announcement. the same has been true in other

areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. but what i want to emphasize is this -- even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. on an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot keep on being mired in the same old stale debates between the left in the right, between environmentalists and entreprenuers. our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries. nuclear energy is no exception. japan and france have long invested heavily in this industry. meanwhile, there are 56 nuclear reactors under construction

around the world. 21 in china alone, six in south korea, five in india. the commitment of these countries is not just generating the jobs in those plants. it is generating demand for expertise and new technologies. so make no mistake -- whether it is nuclear energy or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we will be importing those technologies instead of exporting them. we will fall behind. jobs will be produced overseas instead of here in the united states of america. and that is not a future that i accept. no one knows it has been long assumed that those who champion the environment are opposed to nuclear power. but the fact is, even though we have not broken ground on a new power plant -- new nuclear plant in 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. to meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst

consequences of climate change, we will need to increase our supply of nuclear power -- is that simple. this one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. that is like taking 3.5 million cars off the road. on the other side, there are those who long advocated for nuclear power, including many republicans, who have to recognize that we're not going to achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable. that is not just my personal conclusion, but the conclusion of many in the industry itself, including the ceo's of the largest utility companies. energy leaders and experts recognize that as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost-effective than plants that use nuclear fuel.

that is why we need comprehensive energy and climate legislation, and why this legislation has drawn support from across the ideological spectrum. i raised this just last week with congressional republican leaders. i believe that there's real common ground here. my administration will be working to build on areas of agreement so that we can pass a bipartisan energy and climate bill through the senate. none of this is to say that there are no serious drawbacks with respect to nuclear energy that have to be addressed. as the ceo's standing behind me will tell you, nuclear power generates waste, and we need to accelerate our efforts to find ways of storing this waste safely and disposing of it. that is why we have asked a bipartisan group of leaders and

nuclear experts to examine this challenge. and these plants also have to be held to the highest and strictest safety standards to answer the legitimate concerns of americans who live near and far from these facilities. that is going to be an imperative. but investing in nuclear energy remains a serious -- a necessary step. what i hope is that with this announcement, we're underscoring both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge and our willingness to look at this challenge not as a partisan issue, but as a matter that is far more important than politics. the choices we make will affect not just the next generation but many generations to come. the fact is, changing the ways we produce and use energy requires us to think anew, to act anew, and demands of us a willingness to extend our hand across some of the old divides, to act in good faith, and to move beyond -- move beyond the broken politics of the past. that is what we must do. that is what we will do. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. ♪

>> now state department briefing with todd stern. he briefed reporters further today on the future of climate change after the copenhagen court agreement. that document states that climate change is a great threat to the world and action should be taken to keep temperatures from rising to degrees celsius. this is 20 minutes. the global effort to combat about 20 minutes to answer your questions.

questions for you all. where we stand right now is -- as you all know that copenhagen meeting produced, in the end, a short document which is known as the copenhagen accord, we think a very important -- short but important document that was produced very importantly through the intervention ofit was, at the end of the day, not formally adopted as a decision of the -- decision being a term of art -- of the conference of the parties, but since copenhagen where countries secretariat of the un convention it; the un term is to associate itself with the accord. and in addition, the major

countries, major economies have actions that they plan to take to reduce emissions. so this is the developed countries and the major developing countries. that was supposed to happen by january 31st and it did. we now have slightly less than a hundred countries that have indicated they want to be part of the accord, and my guess is there will be still some additional ones who indicate that. the accord itself, i think, is an important document for a number of reasons.

it includes -- it quantifies the objective of this whole exercise of the framework convention. the objective, as stated in the convention, is to -- essentially to avoid dangerous climate change and the copenhagen accord quantifies that by talking about limiting the increase in temperature to 2 degrees centigrade. it includes a pledge by the major economies to submit their targets and actions. it includes important stuff on -- important language on transparency, important provisions on financing, and on technology. so in -- all in all, i think a very important step forward. the -- going forward this year, i think will be a combination of both of making elements of the accord operational as well as further discussions under the umbrella of the un framework

convention toward additional agreements in mexico. so that's kind of where things stand right now. i'm happy to take questions. >> sean tannen with afp. you alluded to this a little bit in your talk at the center for american progress -- >> yeah. >> the other week. the commitments by countries like china, india, brazil, south africa aren't necessarily unambiguous. how do you see that going forward, unless there's a clear commitment by those emerging economies? >> well, i think that that's going to get clarified. i think that, first of all, they have all submitted their proposed actions and there's nothing ambiguous about that. they have submitted the actions that they intend to take to reduce emissions. i think that's a good thing.

so far, i believe brazil and south africa have stated to the -- have conveyed to the secretariat that they wish to be associated with the accord. and china and india have conveyed something which is not entirely clear. i think that'll get clarified, though, is my guess over the course of the next few days. there will be -- the way this thing works is that the secretariat publishes a report on the cop, the conference of the parties. they do this every year when there's a conference of the parties. after a couple of months, they publish a report, essentially, on the proceedings, what happened. and the report includes all of the decisions that were taken. one of those decisions was a decision to take note of this copenhagen accord. and so as part of that decision, the accord itself will be published. and on the front page of the accord, there will be a list of

all the parties who have said we want to be part of this. and so i think that that's something that will presumably happen reasonably soon, and i would expect that all of the major countries will be part of it at that point. >> can i just follow up briefly? but would there be a risk to the accord itself unless there is more clarity from these emerging economies? >> i think it's important that the major countries be part of it, but i -- again, i think that we have close to a hundred countries now. so i think that the accord is already kind of gathering steam. yes. >> if india and china, turn out -- don't associate themselves with it, is there any possibility that the u.s.would pull out, essentially? >> no. >> not at all? >> no. i mean, i think that the u.s.is -- we have put forward our own submission. it's consistent with what

president obama announced back in november. so i don't think it's a question of the u.s.saying "never mind." i don't think -- that's not the plan. yes. >> lalit jha from press trust of india. just a follow-up question. what you said is not clear about china's and india's proposals? >> the proposals are clear. this is a little bit confusing. i don't want anybody to be confused. the proposals that they've all made with respect to "here's what we're going to do," perfectly clear. there is a second piece of this which is do you, quote "associate yourself with the accord," and in effect, will you be one of those hundred- plus countries that are listed on the front page of the accord as having said "yes, we want to be part of it." that's the piece that i'm talking about right now, and that's -- as i say, there's just slightly less than a

hundred countries that have said that. india and china have said something close to that, and i think the un is just trying to make sure that they understand what the intention is. >> now my question about -- india has distinctly announced that they will set up their own ipcc because they believe that the un's ipcc is not that realistic, that they are a bit confusing and it's -- they're not reliable. what's your opinion on that? >> well, look. i think it's a good thing for countries to have an active scientific effort. i don't know what the details are. i don't know what minister ramesh or others in india have in mind. but i think, obviously, the united states has all sorts of scientific work that we do through our various agencies of the u.s.government. so i think that's all a good

thing. i think the ipcc as an institution has made a very large contribution and i think it's an important body that will continue and that is very representative of countries all over the world. so i don't know what -- i'm not familiar with the specifics of what india -- >> he was talking about -- minister ramesh was talking about recent controversies about himalayan glaciers. >> about what? >> about himalayan glaciers and the -- some of the facts and figures in the ipcc report which has raised a lot of doubts. >> right. well, look, as i said, i think the ipcc is a very important body. i think it's made a very important contribution. to the extent that there were any -- that any errors appear in their lengthy report, i think that's regrettable. but again, i'm not -- i don't have any -- i'm not a scientist

and i don't have any considered view on the specifics. but i think the ipcc as an institution has been quite important and will continue to be important. >> can i follow up on that, actually? how much more difficult has your job been since the errors in the ipcc report came to light, both globally and -- >> it was difficult already. [laughter. ] no, look, i think that the scientific underpinning for action on climate change, the fundamental science of climate change and the observed data, is quite overwhelming. i think that to the extent -- and again, i make no comment one way or another about whether

they're mistakes -- i just don't know. but to the extent that there were any mistakes in the ipcc report, reports, assessments, or anywhere else, that's regrettable. you don't want there to be mistakes. but what should not happen is that any individual mistakes, typos, whatever they might be, be taken to undermine the very fundamental record that exists from scientists all over the world and from observed data from all over the world that this is a quite serious and growing problem. so i think that that's really the kind of underlying important point. and nor should -- and i think what you do see sometimes is that people who have an agenda that is directed toward undermining action on climate change grab whatever tidbit they can find and say, look, there's no climate change, it snowed last week in washington, there's no climate change.

that kind of stuff is nonsense. and the exploiting of this or that mistake that might have occurred in some part of long reports that pull together a lot of scientific data, again, i think is -- i think it needs to be seen for what it is, which is a deliberate attempt to undermine. the fundamentals haven't changed. >> andy quinn from reuters. i was hoping you could talk a little bit after copenhagen how you see the un's role in further negotiations about climate change and that of the major economies forum. and do you have any word on when and where the next meeting of the mef might be? >> well, two things. i think the un absolutely has an important role going forward. i think that there are obviously -- anybody who was at or closely following copenhagen can see that there are challenges

with respect to managing a big process like that, particularly one with -- where a small group of countries can block actions. that is certainly difficult, but it is -- the un has a special level of credibility and history in this and we support the un process. the major economies forum, i think, was a very useful exercise last year, a useful forum, a useful body that we really picked up from the previous administration and then kind of remodeled. so we have every intention of continuing that this year. i am quite sure that we will have a meeting this spring. we haven't set the exact date or the place yet, but i would

anticipate that we will be working with our major economies forum partners to set up a meeting in the relatively near term. and i might say that in the fall we began a practice of inviting a few additional countries to participate who were important countries but not necessarily majors in terms of their economies. and i think that that was a useful process that we began in -- i can't remember if it was september or october, but we started it in the fall. and i would guess we'll probably continue something like that as well. >> [inaudible] broaden the guest list even further? >> a little bit. a little bit, but not to a large extent. yes. >> sort of related to his question, is there any coordination between your office and the trade representative's office, folks at commerce, folks at treasury, in trying to deal with some of the economic concerns that some countries might have about trying to limit their economic output that might have an impact on the rise in temperatures globally?

>> well, two things. we coordinate with everybody. i mean, this is not just a state department exercise. it's a government exercise. we -- for starters, we coordinate very closely with the white house, obviously with the president but also with people in the nsc and the climate and energy office over there. and we coordinate a lot with treasury and epa and energy and commerce and other places. so this is a broad government effort where, of course, on the diplomatic side, state's in the lead, but there's a lot of coordination just in general. with respect to the question of countries who need to play a role and who have concerns about that, we interact, we discuss

those issues with the countries -- with countries in that kind of a position a lot. i think that ustr is also an agency that we certainly do work with. look, there's kind of a basic underlying reality here, which is that countries in the sort of emerging market category of countries, which is really what you're talking about, they have to be part of the solution in dealing with this problem. if you only look at developed countries, you're at about 40, maybe -- somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of total emissions and shrinking. and if you're trying to deal with the 80 or 85 percent of

emissions and growing, you've got to bring in china and india and brazil, other countries like that. you have to do it in a way that is mindful of their own needs for development, but those things can be reconciled and they have to be reconciled or else there's no way to deal with the problem. >> okay, just a couple more questions. >> on the difference between associating with the accord and commitments for the accord -- >> yeah. >> yvo de boer earlier, a few weeks ago, said that there -- that the january 31 was a soft deadline. are -- do you know what the number of countries is that have made commitments for the accord? >> yeah. well, i mean, i know that yvo said that, but the reality is that the countries who were expected to make those commitments did so by january 31st. i think somebody might have been february 1st, but basically it was done by january 31st. and those countries are the developed -- all developed countries, so u.s., europe, japan, new zealand, australia,

canada, et cetera; and the major developing countries, so that's china, india, brazil, south africa, indonesia. korea and mexico are kind of in a halfway house, but they're still traditionally considered developing. and there are some additional countries. i don't have them at the -- at my fingertips. there're some additional countries that would not necessarily be considered majors but who nonetheless did step forward and make their own commitments with respect to actions. so that piece of it is basically, in terms of meeting the deadline, that got done. that's done. >> okay. >> so now we're just in the world of what countries are going to be reflected as part of the copenhagen accord. >> okay. and in relation to that, what are the next steps in the accord process? >> well, there's -- >> leading on to cop [inaudible]? >> yes.

so there were these two steps we've already just talked about, the making your commitments and the associating, which is -- that part -- not quite over yet. beyond that, there are a number of elements in the accord that, by their terms, need further elaboration. so it calls for a global fund. all right, well, then you need to set up -- set the fund up. you need to -- there's a structure, there's mechanics, how the fund will work. it calls for technology mechanism. all right, what does it look like? does it look this way or this way or how -- what is it -- what are the elements of the mechanism? a very important provision about transparency, including with respect to developing countries, including with respect to actions they take on their own as opposed to just actions they take when they're funded. very important stuff there.

and in paragraph five of the accord, it talks about further guidelines to spell out those transparency provisions. okay, that needs to get done. so there are probably four or five elements of the accord that need further work, and i think that that -- that those things need to be carried forward. the first piece of that that got announced was a high-level panel or group, advisory group, i think it's called, on financing that ban ki-moon announced just friday. >> that's under -- i think it's paragraph nine of the accord that talks about setting up a high-level panel to do a study on potential sources of income toward realizing that goal of $100 billion by 2020. all right. so they've now announced that panel.

i think there's a couple of members from different countries, including ours, that haven't been announced yet. but that's underway and there'll be other elements of that that i think as time goes on will get -- will be -- will get underway as well. >> any more questions? go ahead. >> we've heard that several companies -- bp, conoco, and caterpillar -- dropped out of the climate action partnership. i'm wondering if you can talk specifically about that, if you know about it. is it a blow to that side of the equation? and more specifically, how do you feel that business is -- i mean, do you think that there is some concern that business interest in this whole process is waning? >> i don't know anything about that -- about the specifics, so i'm not going to comment on that. i think -- it's interesting. i think that overall business interest and focus on this issue is growing gradually and that that will continue, because whatever the ups and downs of this process at any particular moment, there is only one direction that this process can go, which is in the

direction of action to reduce emissions. i hope we get there -- i very much hope we get there sooner rather than later and we will be doing everything we possibly can to advance that goal. but whether it's sooner or later, it's coming. businesses get that. businesses need to plan for not just -- businesses don't drive by looking right over the head of the car, they look down the road, and this is coming. so i think that that will grow. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> with your wildest imagination, we cannot make the start of. this weekend, the debt of american review. it is part c-span but tv weekend.

of the next, a discussion on jobs in the economy from this morning's "washington journal. this is about 45 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: don peck is deputy managing editor for the atlantic and author of "house a new jobless era will transform america -- "how a new jobless era will transform america." you claim in your article that the new jobless era is just beginning. why is that? guest: are questions as to whether the economy will be able to continue to grow quickly. if economic growth continues at a strong pace, job growth must eventually follow. i think there are reasons to doubt that might happen. consumers are really incredibly indebted right now. the ratio of household gdp to

economic are put is about 100% right now with the 65% in 1995. well is down, debt is up. consumers usually power the economy out of a recession, but there are some reasons to doubt that consumer demand is going to grow strongly in the near future. even if you assume, though, that economic growth will continue to be strong, it is reasonable to expect that there will be a fairly long like between that growth and job growth. -- a long lag between that growth and job growth. since the recession in the '80s it has taken us longer and longer to recover with jobs. if you look at the basic past of job growth coming out of the last two recessions in the 1980's and 1990's, you will find that the unemployment rate is still 8% in 2014.

we need to recover about 10 million jobs to recover to work before the recession began. ñrit is or to take a long time o get there. finally, i should say that there are some significant characteristics to this recession that should make one skeptical about the ease with which we could recover jobs quickly. the construction sector and finance posts were bloated by the housing bubble. -- both were bloated by the housing bubble. there is good reason to think that these sectors are going to be permanently smaller for the next few years. there are an awful lot of people that is not a matter of returning to work when demand comes back. they will need to train for an entirely new profession. host: why is this recovery more difficult to initiate and others? it seems like there is some kind of chicken and egg thing going on here. how do we get the economy back

up and running? akmal guest: that is a very -- guest: that is a very good question. in part, that is a problem we cannot solve. if you look at history, it has taken longer and longer as our economy has become more specialized and hire skilled. it is natural to some extent that a return to work might take longer. if you're in a highly specialized jobs and you lose your job and that job is restructured out of existence. it is not a temporary layoff. it will take you a while to find a new job because a lot of your skills might have been company's pacificorp industry specific. to find a job that -- company specific or industry specific. to find a job that uses your skills might take some time. u.s. economists -- i spent a lot of time talking to economists for this story and i got a lot of dismal answers.

a lot of people do not know how we can increase job recovery quickly. i do think one of the things that we have to do is government spending, frankly, in the short run to support people as they are unemployed and try to create jobs in the short term through employer -- employer payroll tax credits and the like. president obama has suggested these measures. congress is working on them. but in my view, we are simply not doing enough. the scale of the problem is immense. i think we need a heavy response. host: will the stimulus program helped to kickstart the economy, put people to work, and allow them to spend their way back into prosperity? guest: the stimulus that was passed last year was really important to the recovery that we've had so far. i think the congressional budget office estimated that without the stimulus in the third quarter, we actually emerge from

recession, economic growth would have still been marginal or--- would have been negative or marginally positive. it is still trickling into the economy, but as a concentrated force is largely spent. we should not expect this in as we passed last year to continue to supply job growth in the future. when you're looking at the jobs bill that is in congress right now as opposed to the stimulus last year, it is really very small. i do not think anyone would claim that it is going to do anything more than marginally help the situation. host: right in your article --

what is it going to take to turn that around? guest: again, i do not know that there is any need more aggressive stimulus, toward it as much as possible on jobs. there are a number of tactics in addition to employer subsidies that can be effective. the strait of funding to state governments, many of which -- straight up funding to state governments, many of which have a balanced budget requirements. federal aid to states in times like these could be very effective because otherwise they would need to keep -- cut payroll to keep employing teachers and firemen and other public employees. host: if you have been out of work for six months, is there a

light at the end of the tunnel? guest: i think the next couple of years are going to be pretty dark, unfortunately. host: we are talking to don peck, author of this article. if you like to get involved, the numbers are on the screen. oakland, calif., tammy on airline for democrats. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning, please hear me out. my comment, number one, is the fact that i totally agree with you. i feel like the first stimulus bill was not large enough for most economists. i feel like a lot of people in

the last eight years and voted against their best interest and now we find ourselves in a situation where there are no jobs, they're not going to be jobs for certain people for quite a while. and i think that the people fighting against the president need to be waterboarding and let's see what's really going on. guest: i think there is a concern in congress and among many people in the u.s. that deficits are very high right now and that we need to worry about that. i think that is married to the sense that, well, the stock market is rallied, you know, the acute crisis is over and growth has returned. maybe things will get better on their own. in fact -- i understand that, but i think that is a very dangerous outlook. when you look at how long it will take at current course and speed to return to a more normal

jobs and are met, it is not months. it is yours. -- normal jobs environment, it is not months. it is years. i talked in my piece about the social consequences of high unemployment. i understand why many people are wary of more debt right now, when you look at what damage is being done to our society and culture, you have to put concerns about deficit aside and say we will address them when this crisis is over. host: john on the republican line, go ahead. caller: i've heard a lot recently about the economy, and i'm sure everybody has felt it. i would like to know if there is anyone out there, and right now,

your guess as to i'm talking to -- your guest is who i'm talking to, is there anyone that has seen what is going on with the world trade agreement? because the country is no more than my own house that i live in. everything that you have to buy and you are not working, you know, i do not see how that could possibly come to a good end. and the obama thing that he's got the transportation rios and fixing bridges, there is -- the transportation rails and fixing bridges, there is no point if you have no job to drive to. i would like to know your opinion if the world trade agreement is not actually the cornerstone of where our country is basing our wealth.

guest: it is a great question and a hard question. globalization has had complicated effects on the economy. it has brought us cheaper goods and has created some jobs, particularly for people with more years of education, but it has also hurt a lot of people. in the 1990's, the bargain seemed to work pretty well. it just has not in this decade. wages have been flat, job growth has been weak throughout the decade, even before this recession. it is a tough problem. i think the u.s. is basically -- it has made a bet in the last 20 years or so that it can provide prosperity and keep creating jobs by constantly innovating. and it has been willing to see jobs -- cede jobs to china and

mexico and other places while betting that it will just keep innovating in many different industries. we will keep reading new products, new services. we will get a lot of high job growth and in comes through that, but local lose those jobs quickly overseas. as long as we keep a high rate, that works great for the u.s. it did work in the 1990's. for whatever reason it has not worked in the last 10 years. i talked to an economist who is a nobel laureate and he told me that, basically, because of the housing bubble -- the housing housing bubble -- the housing in his view, he thinks the innovative potential of the u.s. is limited at this point for the next five or 10 years. he thinks even after we recover from this recession, we are likely to see a floor on an

employment rate of 6.5% or 7%. that is different from the 5% we are used to prevent the have to ask, is globalization as we pursue it for the past 20 years -- is that the right course for us? it is a question that we should be asking. host: in regard to the housing industry, you write that as of november, one in seven mortgages where the development -- were under water as opposed to one in 10. guest: that is right. that is kind of the heart of the problem for the economy. americans were obviously looking -- living beyond their means for a decade or more. we were incurring ever more debt. you know, we could wave that

away when housing values were rising and the stock market was going up. people thought we had a lot more wealth. people work office about the economy coul. were optimistic about the economy. but now that we see that was a bubble, it leaves us in a difficult spot. people talk about how we can get out of this recession. maybe we can export our way out of it, but exports are just 13% of the economy. the way to recover through recessions is to renewed growth and consumer spending. but consumer spending has been forced onto in the workout, at least for now, by heavy debt. -- has been forced onto a lower path, at least for now, by heavy debt. that is the fundamental bind we are in and that is why i think it is -- is a major reason why i think we are likely to see a

couple of rough years ahead. host: clifton on the line for independence, you're on the line. caller: it should have a question mark of their eyes to how joblessness -- as to -- it should have a question mark up there as to how joblessness will change america. it already has changed america. if you look at michigan and hard joblessness has gone up there with the production of the big three, which we have bailed out, and the banks that we have built out -- bailed out. who is paying for all of this expense when you have so much joblessness in america and you have no tax dollars coming in from what used to be called middle-class? we have no middle class in this country any longer as far as the irs is concerned. guest: it is a good comment. i think right now you do have to -- in times of recession,

this is when the government is supposed to step in and are on behalf of americans -- borrow on behalf of americans and provide the spending that consumers cannot and get people back to work and restore confidence. as to the question of who is paying for this, there really is no other answer than all of us. we are going to have to pay for it later through some combination of higher taxes and reduced government services, or one or the other in any case. but i think the government has to engage in that deficit spending right now. your other statement is also solid. people talk about this recession, but wage growth was anemic for decades in -- particularly in places like michigan.

i talked about a piece by benjamin friedman who wrote a great book called the moral consequences of growth. when you have * where people are just not getting ahead, the social fabric can begin to fray. people become a lot more jealous of their status relative to others. you start to see real problems in the way we interact with one another. i think that is one of the dangers right now because there was actually a long time before this recession of weakness, i think you've got a lot of people asking themselves now, am i really doing better than my parents did? how are my children likely to fare? as they answer those questions skeptically, it really starts to eat away at the national fiber. host: wyoming on the line for democrats, you are live on the

washington -- "washington journal." caller: i have a great idea that i would love have manufactured, but i do not want to go through the patent process. i do not want to go through the schematics and the whole 9 yards. since americans have great creative juices, we should have an agency that when you have an idea, they take your idea and they buy it and they invite companies that are american based to look at our ideas and we are able to get a small profit it is accepted and used. and we do not have to go through the red tape and a of the difficulty of getting a patent. my idea, insurance companies would love it, but i do not want

to put it out there and not make a dime on it. if i made a nickel on every one of these products, i would make some money. we should have an agency that would make easier to put creative ideas out there, so we can use our ideas. guest: that is interesting. i am not qualified to evaluate that particular idea. it sounds interesting to me. the economist at columbia who believes the innovative capacity of the u.s. is unfortunately limited right now, he cites a number of reasons for that. one reason is that the patent system has become stifling and is competing innovation. i think we do have to at least ask some questions about the process and, perhaps, rhea says howard is going. the other point that he makes is -- reassess how it is going. the other point that he makes is

that with respect to our financial system, he writes that even though finance has become bloated in the last decade or so, the investment banks were focused not on funding business investment, but rather, on proprietary trading, regulatory arbitrage and other activities that are really different from the fundamental of activity that investment banks used to perform, which was funding business innovations. host: hancock county, ill., tom on the line for republicans, welcome. caller: thank you for this opportunity to be able to talk to you. i just got a kick out of a last caller. it always takes an agency. democrats always look to government to get us out of this mess. the other thing, the stimulus was not big enough. i would like to ask your guest

where in the world ever did a country borrow themselves out of a mess? and the other thing i would like to say is, he went beckham and we sought -- and cited other -- he went back and cited other recessions. obama mentioned that this is the great recession back to 1929. no one ever mentioned the recession in 1920 where we lost 21% of gdp and with a cure for that was. the cure for that was because the government employment in half and they cut taxes in half and the people were -- were not so burdened, especially in this society with regulation and taxes. when you get your paycheck or whatever you do and you look at

the taxes you pay and you look at how it is wasted, you go, why do i want to work? i think it is as simple as that. guest: if you actually do look at the history of recessions in this country and other countries, i think you find that usually what happens is that the government does bar during those recessions to help stabilize demand -- does borrow during those recessions to help stabilize the demand. i do not think it is a particularly controversial point. the real issue here, i think, is temporary spending, temporary deficits verses long-term deficits. that is where i think we have a real problem in this country. regardless of your views of how big government should be in normal times, when demand has collapsed, that is a real role

for government. it is an important social role for government use without national spending a little bit. but the other shoe is, once recession has ended and jobs have come back, the government has got to really pull back on spending and start to run surpluses. when you look at the long-term fiscal future of the u.s., i agree that there are big concerns out there. we're going to need to have some combination of progressive spending cuts or tax increases to get out of this long-term picture of high deficits. but again, those long-term high deficits, those are largely driven by things like medicare. in9(v fact, principally medicar, and social security, too. those are the programs that i think we need to address in some fashion in the long run. i think it would be a terrible

mistake for the country to worry too much about deficits this year or next year. host: you mentioned some of the deficits involved in the most recent recession. 7=éñh and don't these kind of recessions usually hit men÷! moe than they hit women? m+3guest: they do, because manufacturing and construction are often hard hit and they tend to be male-dominated industries. if you look at the long-term trends in employment in the country, what you see over time is as manufacturing has slowly declined and services have

increased, you have seen it with in making up a larger and larger proportion of the workplace. -- you have seen women making of a larger and larger proportion of the workplace. for the first time in the history of the u.s. now, women hold more jobs than men. what we are seeing is an acceleration of a very long standing trend, which is towards more and more employment for women and employment stagnation or even reduction for men. it has a lot of important social consequences as well. host: back to the phones, washington d.c. caller: a couple of questions. what countries are poised to exit the recession globally that have the best chance to get on solid footing and get out of this recession? and a lot of people are worried

about deficits. iceland defaulted recently. i'm wondering what is going on with them. what does that mean and how has that affected them? guest: when you look globally, the good news is that the entire world is not mired into this situation to the extent that the u.s. is. in particular, developing countries have been growing quickly, china, india, brazil. a lot of big emerging market countries have been growing quickly. that is good news. it provides somewhat expanded markets for our exports. china, incidentally, is a prime example of a country that has flooded the country with government spending to try to get out of the recession, and it has worked. unfortunately, though, europe is very weak.

japan is very weak. those are two of our debt major export markets. -- of our major export markets. there is good news and bad news in the global economy right now. host: jerome on our line for democrats from pennsylvania. caller: i would like to say thank you to the cable companies for c-span. host: i'm sure they appreciate your gratitude. what is your question? caller: i have a couple of comments and maybe one question. when i started to work -- now retired, but when i started to work, the program fair that they have less for savings bonds that were

detected from your pay. it cost you $18.75 for $25 bond. they would take $6.25 each pay. every third page to repeat the savings bond. -- third pay you will get a savings bond. is scenes like this with institute the same sort of a program that would raise some money without raising taxes. the other thing that i would like to say concerning the economy is infrastructure in this great country of ours definitely needs a lot of help. guest: in for structure does need a lot of help. that is also a good source of potential job creation rain now. the federal government is looking f trying to grow jobs in

green industry. greenkz, jobs in the grain industry, -- to grow green jobs, jobs and the green industry, wind mill energy and the like. ,also looking at funding for transportation infrastructure improvements, which the country -- the country needs anyway. i do not think the problem is so large -- unfortunately, i do not think that is a sufficient answer for the country. the job growth you would get from those sorts of programs would take a long time to materialize. but it is an important part of the solution here. host: don peck is deputy managing editor at the atlantic and author of the cover story of "long shadow, how a new jobless erroera will transform america."

next call on the line for republicans, carol, go ahead. caller: i have a couple of comments to make. i wonder if the jobless taxpayer is going to help pay the deficit if we are not going to have any jobs. the 40,000 jobs that the stimulus package, they were all government jobs that obama created for them. also, most all of them, i would say 90% of them, were for the black people. also, another comment i wanted to make was, i do not understand how they are

expecting us to -- for the health insurance, where they are going to force everyone to have to buy if we do not have a job to pay for it. guest: as to the question of, basically, how a government can pay for services or how it can expect taxes when people do not have jobs, it is a conundrum. but i mean, that is actually why the government' needs to be doig more rather than less right now. you can get into a very vicious cycle where, yeah, there are jobs that the government -- the government rajahs back on jobs -- rockets back on benefits and services and you just continue down this downward loops.

that is where the government needs to be stepping up rather than stepping back. as to the stimulus, your comments there i'm afraid are just not true. the jobs that have been created have not been mostly government jobs. the stimulus have a large tax reduction component, which put money in everyone's pockets. a lot of the aid was directly to states. so, that did support the keeping of certain state-level public jobs like teachers and police. and the jobs bill that is on the table right now is largely an employer subsidy. as to this -- who the stimulus has been helping and howl, i think your facts are off their -- who the stimulus has been

helping and how, i think your facts are off there. host: next caller from waycross, georgia. caller: the stimulus package of $787 billion and a year later, about what it represents line has been disbursed. but even the fact that only 25% has been disbursed, it has been mostly dispersed to the states, which have their own disbursement procedures, which ties up the money and lumber. for me, the stimulus package is -- which ties up the money even longer. for me, the stimulus package is an example of how the government will borrow the money and tie it up for a long time. they need to let it be in the private sector where they can create jobs and it is not tied up in iraq receive. host: -- tied up in bureaucracy. guest: the funding of the

state's from the federal government's actually comes through rather quickly. -- the funding of the states from the federal government' are actually comes through rather quickly. you can't cut payroll somewhat without too much damage, but beyond a certain point, you really start to damage state services and you are also putting a lot of people out of work. federal support for the state's, a lot of it passes richard and passes -- passes straight through and passes immediately to jobs that otherwise would be lost. you do make a good point that most source of stimulus funding to take a little while to get through the system, but i think given the situation we are in, in such a deep jobs whole and likely to be so for a number of

years, that is less of a problem then you might think. there are some forms of spending that are of immediate impact and others take a while to come on line. but given the jobs that we have lost and the way it is likely to remain for a couple of years or more, it is still a help. host: seattle, on the line for democrats, bob. caller: from the end of world war ii up until 1973, there was a direct correlation between productivity gains in the economy and the average wage gain for the worker. when congress and wall street decided to go for globalization and these phony trade agreements, starting with nafta, of course, our remembered when ofross perot -- we remember when ross perot talked

about the big sucking sound. isn't it interesting that china now has become our banker? it does not take a genius or an economics professor to figure out that when goldman sachs, who was behind nafta, along with mr. robert rubin, bill clinton's first secretary of the treasury , they basically went against the american people's will because that was the percentage of the american people that opposed nafta. the other thing i want to say is that when china passed their stimulus, they had a provision that 100% of that money had to be spent in china. if we have the same provision in our -- we had the same provision in our stimulus, but the chamber of commerce lobbied against that and it was taken out. i think the chamber of commerce should take the "u.s" out of

their name. i have taken some economics, but i am not an economics professor. host: let's get some more information from don peck, who wrote the article. guest: i am notçó an economics professor either, although i did look at these issues for mariko and by everyday work. -- for my article and my everyday work. trade is tough. it is easier to see the drawbacks and sometimes harder to see the benefits. there are real benefits. everyone has cheaper goods available to them because of trade. jobs are created as well as loss. and joblessness has had some benefits for the u.s., but as you point out it has had some real drawbacks. as i noted earlier, if the u.s.

were innovating at a high rate as it did in the 1990's, a lot of these problems would not exist right now. but for whatever reason, the u.s. has not been doing that and that has created a lot of problems for us in a globalized world. i will say one thing that is interesting to me, one reason why the jobs recovery may take a little while this time around is because of globalization. you have got companies that have really cared their domestic work force is to the bone -- pared their domestic work forces to the bone and there is a real question as to where they will rebuild them. they may choose to rebuild them in other places. ñithey may actually be pulling forward offshore in decisions that otherwise would have taken many years to make and that

again, slows the jobs recovery in the u.s. host: on friday, this article was written me "washington post" -- in your opinion, how much will this bill spurred job growth in the united states? guest: very little. as far as it goes, it is fine. an employer tax credit to get employers to bring workers back to work early is a good idea. there is not much in the bill that i would actively disagree with, but it simply does not go far enough. it is a very small bill and i do not think there is really anyone who would say it is going to have more than a marginal effect on the economy host: our next -- on the economy. host: our next phone caller is from jim in phoenix.

caller: thank you for mr. peck. i think he has done an outstanding job in giving us information. i have a quick comment and a question. i think america is pretty strong. we will get through this. the question i have for mr. peck is, do think people will a eventually stop relying so much on the government, and when will they do that? guest: i think it depends on the businesses. there are particularly large businesses that can lobby governmenwr affectively and will continue to do so as long as it is effective for them to do so, or unless we create some sort of watchdogs or regulations to prevent them from doing that. i think one of the real problems

right now is in the financial industry where you have gotten very large investment banks just awash in money that are very skilled as lobbyists and also have a lot of former employees, frankly, at treasury and throughout the federal government. i think there is a real danger of almost government capture by wall street. simon johnson, who is an economist and former chief economist of the imf, has written and spoken a lot about this problem. i think that one of the things that is really important not to recovery right now, but to avoiding the next bubble and the next bailout is doing something to ensure that investment banks

are not too big to fail and do not get us into financial difficulty any more. and honestly, the financial industry has been effective in producing leverage and improving legislation and produce the possibility that 10 years from now we will get an exact the same situation. host: our next phone call is from jim, on the line for independence. caller: i believe that our monetary system is the root cause of all of this. it is antiquated and unsustainable. we need to look at and -- at either nationalizing or abolishing -- abolishing the federal reserve and take back the government for the congress. that way we could sustain the economy without incurring any debt. you would not have to worry about the next generation picking up the bill. guest: i will respectfully disagree with you. i think the fed is really

important to the smooth running of a modern economy. i do think, though, that the fed has been overly concerned over the lost -- well, for quite a long time merely with monitoring inflation and moving interest rates to ensure that inflation does not grow too quickly. they have not looked enough at asset bubbles. there are a lot of economists who did not say those in the late 1990's that there was a stock market bubble delayed into the 2000's, a big housing bubble brewing, and the fed did nothing to try to prevent the continued buildup to those bubbles. in part because of that and because they kept interest rates so low, we are in the mess we are in now and the crash would not have been near

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] i think that one of the questions that is often posed, particularly in washington, is if we had a different leadership in iran, not the hardliners in power now, would iran's position on the nuclear issue be any different? would they not want a nuclear enrichment program? would they not want to be some sort of regional power and i have to say with some honesty that the answer to that question

is probably no. if you look at the opposition stand you look at their historical position on its nuclear program, it is consistent but the big difference is the sort of constitution of the state and the players within the state, their different behavior which could come about through a political compromise, allowing more moderates into the government, this would change the behavior of the state, even if in the near future iran became a nuclear militaryized state, we would see a different behavior and that is very important. thank you. >> thank you, geneive. our last panelist came in just a bit late. dr. jim walsh is a researcher and just to brief you, we have

answered all the questions that need to be answered so you have very little left. >> that's consoling. i actually feel good about that. we're giving each person 30 seconds to tell us about yourself and then five minutes for your presentation and then we're going to get lots of questions me and from the audience. >> i'm jim walsh. let me begin by saying i apologize. i just got off a plane fromñi boston. we had some bad weather and snow there, which explains why i'm wearing boots with my suit. i know that is not cool. we call that business casual where i come from. we had some bad weather but we have been able to make ourselves feel better because we can turn to each other and say at least we don't get as much snow as washington and philly.

when i'm not in cambridge i'm often in iran. my focus has traditionally been how do the countries make decisions about nuclear weapons? how do they decide to pursue them? how do they per sue them but a vast majority, 75% who initiate or start down that path stop and reverse course. that is the unknown success story to have nuclear age. many states have started down that path and stopped and come back. obviously this adds rellstroons the current situation. we would want to know under what conditions might iran change course and remain a state that does not have nuclear weapons. that's why i talk to iranians and i'm hoping to go back in april. you never know but hopefully i'll be back and have a better sense of things. i want to talk briefly about the

nuclear program. most conversations about iran's nuclear program begin at the end. their conversations about sanctions or should we have military action or what we should be doing to stop iran. i would prefer that we actually start at the beginning and ask ourselves why is it that iran behaves the way they do? ju)j here? and then after hopefully trying to understand that, i think we'll be in a better position to say what are the remedies? we'll have to ask ourselves what are the current remedies. do they actually match the diagnosis or whether there is a mismatch there. as far as trying understand their motivations, there are two theories. one says iran is determined to get the bomb. everything they do, other than that is simply deception. they are playing for time. and you can't take any of this

seriously. and the other theory, which i associate myself with is that the nuclear question in iran is still to be determined. it is an open question and one that very might well be defined by what is happening inside iran in its domestic politics. we got a chance to test those theories recently when we had the tehran research react ordeal. this was agreed to this october in which they would give up some enriched uranium and receive fuel rods. they agreed to that tentatively and then the deal fell apart when it got back to tehran. half the pundits said look. this just shows they are trying to be deceptive. if they were really trying to be deceptive you would think they would have gone ahead with the

deal rather than have it fall apart. when it returned to tehran it was attacked by reformists who said the deal was selling out iranian interests and also hardliners said the same thing. a nuclear negotiator came out and attacked the deal as a sell-out. in other words, unfortunately iran has turned into the united states where people take positions not based on the merits of the case but on who is supporting it. if my enemy is supporting this, then i'm going to attack it. mahmoud ahmadinejad's enemies on both sides, the reformists and the anti-ahmadinejad hardliners came out and attacked it. what this tells me is it is going to be difficult to negotiate are iran now because of their internal division.

i don't like carrying that message but as a political scientist that's what it seems to me. every four years we have a presidential election. everyone says don't expect anything to get done if it is a presidential election. they just had a political meltdown six or seven months ago and this regime is fearful it may lose control or that things will turn against it. this is not the environment that is generally ripe for negotiation and big leaps of faith, big risk-taking on the parts of government. in fact, if anything what the government is expected to do under these circumstances is to withdraw. they are unlikely to respond to our hope for negotiation and the question is what do you do about it? the last 15 seconds, the interest has always been sanctions. we'll continue with our policy and sanction them as if the

election never happened. when we talk to people privately, no one thinks that sanctions are the magic wand that are going to solve this problem. you can have any sanction you want and what is the most likely outcome, iran is going to dig its heels in deeper and be more defiant and continue blaming the west. so does this tool sanctions, the tool of military strikes, do any of these tools actually match the conditions that are causing the problems. it may be what we want to do is step back and let iran's national politics play out until there is some sort of resolution before we charge in and try to resolve this problem. it may be simply that we have no control over this right now until they try to get their own house in order. the least we want to do is do no harm. we don't want to take actions for the sake of taking them.

it might make the reform worse than it is. i think rather than charging ahead with the same old policies and debates, we need to step back and re-evaluate and try to take a deep breath and go from there. >> thank you, jim and thank you to all of our panelists. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] jim, you have a colleague at m.i.t., peter, peter who a book called "the fifth discipline:the art of the learning organization." in chapter two of that book he lists a reason is intriguing list of 11 learning disabilities of organizations and if you get a chance to look at the fifth discipline, it might be help nfl your thinking about both nuclear proliferation and the problems in iran. h talked about the fact that we

learn from experience but often our experience is wrong and he has a number of helpful thoughts about organizational dysfunction. i want to start my questioning of the panel first from the issue of nuclear proliferation and then move more directly to iran itself and i got a crazy question to ask. particularly these smart people who have been a part of the negotiations. there are a couple of folks, former defense secretaries, former secretaries of state that three or four years ago in the headlines in the "wall street journal," made a very persuasive case, surprising case, including a guy by the name of henry kissinger who we sometimes hear talking. he was raising the issue what is

the military use of nuclear weapons? can you paint a scenario where some country could, in fact, use a especially in and explode it to enhance their position? what is the -- what could we argue if we were at the pentagon as to whyñi every nation shouldt have nuclear weapons? >> i think that one of the things weñi have to keep in min here is that we in the united states, with 40 years of the cold war, think of nuclear versus nuclear, nuclear weapons deter other nations' nuclear use and they are wrong, the same case is in north korea, the danger they face is an overwhelming conventional superiority from the united states. if i'm an iranian and i'm worried about invasion from the

united states, i would make a promise to the world i'll never exan iranian especially in outside the iranian boundaries and if you come after me i have the right to explode a especially in inside iran. how are you going to handle that? i believe there is also the question about threats against israel and wanting to stand off against israel. that i'm sure has some i'd logical casha. i don't think that is the driving -- catcha. -- cache. >> i'm glad you raised that. former officials made an argument. first of all they made a security argument that said the cold war was meant to deter other states, primarily the soviet union from attacking us. that is not the threat anymore. that is not the primary threat. it is arguably terrorism,

terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction than a country that is going to commit suicide by launching a especially in at us. how do we reduce that danger? you cannot reduce the danger. they will acquire the materials to make those weapons unless you begin to draw down nuclear stockpiles and nuclear material. if terror and w.m.d. is the primary threat, the way to deal with that is to reduce. as president obama pointed out in his speech before the united general asemblirks the u.s. is onboard with its allegations and wants to reduce dependence and reliance of nuclear weapons. we cannot achieve it unless we have the cooperation and help of others and we're not going to get that help unless we do our

part. it doesn't mean everyone is going to follow our example. on one hand build a bunch of new nuclear weapons and then turn around and ask countries to cooperate with us to achieve our goals. i think it is smart politics and security. i think it is much more a program that is a foufpks national pride and internal politics and that's almost tougher to get your head around. >> i have another question. i think so one reason that countries develop nuclear weapons is they feel threatened by countries that have them. they don't intend to use the weapons but they think of theçó especially in as a security -- nuclear weapon as a security. i think one of the reasons iran is moving toward nuclear weapons is israel. israel has the capacity to wipe

the country out and has even talked about it at one point. by having nuclear weapons, they will permanently secure themselves from that kind of threat and i think that's why they do it. in the case of north korea, north korea feels threatened particularly by conventional forces. threatened by the fact that the u.s. was using south korea as a nuclear weapons base. this prompted -- to go for nuclear weapons. >> let me play devil's advocate and invite everybody to be a part of this. what moral authority does the united states have anywhere in the world to tell other nations that they can't have nuclear weapons? when we continue not only to have them, but recently and perhaps even in this changed

administration, leaders have been asked to build a bunker buster, nuclear weapons, enhance the so-called stockpile of nuclear weapons, so that as we go down from 9,000 to 8,000 to 7,000 toñi 6,000, they will be smarter and more ive. what moral authority do we have to tell iran that you can't have nuclear weapons? if in fact we supplied those nuclear weapons to other nations in the middle east, in the region and allow them to proliferate in the nearby nation. in this relationship to north korea, i spent time in north korea, i don't think if they actually pushed the button on a missile that it would actually work. the electricity doesn't work very well there. if you're going to pile in a whole bunch of nuclear material in south korea, what moral

authority do we have to say to south korea or iran or any other nation that you should not pursue this direction. if you'll just be nice and jason arnott make nuclear weapons, we'll be nice back and have an opportunity for trade. how would you answer that question? >> this is of course the iranian argument that the united states has no moral authority. so i think that as a few people alluded to earlierñi perhaps rather than trying to focus on this clock that is ticking as to whether iran will develop a nuclear weapon, perhaps the smarter thing to do since we can't really control whether they will or not, is to have inspections to encourage some sort of transparency of what they do have and i think also what is damaging politically is

because of the iranian position, the united states does not have any moral authority to be able to dictate its nuclear program, this is having to some degree an effect internally. this is giving the state some ammunition to say see, the united states is still the same super power it was 30 years ago. this is why we are very anti-american because they believe that they do have the authority to dictate to us our nuclear program even though israel has nuclear weapons and other countries have nuclear weapons, there is a double standard so that plays well domesticically. so to a certain degree the more there is focus on the nuclear issue the more we reaffirm what the state has been tellingñi it own people about the united states' intentions. >> i'm going let you answer this

question. would i have more power if i were in charge of u.s. policy if i announced i was going to cut my nuclear stockpile in half? would that give me any leverage to talk with the people there or would i have to go down to -- renounce nuclear weapons totally? >> let me address the first question you asked because you were talking about the moral authority. i think we may be forgetting that there is a legal authority because iran is a signature tori of the entity and as a result has foresworn nuclear weapons. unfortunately in legal basis is forgoten in the city. we have authority. do we abide by it? that is a different issue. we have a full international community to insist. the problem is for too long we

didn't draw the line where it was but with inrichment which is not supported. a treaty in which article four of it, there is a reference to the inalienable rights to pursue nuclear energy,ñi development o nuclear energy and this is something that they are insisting on. incidentally, a lot of countries in the world, not just some small third world countries but a lot of important countries are in support of that position. they cannot pursue weapons and we use strategy on this panel. i think we would be in a much stronger position. doesn't mean there is a guarantee for success. we would not face the moral

delem history that we currently are facing. >> i think there were three basic provisions. first of all it said that nonnuclear states not go nuclear. the second provision was that nuclear states not give technology or material to non-nuclear states. or states which were not party to the treaty. the third provision was that the nuclear state was -- with nuclear weapons. i think so the united states has not met its obligations under that treaty. we still have a large number of nuclear weapons, enough to decimate the planet. several times. we also have violated the technology agreement by the fact that we made a deal with india

in which we provided india, which is not a signature tori of the treaty with material and technology. to our moral position -- is very weak. and i think we will need to really get involved in genuine nuclear disarmament and prohibition of the exchange of our technology with other countries in order to achieve the moral authority to promote nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament around the world. >> i have one final question and i'll let all of our panelists answer the question and then go to the audience but first, let me share a comment and some of you heard me share this quote before. in a book called "where do we go

from here: chaos or community" written by dr. martin luther king. in the last paragraph he said we are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. there is such a thing as being too late. procrastination is estimate the thief of time. life often leaves us bare naked and dejected. we may cry out desperately. time rushes on. over the bleached bones and revenues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words "too late." we still have a choice today. nonviolent co-existence. this may be human kind's last chance to choose between chaos

and community. here is my final question. how do we create community? what do we do about all of this? what do we do about iran? what do we do about nuclear proliferation. each of you have been elected president of the united states. you have the power. you're here in washington. you can use that power. you can use it for getting your message out. if you were president of the united states, knowing all that you know about iran, its internal politics, what's happening there, knowing what you know about nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons, what would you do, president? >> i think that the one problem i think that currently there is -- we have limited leverage internally in iran but i think there is based on what they are

technically capable of doing, we are able to wait. the question is iran going to make -- is the government this in iran going to make a nuclear bomb? is the government in iran going to last long enough to make a nuclear bomb? if i were president, i would make a declaration that nuclear weapons are no longer a legitimate instrument of national power. than the sole purpose of u.s. nuclear weapons is to respond to nuclear use againsts the united states or its allies, to deter that nuclear use in the first place. i would make concrete steps for taking weapons off alert and starting to reduce the numbers of weapons. at first, unilaterally and then later on with the russians because we, the two countries together still control more than 95% of the world's nuclear weapons and i would also have

ready, because the iranians, a question i'm not an expert on iran but it seeps clear they have invested so much in national pride. in this program. they have paints themselvess into a corner and when there is -- painted themselves into a corner and when there is a kink in the armor, we have to have a plan ready. hillary clinton has to have in our back pocket, some sort of -- that gives at least the appearance of skill united nation and cooperation -- conciliation and cooperation. >> i wasn't going to interrupt but your secretary of state just made a statement just in the last few days that iran is being more controlled by the guard than the government.

would you try thards issue? do you think that she's right? >> queal, i think that she is right. i'm not quite sure what we will do about it. i think -- >> that's why i asked you the question. >> i think that it seems clear that iran is -- the revolutionary guard is slowly but surely taking over the economy and political strings and it is not at all clear, that is an unfortunate development because it is difficult to see forward if that gets beyond a certain point. how you're going to have a peaceful revolution. on the other hand, i don't know that there is much the united states can do. >> very good. president abdo, you're the first woman president. where do we go from here?

how do we create community out of chaos? >> are we still talking about the music question in iran? on the nuclear question, i think i would depoliticize this issue and really move it to only the sort of the do mine of the iaea and create a policy that is strictly about monitoring verification and depoliticized issues. that's what i would do to defrive iranian state of using this issue as a form of national pride and that sort of thing. i guess the other thing i would do is we have seen as you mentioned, secretary clinton's comments have certainly indicated a shift in policy of the obama administration if in fact her comments reflect and we assume they do.

i think that we're sort of now back to the bush doctrine on iran to some degree. talking in somewhat inflammatory rhetoric about the system. even though she is right. the islamic revolutionary guards do have power in iran today. as president, a lesson maybe we have learned about iran is despite efforts to determine a new policy of engagement, we're sort of back to square one. >> madam president, would you continue your position and poke them in the eye or think maybe more diplomatic or humane responses to iran are needed? >> i think as long as there is political instability in the country, that the approach has to be a more aggressive one. because the approach of engagement was interpreted by this particular iranian government as a sign of weakness by the united states.

and some recent high-level delegation of arab diplomat who is visited iran came back and reported to me, president, that they -- that the iranian government was very pleased with the obama administration's policy. that was about two months ago. >> president parsi? i would like you to respond to any of these questions. >> i would first agree with president abdo that because of the fact that we do have more time, we should if we can't muster patience, at least assimilate patience and give this movement inside of iran the time that it needs and not try to adjust our policy and strategy in regards to iran's internal development to coincide or be in sync with our nuclear clock but rather do it the other way around and put the internal

clock a little bit more at the center and adjust the nuclear strategies in accordance with the internal clock. i think that would be critical. on one hand the nuclear issue on the other hand making sure we don't do anything that could derail movement for human rights, civil rights and i think it is a tremendous importance for the region as a whole. one small point, i think that geneive was absolutely right. we have to look at the opposition and look at what ways they could be different. i would add in my view a very important reason as to why they would be different, even on the nuclear issue, is because we are talking about individuals whoñr when they were this power it was based on a different world outlook. one in which they saw some value in transparency. they saw how security could be achieved through trashese.

who were talking about -- through transparency. who were talking about tearing down walls in mistrust in compare even comparison to ahmadinejad's crowd who had a different view, seeing the world as anti-iran, who view lack of transparency as winning iran's security. that is a very, very different world view that translates into different policies not just for the nuclear issue but also many different other issues. i don't think that is a point that should be forgotten. >> president, it is great to see a president coming from the great state of pennsylvania. >>ñr i think if i were presiden i would make a radical shift to increase our foreign aid. right now, we are giving .22% of our g.n.p. to foreign aid.

we should give.7. we're giving $50 billion a year, that's all. basically, as i say, we're spending $744 billion on weapons. i think if we change some of that, and we start using some of our resources to construct, to help, particularly the underdeveloped world create an infrastructure, which would be sustaining for the citizens and weñi increase this aid, i think our position in the world would be radically different. i think we have basically -- in a certain way, which has basically hurt our security and not helped other countries in the world. >> thank you, mr. president.

finally, president walsh? >> i like the way that sounds. >> great to have you here. mr. president.ñiçó where do we go from here? >> first things first, i have to commend the project on nuclear awareness. you know it really makes a difference when you have a minister, a man of god who is your facilitator. you get differentxd questions a i think it has really helped shape that conversation. i said all along, i think it requires patience and urgency. that is a paradox. it requires the right type of patience and urgency. you can make the argument that things are just about to go bad and because they are going to be so horribly bad, we have to take risky actions to prevent this thing that we fear. that is probably the wrong kind of urgency. it is a problem that has

consequences. i do not want iran on a path to acquire nuclear weapons. i don't think the world would go away the next day but i think as someone who does not like nuclear weapons in any form, i certainly do not welcome another addition of the nuclear weapons club. this is a program having some political problems right now and technical problems right now. so i think it is urgent that we don't need to overreact and we need to step back and part of what we have to do is look at community but also community and how national interests can be in common. the u.s. has obviously a variety of concerns here . human rights is a concern anywhere around the world but we have some plain old good old fashioned interests. we have 100,000 young men and women in iraq. we have 40,000 more men and women in afghanistan. iran doesn't want afghanistan to

fall apart. iran doesn't want iraq to fall apart. there are issues of commonality. as far as moving forward, it is always the same old-same old. we here the choice of being sanction. if they work, which they don't work a lot of the time but when they work, they work in the long-term, we're dealing with a short-term issue. a military strike, heaven knows we don't want to fight three wars at one time. s that's what the joint chiefs of staff have said they don't want military strikes on iran now because of the conference indications and the dangers it would put to our men and women in iraq and afghanistan. there is containment but that is sort of after you have given up. that's where you go with containment and after all of those are done, you're left with negotiation. i think obama has made a significant effort to try and negotiate and as president, i

promise you i will make a significant effort to negotiate. but it takes two to negotiate. sometimes the other party is not ready. that quote from martin luther king is so accurate. it is a history of missed opportunities. at one point one side is ready and the other isn't. it is back and forth. if negotiation is the least costly way out of this mess now, then for it to be successful we have to figure out the conditions under which they will say yes, and if we say you're an evil doer, you must do this, they are not likely to agree to that. they are more likely to agree to something where some of their interests are partially met and some of our interests are partially met and both sides kg do their constituents and say it was a success.

>> when you told us your began your comments you were hoping to go to iran in april. i hope when you go, you will come back with invitations for others to go. about a year ago, i met with the intersection in new york about taking a former member of congress delegation to iran. and prior to the election, there was interest on the part of the iranians to take some former, maybe more progressive democrats and republicans to iran to begin exchange of ideas, thoughts, separate from the formal debate. what we call track 2 diplomacy. if while you're there, you could help simulate some track 2 diplomacy, that would be very much helpful. also on your point on sanction, when i went into iraq in december of 2002, and did the

humanitarian inspection, i discovered a really interesting thing. that is, as i visited hospitals and went particularly to morning areas for instance, where they had incubators, the equipment to fix them were on the list of things that were sanctioned because parts for the incubators could, in fact, be used for weapons of mass destruction. it got so bad that you couldn't import pencils because somehow the lead in the pencils might be used for some kind of weapons of mass destruction and i think many americans when they think of sanctions think only of trying to stop military equipment or things that you would normally talk about when you talk about issues of mass destruction but it actually impacts on civilian life in a very important and tragic way and i think finding ways around the issue of sanctions, or if

you do sanctions make sure they are targeted sanctions and actually impact on the right peep. one final dr. king quote is that you and i will have to repent in this generation, not merely for the hateful words and action of bad people but for the appalling side of good people. let's not be silent. when you give your question, first give your name and your affiliation. we also have microphones there if you'll step up to the microphone. i'll go you first, second, third. you're first, you're second, you're third at the microphone. name and then your question. or comment. please be brief. >> howard moreland. am i on? >> you are on, howard. we can hear you. >> i'm a private citizen.

i'm always curious about the contrast between iran and israel. we talk a lot about how we have little influence over iran. our sanctions may or may not work. they don't depend on us anyway. it is curious to me that we seem to have even less influence over israel, which does already have nuclear weapons and cannot exist without our support. since we have no problem with israel having nuclear weapons, it seems to me that the entire campaign against iranian nuclear weapons is defacto, a campaign to protect the israeli nuclear ars fell in. -- arsenal. do any of our panelists want to speak to that? >> i agree that israel will be the hard case and in fact, you can think -- if you really do think about moving toward a

global zero, it is almost easier to think of the super powers getting rid of their nuclear weapons. cree and north korea and then india and pakistan. we are going to have to figure out how the get israel onboard. that might be decade or two. for nations in the middle east, we want to make this not looking at specific countries but to give security guarantees to all nations in the middle east, one of which would be israel. >> i'm going to put my former congressman hat on and tell you a secret. and i'm going to get in trouble for telling you this secret. but the israeli lobby is the one -- one of the most powerful

lobbyists on capitol hill. and they do it in a very important way. i ran for congress in a district that had not elected a democrat since before the civil war and suddenly in my campaign, i got elected, the last democrat was elected in 1858. i got elected one year after looking at the word democrat in the telephone book. suddenly there were these couples that were very supportive of bob edgar and i was invited to this synagogue or that synagogue, speaking opportunity. i didn't discover until many years later, the organization that supports israel, had put  so that whichever campaign got elected. all legal.

in fact, one of the couples in my experience, i was so friended by them that when i paid my own way to the middle east in 1977, i took them with me. we went to israel and we travel up to -- and we could hear the shelling up in the golden heights and went to egypt and met with anwar sadat and this jewish couple who went with my wife and i sat with anwar sadat. no security, no searches, nothing. very strong supporters. the point i'm making is they had one of the best, most effective, where is the lobbying in each of the 434 house districts and each of the 100 senate races. that is not true and has not been true, particularly of the muslim community throughout our

history. the one piece of good news about the bad news of 9/11 is that i think the muslim community has begun to step forward. islamic society in north america, for one, has moved an office here to washington and they have begun to participate in a more public way and a more balanced way. but i think our politics is unbalanced at this point in terms of our elected political leadership. now this is going to get me into all kinds of trouble, which is fine, because i'm old enough to be in lots of trouble but it just points out that there is, like in the defense industry, there is this force and you'll find democrats and republicans and independents, whoever gets elected, is strongly supportive. if we had public financing campaigns through what is called the fair elections now act, if

we can say you can lobby but you can't put money in, and candidates can raise resources, to help the financing is, i don't think you would eliminate some of this awkwardness and the imbalance of the political process. i apologize for jumping in. >> i would like to offer a somewhat different point of view on this issue than the one you articulate. i know people have strong feelings about this. i don't want iran to have nuclear weapons. i don't want israel to have nuclear weapons. i don't want the nuclear weapons states to have nuclear weapons. i think so ultimately thr more dangerous to have them than not to have them but i think in the case of iran and israel, these are separate things going on. i don't think iran is seeking nuclear weapons because of israel. i know they didn't get them in 1966 bauds of iran. izz -- because of iran.

israel is not in the m.t.t., unfortunately, so that is not available to them. and i would say, though, i think iran is a status quo power likely to wake up one day and commit suicide by launching an attack on israel, if you're sitting in tel aviv and you hear the press, it sounds like there are awful, vicious things being said and that there are people who would like to wipe you off the map, that phrase, i think, was misinterpreted, but if you're sitting there, you're going to feel more uncomfortable. you're going to feel a threat. i think the program's genesis is unrelated. the iranian program is particular to the iranian situation. the israeli program is particular to the israeli situation. i think if they have nuclear weapons they will continue to pose dangerous for their own people and for their region and

we should try to make progress there but i really don't see them as intimately connected. >> my impression from this spaniel that we should wait and see what happens inside iran and what if the radicals win and they make the bomb? what do we do? >> i just want to say -- i don't think we have -- i think we start directing very pointed sanctions to the revolutionary guards and i think with regard to israel, i think we have basically misused our position here. we should give israel a form of throverple basically have them reduce their nuclear weapons. >> i think that what we're saying here, as far as i can tell is not necessarily that we

should wait, but that there should be others to dealing with the nuclear issues, scientific approaches rather than a political approach. i think that is what we're all more or less in agreement with, because the political, diplomatic track hasn't produced any fruit. >> respond, don't react. >> you want to make a comment about that? >> i would agreeñr with geneivet the end of the day, as i explained earlier on, the pace of the program is moving forward. we have more time. we don't have to rush into solutions that first of all don't have the high likelihood of success anyway. anyway, we can give ourselfs the time to figure out to best, smartest approach and consider new factors such as the internal situation in iran. >> i'm the director of the the project for nuclear awareness.

i think we have a wonderful panel here. thank you all for coming and for joining us here. my question is kind of maybe broad g out the picture a little bit. jim said earlier, you know, it takes two to negotiate. times you don't have two. i remember a time when that was true of the united states and then the soviet union. it took some time to get, you know, negotiations going then. what my question, i guess, is fairly simple. what could the u.s. and the now russian federation do, by any measure, the two nuclear super powers in the world, with 95% of these dangerous weapons, what

can we do and what can they do to set an example with what's happening with start and what should happen beyond start with china and others and also we would like to separately ask dr. parsi and geneive abdo while we are waiting for the iranian regime, what can we do to help the iranian people? >> what should we do? i think one of the things we have to keep in mind is that the ke question of what is the we hav with iran, they are going to do what they do regardless of what the u.s. and russia does. it isn't just those two powers that are engaged. there have been times in the past when we have been barely on speaking terms and had to act through surrogates, the french and the british and the germans. these are democracies that areç

prone, respond to their own public opinion and we put ourselfs in a much stronger position with the rest of the world that is going to be deal with iran. i have been interviewed with iranians and they are always very -- their feelings are hurt when the chinese agree with the americans. even the chinese have turned against us. this meansñr something to them. we are not trying to just set an example for iran and with all the other countries in the world that we can try to act in concert with. >> i think you raised a really important question, how can the united states help the iranian people? one way in particular is to highlight the human rights violations happening in the country now. that are really unprecedented. as trita mentioned, young people are now being executed. the net has been cast very wide as to who is arrested.

i think that is one thing that really has not happened in a significant way and i think the other way that we can help is to try to figure out how, whatever penalties are going to be imposed upon iran for political reasons, sanctions, for example, how those penalties do not affect people's lives, as we all know the country is undergoing a severe economic crisis so those would be the two questions. >> president parsi has to go to the situation room immediately following his answer to this question but we thank him for being on the panel. >> thank you all so much. i had an article recently in "foreign policy" magazine and essentially we said that what we can do, the way we can support is simply by giving the people more space and this can be achieved with four different things. make sure that we are very outspoken when it comes to the

human rights violations. make sure there is absolutely no doubt that the united states condemns and stands against the human rights violations that the iran began government is engaged in now. secondly, if sanctions end up being necessary target sanctions that hit the areas of government and not just as a -- something that signals the outside world displeasure with iran's policies but also to signal the population that we actually really tried to make sure that we designed the sanctions in such a way that they don't harm the population thirdly, keep any talk about military action and those kind of things, as low possible. it is tough enough to be able to fight for democracy and tougher if you have to do it turned shadow of military invasion. fourthly, make sure we don't adopt any timelines or

timeframes that are unrealistic. >> thank you very much, and thank you for being a part of the panel. [applause] next question. >> my name is elliott. i'm representing the alliance of the u.n.a. in the u.s.a. i would like to explore the issue of internal dynamics in iran. mahmoud ahmadinejad claims that the whole movement was a western construction and to one extent, when the elections were actually going on, i got a sense in the west that we're all too happy to accept the opposition movement in iran, we're embracing it and so my question to you would be that can we all say that the west hasn't had an influence on iranian politics and the second

part of the question would be, does our continued support or the political movement jeopardize the mere existence of the movement in terms of them being anti-iran and not being in iran enough? >> another one of our panelists has to leave as well. unfortunately, she sits to me right. let me ask her to respond first. are it is very difficult to try to find ways to support the movement without changing it because the iranian government does have blamed since june, the protest movement, the opposition movement on the west, particularly the united states and has tried to make the arlingt that the united states is behind this movement. so obviously, it would not be best interest for the united states to publicly endorse the

movement. if hillary clinton said yes, we endorse the movement, that would not be helpful. it is a bit problematic. how can the united states endorse this movement? there are acts in congress that lay out specific steps that can be taken how to address the whole issue of information technology and the run-up to the demonstrations of the state rallies last week, a week before that, the state basically closed down the internet. it was google reported very low users from iran. they interrupted cell phone connections so people had guilty communicating. these are the kind of things that some people, some congress people are trying to consider now as a way to help the movement from a distance without tainting it. >> thank you. thank you for your participation. sorry you have to leave. [applause]

>> let me just ask our panelists if they have a couple of quick responses to this question and then i'm going to ask our questioners to ask your question and then we'll let our panelists give a response and then we'll all go and consume the cookies and coffee that is in the back. first, let me ask you if any of our panelists have a response to the questions? >> i do. i think one of the things we need to be very careful of is the action of the c.i.a. the c.i.a. has gotten absolutely enamored with covert actions which started in 1997. as an almost sem independent foreign policy action. i think in iran, for instance, the c.i.a. gives iran the excuse of saying the opposition is fostered by the c.i.a. i think the c.i.a. has to

generally withdraw from covert actions and go back to its original functions as the central intelligence agency. >> i thought that last question was astute and very subtle. first, i don't think we are actively -- the first part of the question, are we doing anything on the ground? i want to make it clear, i don't think that we are. i don't know but i guess that we have not. one of my principles should be do no harm i have friends that have been arrested and put in prison. i have walked those streets that the protesters have walked. this is a very emotional issue, and i understand that. we steam to be swinging from one extreme to the other. on the first day of protest everyone said the government is about to fall. and then some said the protest move i