things to the extent that you do not violate the reciprocal rights of others to do the same. the old story that you cannot yell fire, my freedom of expression in set your nose. in all of this, we have to wait knowledge -- and this is this comforting for conservatives, but we have a stake and we have a government, and the state has conflicting roles. one is to ensure that markets work so that people do have the ability to act and participated so forth and have access, and to enforce the public purpose. we have to have roads and an army and personal security. and in all this, what is very difficult about the state is that the state is both, because it insures the public purpose and creates an army and does all the things that it has to do, it is both a player and a regulator.

it is both a player and the referee. . it abuses its role by imposition. it basically enforces its

values on us or what the values are the folks inside the potomac, inside the beltway think we should have. we hear about employees for free choice so we can alleviate the necessity for elections. i love that. elections are now a burden if you're a progressive. the most burdensome election of all may be 2010. but in any case, elections are burdens. but in any case, let's look at banking. everybody was outraged this week, as i was, as john reed was as john involve kerr is of the outrageous bonuss that were paid this week. $140 billion was more than the u.s. grew in the third quarter, probably as much as it grows in both quarters, the first half year of this recovery. we have to look back at where it came from. in the beginning, we provided

banks with an fdic insurance scheme because we decided that banks are a vital facility like the electric lights. we have to say the lights never go off in new york city, so we have to in some way protect that industry from self-destruction. that's fine. but then to accomplish social purposes over the years, the government has required banks to make loans it shouldn't make, it's established competing banks in washington that make the fannie mae and freddie mac that make loans they shouldn't make, loans that sooner or later would come back and make the banks themselves ineffective and in some cases insolvent and fail. at the same time, although we guaranteed banks, their survivorability in some way or another, we really do that. when a bank goes belly up, we merge it into another bank, take money out of the insurance pool and cover its losses. we have this group of people that close banks every friday night in washington.

they're people that work in custodial work in the department of commerce. they have a lot of seniority and they go over to the fdic on friday afternoon, pick out three insolvent banks and that's why the "wall street journal" is on saturday now, we have to read about the banks they closed. you got to remember, they don't generally work on holiday weekends like thanksgiving or christmas or what have you. at the same time, though, we permitted banks to become involved in activities they shouldn't become involved in. a lot of the regional banks are failing because they are trading in securities, something banks aren't supposed to do and something we can't guaranteed with the insurance scheme. more than that, we have allowed large new york banks to essentially become merged with what we call in the cnbc business, the casino. i mean j.p. morgan is a bank, but also j.p. morgan is part of the casino, investment banking

is more betting and derivative markets and things like this if you don't think it's betting, consider this, before the crisis there was $11 trillion in mortgages in the united states. they were backed up by $45 trillion -- $44 trillion in swaps. how can you have $44 trillion in swaps insuring $11 trillion in mortgages if $33 trillion of that is not betting? more than that, the capital value -- remember those are insurance policies and insurance policies should be backed up by some sort of assets. what's the capital assets of the united states, $33 trillion. how you can write $44 trillion of insurance policies when the entire capital value of the united states is $33 trillion and the g.d.p. is $14 million. nobody is skeeping score and watching and doing their job. when the whole thing fails, what do they do? they print money. the tarp did not bail out the banks. they paid back the tarp so we

wouldn't worry about the bonuses they're paying. the federal reserve loaned banks at near zero interest rates which they have used to trade to make the bonuses and the profits they paid out. they ran out the printing press. this does have a lot of effect on people around the country. it keeps them from earning their earning because the banking system is now incapacitated. ordinary people with good business plans can't get loans. and others have to get government mortgages or they can't get one at all. if you're a fannie mae or freddie mac customer, it's very difficult to get one. that is an example of the government not doing its job and keeping you from earning a living. i would like to talk a little bit about china. it's my favorite place. let's be can clear about what is going on here. china is not the united states of america circa 1876. this is not the centennial

expedition in philadelphia when the world came to marvel at america's industrial achievements. we offer the world a very simple message -- markets and democracy, individuals pursuing their own self-interests in the marketplace and expressing themselves in the ballot box, a process of political and economic competition as the best way for people to build their lives in a noble way so they can enjoy a reasonable amount of personal security. the chinese don't offer people that at all. that is not the united states of america in 1876 over there. basically they offer the world a very different model. you got to remember that democracy is not a well-embraced concept in asia. asia specializes in one-party governments of one kind or another. they offer the world security and prosperity in exchange for a small price. they control the individual and

they control the companies that control the individual. we saw something remarkable this morning. google stood up to china, is threatening to pull out. the question is -- why was obama over there on his neiling pad? why did we have munich then replayed in 2009? the answer is barack obama likes china better than he does america and he wants to remake america. think about it. the empire state building celebrating the anniversary of the communist revolution with red streamers. i love it. i love it. not only are we ashamed of america and we want to change america, but now we're revealing what we admire. people say to me, well, he is surrendering to france. he wants us to have a french economic system. it's pretty close to what is going on in washington, but we should be so lucky it should only be france. we should be so lucky.

we should be -- like a good simply ssh supplikan his men were explaining about the money we borrow. with china, we are involved in a free trade agreement. if you object, you are a protectionist which is the scarlet letter in academia. that is the scarlet letter in washington. when i challenge snow, he would say you're a protectionist and then you would have to justify yourself. what china practices right now is a very virulent form of 17th century french mer can't i willism. that's why we have a trade deficit. china exports to us not only with their good, but what we should be exporting to china because resources and prices are so low thanks to an undervalued currency that is

creates by intervening in markets, rigging currency markets every day. so we have this trade deficit. it then uses that to buy our bonds. if we didn't have this problem with china, if we didn't have this trade deficit, we wouldn't have as large a budget deficit and we wouldn't need them to buy the bonds. once more, we are not dependent on them to buy the bonds as mr. obama would have you think. essentially, china buys dollars every day in currency markets to keep the value of its yuan on low. the market market won't clear by the value of the yuan rising. it then takes those dollars, ok. at that point those dollars are out of circulation. they have left the u.s. economy. the money supply has shrunk. and it buys bonds which puts it back in. in -- if china didn't buy the bonds, what would happen to the dollars? they would stay in the vault of the people's bank of china.

they would have left circulation. the fed could simply print new dollars and buy the same bonds. if does it all the time. that's how it expands the money supply. that's how it earned that $45 million that you read about yesterday. that is an exceptional number. in normal times, the number is between 25 and 35 that it buys bonds every year every day to expand the money supply to the need of traded to expansion of the american economy. we do not need to be beholding to china. we only give it the power that president obama and laurence sommers choose to give it. that is an abdication of his responsibility to protect american industry, not to protect it in the protectionist sense but to protect it so we can compete. if you don't think we can compete, one of the most popular vehicles in chinese are buicks. buicks. but none of them are made here. none of them are made here.

why? they simply won't let them in. they have a 25% tariff. they have an undervalued currency which provides a subsidy of 40% and they subsidize domestic automobile production. general motors joint ventures there are 51% chinese-owned. so we have those kinds of problems. in a situation like that, we are empowering a society that is about five times as large in terms of population providing with $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves to go around the world to buy up resources, to build the blue-water navy that essentially holds in contempt the values we hold dear. this would have been like using the brooklyn navy yard to construct boats for germany circa 1935. this is why 7 million jobs have disappeared and the "wall

street journal" says they'll never come back. if we had a reasonable trade policy, i'm not talking bay approximatist trade policy, the foreign markets be as open as ours. the jobs would reappear, people could earn a-year and the liberty would be secure. they say we can't challenge china now because they hold our bonds. if we keep on this package, where will we be -- path, where will we be in five years? not a nice place. there are insidious things going on in washington, for example, with health care. for all of the things that betsy went through, think about one of the emotion basically elements of this most basic elements of this bill, it requires you because you breathe air in the united states to buy a health plan or be taxed. there anything more insidious than a poll tax that is a poll

tax? is there anything more insidious than that? but listen to obama talk. listen to him talk. like elmer gentry going across the plains promising people hope and salvation, he has promised us hope and prosperity. listen to him talk. well, if you own a car, you have to get insurance. why not you have to buy health insurance? well the answer is i could live in new york city and ride the subway and not own a car if i chose to. i don't have a choice about health insurance in this bill. i have to buy a policy or i have to pay a tax. under the house bill, it's enforceable by the i.r.s. they can come and take my home away. they can put me in jail. they can do whatever i please. that's an subbed. there is so many more absurd things that go on.

it's funny to watch it actually. poor harry reid, when you think about what he said, he was really just reflecting on the electability of barack obama. and he was applying a calculus that network supply when picking anchors and political parties apply when picking candidates all the time. how far we have moved away from our biases and what is acceptable to the electorate. what can be sold? now, he did make some mistakes in the use of language, but i can tell you, to some extent that can be attributed to age. it's hard for me to constantly change the words i use to go from waiter to server or to whatever word is or visit my relatives in northern new england where i used the word or enter at all and everybody -- oriental and people said asian to me. what is accepted usage is

changing and harry got caught in that. it's that simple. think of what is going on because of it. it's not comparable to trent lott. what he said is far more emoative. we are reduces to that point. is it a violation to your liberties, absolutely. if you're not harry reid, you would have lost your job. they have connected thinking right, thinking the way that is prescribed by nancy pelosi and her friends to connecting that to your ability to earn a living. you will be fired if you say the wrong thing. that is absurd. and over and over again, we see this. over and over again we see this. i don't like america. i'm ashamed of america. i want to change america. i want to control you. we have heard a whole list of them already and that is really what we're up against is people who feel they know so much and

know so well and reflect on history after revolutions have caused or the revolutions are always prosecuted by a small minority. they view themselves as prosecuting a small revolution. that revolution is to debrief you of your liberties to remake this country according to a set of values they consider appropriate and when i look at who they kneel to, who they apologize to, it frightens the living heck out of me. thank you. [applause] >> well, i was going to thank herb and jed for inviting me. i realized i was going to have to follow a great set of speakers. i look like an idiot now. but this is a great, just a great event. the college has a mission to define what america is and to

talk about free markets and limited government and what you folks are doing here is exactly what needs to be done. you're coming in to become armed with the tools that you can go out and really affect what america is about. today i have been asked to talk about how government activities have affected the capital markets and investment environment in the united states and this is a very important topic because what we have heard is that government is going to save us from the failures of market capitalism and that greed somehow is what dominated the system and that's why we're in a ditch. we're in a financial situation that we are, not because market capitalism is a failure, because it is a system that creates enormous wealth. we were talking earlier about seeing and observing. i got on a plane yesterday

about noon in orange county, california, and i flew all the way here and i was sitting and i was sitting to the person next to me and i said, you know what, this is what markets are like. i got in this chair and i flew across the united states, had a pleasant conversation with you. now, if this had been 1850, i would have -- people would have died along the way it would have taken so long, right? children would have been born along the way. you have a whole different group of people by the time you got there. we just really have to understand how amazing markets are and how amazing the market economy is and to realize that when we have problems, you can almost always look to government intervention. there are numerous ways that government effects capital

merkts and affects investment by economists, we talk about investment as being building machinery and building buildings things that will make us more productive in the future to produce more stuff in the future. stuff is an economic term that george carlin used to use if any of you remember george carlin. what happens is the federal government decides that it can be a central planner over one of the goods and one of the prices and that good is money. and the supply of loanable funds. and interest rate is the price. just as the price of toilet paper alerts toilet paper manufacturers when there is not enough toilet paper or too much toilet paper, the interest rate alerts people in the loanable funds market as to what is happening with the supply of loanable funds that consumers are willing to provide, people are willing to save. and it sells them, ok, they're willing to save today in order

to buy stuff in the future. and that market interest rate, that if it goes up, it says that, well, you know what? people don't want to buy stuff in the future. they would rather have it today. and if the interest rate goes down, it's telling people, we should be able to borrow money today in order to make machinery and build houses and build cars and things people are going to want to buy in the future. now, what happens when the government increases the supply of loanable funds in order to keep the interest rates at the rate that they would like to have them, people are really not saving. people are really spending and people are nugged, actually, to -- encouraged to actually to borrow themselves. instead the government is providing the funds. and so now what happens is investors, they go ahead and borrow and they produce assets which they expect to sell in

the future. but the actual demand is not going to be there in the future. and this mismatch of the interest rate, this noise that's put into the system causes what the offstream economists call malinvestment. people have studied the theory of the business cycle that started long ago. there is a book that was wrote in the early part of the 20th century, just sort of led the debate on this issue and the nobel prize was won for discussing this idea. we build the wrong investment. rather than building things that are to be consumed today, we go ahead and we build machinery and we build goods and things that are going to be used in the future for which there is really not going to be a demand. and so we get -- that's why they call it malinvestment.

what is going on is that assets are produced for which there is not going to be demand. if we think about that, that's a pretty good explanationñi of what we recently experienced. the federal reserve after 9/11 reduced the interest rates and reduced the interest rates down to 1%. once they got it down to 1%, they held it at 1% for a year and then in june of 2004, they began to move interest rates. as they began to move interest rates up, we begin to see a crisis in the housing market, that is by moving it to 5% and by 2006, we begin to see a disruption in the housing market. housing prices start to fall. so what really happened from that perspective is that we encouraged the production of

housing and also the production of over consumer goods and particularly automobile for which the demand was not going to really be there. then when the government found that it couldn't sustain this continual production of credit, this continual influx of money because as economists and everybody else that thinks about it a little bit, once you make lots and lots of money relative to the amount of goods, what's going to happen? you get inflation, right. the value of the dollar begins to decline and your currency becomes unstable. at some point, the federal reserve has to start raising interest rates and restricting that supply of credit. when it does, interest rates rise and when interest rates rise, we begin to get this equilibrium again in the supply of loanable funds. and it tells us, you know what you built all of these houses for which there is really not a demand. so what we it is we ended up

with this massive inflation in the housing prices because you created this artificial demand because of the credit that was produced by the monetary authorities. why housing? well, this particular asset bubble and we can go back and historically if you look at a good book called "america's great depression" that no one read. he has a very good discussion about why the great depression happened, very similar story, only the asset bubble at that time turned out to be stocks and then, of course, a colleague of mine has written very well on the new deal, raw deal discussion about why franklin roosevelt, the chief of staff used to walk by this monument to franklin roosevelt and go, why in the world would you build a monument to that guy, right?

i mean the policies of the roosevelt administration kept us and turned the recession into a depression and then kept us in a depression. and so we build monday it's to those people. that's just -- monuments to those people. that's just an aside. he wrote that that bubble was caused by the monetary authorities and of course, milton and freedman and anna schwartz wrote their book in 1963 on the monetary issue in the united states that discuss this exact thing that why we are in the situation we are, why do we get business cycles? we don't get business cycles because all of a sudden all of the businessmen have decided or businesswomen, keeping in line with the politically correct. they make all of the wrong decisions at all the same time, right? you can see that certain

individual businesses may make wrong decisions but why should it be that every now and then, all of a sudden, we produce tomorrow automobiles or houses or too many of such things. why do business cycles go up and down? it can't be that the market is doing this. it must be the government central planner that is doing this. so why housing? housing came about because the government decided that you guys weren't buying enough housing. and we want you to all own your own home. and i was on the plane i was with a guy that was very articulate guy, 28 years old, he is a vice president of an investment firm now, went to n.y.u. he rents an 850-square-foot apartment in manhattan. somehow, if i were in the government, i would think that this guy was an abject failure because he hadn't bought his own house. of course, when i told him that there is a house in hillsdale, down the street for her it's

for sale for $49,000. he thought that was amazing. he pays more than that just to store his car. so what happened here is they decided you should have housing and so we started a whole series of events, whole series of government programs to do this. we referred to fannie mae and freddie mac. you look at the tax provisions provide for this. you can deduct the mortgage interest, payments on your property taxes. we change the capital gains so you don't have to pay taxes on injure -- generally pay capital gains taxes on your house. we created all of these incentives to go into housing. in fact, if you look at what happened to fannie mae and freddie mac, between 2005 and 2007, 58% of all fannie mae and 67% of all freddie mac mortgages were subprime.

they decides and of course you have the community reinvestment act and you have all sorts of reasons why this basketball occurred in the housing market. now that is the primary method by which government has affected the capital markets and investment is through its monetary policy and you just -- and john taylor has a very good book that you might want to take a look at and his book describes exactly what has been happening with interest rates and the housing markets. he is an economist from stanford university that is very good on this issue. if you want to follow up on that, i recommend his book on that. there are a number of other ways that the government effects these markets. the second of which is government expenditure and taxation policy. the enormous deficits that the government is running, which are tiny compared to what

social security and medicare's unfounded liabilities are going to be. they are around $85 trillion in unfounded liabilities which are going to be paid for some time are else we're going to have a political meltdown because everybody that's my age or older is going to expect that these programs are going to be there and so we're all going to vote against the constriction of these plans. so you have -- somehow you need 85 trillion in unfounded liabilities. how is the government going to pay for that? it's going to borrow. when it borrows, what's going to happen? it's going to start to drive up interest rates. as it goes to drive up interest rates, what is going to happen? everybody is irritated that they have 15% consumer loans and they have 21% mortgages, which you happen to see when a guy named jimmy carter was president. they get irritated and the

federal reserve is going toñi b the bonds and as the federal reserve biases the bonds, there is an increase in the money supply and we're going to have inflation. this government overexpenditure causes all sort of things that you have to guess what is inflation going to be in 10 years. if i'm buying a 10-year treasury bill or if i'm buying ford motor company bonds that are due in 2023, i have to guess at what inflation is going to be. investors now try to anticipate what the government is doing rather than deciding what businesses are going to need to produce goods and services in the future, we now begin to guess what the government activity is going to be. a third way is they directly affect investment by deciding that we're going to give a tax credit for this for solar power or we're going to give a tax credit for that we're going to give a tax to whomever has the best lobbyist.

that also causes people to start to guess what's the government going to do rather than what should i be producing to match up with for goods and services. a very important thing that a lot of people haven't talked about as much as they should have is the government creates what has been termed regime uncertainty. that is, investors don't really know what the rules of the game are. now, bob wrote a nice piece about the depression and one of the things he argues is that the reason a private investment class during the depression is because no one knew what the roosevelt administration was going to end up doing. people thought, wow, this thing could just go totallyñi socialist, why should i spend all sorts of money building a factory when the roosevelt administration might take it over in two years? we get the same thing here. we see the bear stearns gets bailed out, then lehman brothers collapses and then we bail out a.i.g. if you're run ago a $20 billion

a year hedge fund, you don't know what the rules of the game are you have complete uncertainty as to what the rules of the game are. in fact, a lot of people have pointed out that the markets really started to falter, not when lehman brothers went down, but rather eight days later. we might not remember this because we probably didn't keep track of everything that paulson and bernanke and george bush did, but lehman falls on september 15. then what we have on september 23, the chairman of the federal reserve and the secretary of treasury come into congress and they testify that they need $700 billion. they have a 2 1/2-page bill. they don't know what they're going to do with the money. but if you don't give it to them, it's world is going to end. that makes you uncomfortable if you're deciding what to do with

your investment. not only that, but the next day, the president of the united states comes on national television and says the following, speaking to the american people to get them calmed down a little bit. he said financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the housing decline and the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. as a result, our entire economy is in danger. so i propose that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these trouble assets and supply urgently needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending. this effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry. it is aimed at preserving america's overall economy. so now you have the president of the united states, the day before, you have the treasury secretary and the federal reserve chairman saying oh, my gosh, the world is coming to an end. give us $700 billion by friday. we don't know what we're going to do it.

trust us, we'll fix the thing. and the president the next day says the entire economy is in danger. that's when the credit markets start to collapse. you create all of this uncertainty and no one knows what the rules of the game are and they know that the people in charge don't know what they're going to do. why would we expect that the economy would turn around in that kind of atmosphere? finally, they encourage risky behavior, which is called moral hazard by encouragingñi risk behavior because as was mentioned earlier, we have had the federal deposit insurance corporation, other thingsñi]iñ guarantee activities. we create what the insurance company calls moral hazards. what you know if you get too big to fail, you can do pretty much any old darn thing. you can gamble in securities and leverage everything because you're the bond holders and the stock holders will be bailed

out. let me close with just a little bit of a question. we saw the fall of the berlin wall, all right, and we saw moved towards market commission, they have done much better and we said, look, the central planning system just doesn't work. the little red book went out the window when they wanted flat screen tv. so we see that that doesn't work. we're pretty sure -- we're pretty positive central planning doesn't work. yet what we do is we give the power of central planning over to an agency that can now determine what the market interest rate should be. somehow we can't figure out what the price of toilet paper ought to be, but the price of interest, right, that can somehow be determined by a central planner in washington, d.c. or in new york city. new york city is probably ok with you, right?

my quest that i have out here is what should we be doing? we should be questioning what is the role of government? what is government supposed to do and to see and observe. if we see that most of our problems, bids cycles and credit crunches and all of these things are caused by government activity, not by the market system, and individual liberty is the important, is the very essence of how markets work, where you act according to your own plan, then we have to do what the hudson institute and human events is asking to do which is to reclaim american liberty. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would like to thank the members of this panel. we selected them very carefully and members of this audience as well.

there are a few minutes to ask questions. i'm reminded of a controversy that took place in a synagogue nearby. half the synagogue would stand during the pair and half will be seated. a young has beeny tried to deal with this problem and he said to members of each group -- what tradition do you stand by? none of them had an appropriate answer. the one rabbi decided to see an elderly rabbi in his 90's who are great experience with jewish tradition. he had members of both groups attend. the first group said i think that we should stand during this prayer. the elderly rabbi said it's not part of our tradition. the other rabbi, he turned to the other group and said we should be seated during this prayer. the elderly rabbi listened and he said. it's not part of our tradition. the young rabbi was quite perplexed and he said, i don't understand. we will simply have controversy and contentiousness in this

synagogue as a result. the elderly rabbi said now you have found the tradition. [laughter] >> now this tradition is part of what we stand for, but let me urge you to recognize another tradition. that is when you ask a question, please be brief and make sure there is a question mark at the end of your sentence. [laughter] >> we're going to start with you. >> let me be brief. we have lost a lot of american economic freedom last year. how much have we lost? what do we need to do to regain it? >> is that question directed to an individual or to anyone on the panel? >> let's start with peter. >> bear in mind that i'm a professor and i have the dignity of my position to maintain. maybe i should leave that first joke alone. my feeling is that we need to return to market disciplines

and in some cases that means a more active government and in some cases, that means less. we have to acknowledge as conservatives that governments are responsible for maintaining competitive markets. the most important thing we can do is get everybody working again. and the single most important thing we can do to do that would be to straighten out the banks -- two things. straighten out the banks and i don't need 2,000 pages of legislation to do that. i don't have the liberty to give you peter's five-point program to straighten out the banks but i would be happy to do that on occasion and to straighten out trade with china. if china won't revalue its currency, i want tax dollar at the rate of its intervention. it's to neutralize their effects and simulate a free market value and currency. it's the second best solution but the chinese give me no alternative. beyond that, the last thing on earth i want to see is that

bill passed. that is a nightmare. i have been writing about it as well and it's the camel's nose in the tent. >> one thing i should point out and we'll get to your questions and there is a microphone over here by the way. if you haven't turned off your cell phone, please do so. i have been to a cardiologist very recently and had to go through a stress test. i now find this is the new stress test. if you can carry this document, you can pass any stress test. >> that is only 1/3 of it. >> yes, please, use the microphone if you don't mind, thank you. >> good morning, thank you for the opportunity to ask this question. to you, betsy, your analysis is so powerful that if you had a room of 1,000 people, it would probably be 999 in your favor, i'm sure there is another room of 1,000 people where it's against you. what would they say in response to your points? >> they would say, and i hear

this often, i want to support this bill because i want to cover the uninsured. and actually that's something just about everybody shares. what they don't realize is that there are ways that we can make health insurance affordable for just about everybody and actually even provide a debt card or a voucher or some sort of assistance in purchasing it for lower middle income families for a very small fraction of what this bill costs and without taking liberty and medical excellence away from those who already have health insurance. so the guys of passing this bill to cover the uninsured has obscured what this bill really does, which is to put the federal government in charge of everyone's health care. the kind of hidden agenda here is a great equalizing of health care and taking the decisions away from the patients and

their doctors and investing those decisions in bureaucrats. that's the first thing. i would propose an alternative. the republicans have got a bad rap of being a party of no. there are bills in congress sponsored by republicans that address some of the pictures that need to be done to our health care system including helping lower middle income families by health insurance. the truly poor are already covered. of the 46 to 47 million "uninsured" 14 million are already available for medicaid and haven't signed up. 20% are uninsured for a small fraction of the year as they're changing jobs. as i mentioned before, they could use help with their cobra payments because cobra payments are very expensive. so there are ways to help the uninsured without taking over health care. the second thing i would mention is that the american health care system has been

misrepresented and that's why i closed my remarks with those two statistics about cancer. there are so many more i can offer to support the statement that american health care is the best. unfortunately, it's been misrepresented in the press and by the advocates of bills such as this. you hear all the time american health care is broken, but the fact is, if you're seriously ill, the recovery rate from almost every major illness is far higher here than in any other part of the world. and you don't want to lose that. it's not a system that you can rebuild overnight. the third thing i would add finally is this -- another misconception that has driven this debate in washington is that we spend too much money on people toward the end of life. you have heard the president say that suggesting that people should take a pain pill instead of getting hip replacements.

you have heard members of congress say it again and again and the control to very much ratchet down what the next generation can expect under medicare are in these bills plus permanent commissions established to make further cuts without any political repercussions. if you look at the data, you will see this. most doctors, once they realize a patient is dying spend much less than on a patient who has a good chance of living. emory university did a very important study on that in 2006 and there have been several others. but doctors don't always know. over half the time, they can't predict which patient is going to make it, recover, go homeçó and resume their lifestyle and which patient is really on the way to the end of life. and that's why it's so unfortunate, the dartmouth

study which you hear the president cite again and again claim that hospitals spend more per patient for medicare and hospitals that spend less on patients who are medicare-eligible get the same results. read the fine print. that study which is cited every time these cuts are defended, that study looked only at patients who died. it studied patients in the last two years of life. of course, the results were the same whether they spent a lot or a little. they all died. but in the november issue of circulation, a cardiology journal, this fallacy is discussed. the study looked at six hospitals in the los angeles area and looked at what they spent per capita on medicare-eligible patients. the hospitals that spent more per patient had far better results than hospitals that spent less had higher mortality rates so when they tell you that they can take $500 billion

out of medicare when 30% more people will be in it and it will not shorten your life, don't believe them. all the data prove it's not true. >> thank you. ruth. two more questions. i'm afraid we're going to have to move on. ruth, use the microphone. >> would you just comment -- >> can't hear you. >> i'm not as young as i look here. >> it's not true. >> betsy, could you please comment on your 20-page bill, would you include something like the catastrophic bill that was floated by ronald reagan in 1989? >> catastrophic health insurance is a very good idea. people should have the liberty to buy it. what it means is what our

parents calls major medical. the kind of insurance that when the unexpected occurs. that is what insurance used to be for, the unexpected illness, the accident, the trip to the hospital. young people especially should be able to buy catastrophic insurance because they don't get sick. a 25-year-old man needs a third as much health care as a 55-year-old man. if a state of new york where the insurance laws are stacked against the consumer, the 25-year-old has to pay the same as the 55-year-old and has to buy all kinds of routine care that that 25-year-old does not want. so catastrophic insurance is a very good idea and it frees people to pay routine care out-of-pocket. that in itself makes it cost 1/3 less and gives you all the choices you don't have when you're trapped inside a managed care plan that pays first-dollar coverage or almost first-dollar coverage for everything. so catastrophic insurance is a very good idea. >> allen, why don't you use the

microphone, plearks you have the last word, sir. >> over 60 years old in college, i had the chance to read the constitution of the united states, every word of it. and from what i remember, a great men powers are given to the federal government. a great medicine and everything else is -- many and everything else is left to the states. there is a reason they did that then. why is it that here we are in the 11th minute of the 11th hour and thinking about the constitutionality of these matters which are clearly not within the power of this presidency, i don't want to use bad language, in this presidency and now we're thinking about things. is this constitutional or not? why wasn't this done in april or may when this voluminous document first came out that would cause people all over the cup, some democrats, some

republicans, to rush to get copies of the constitution. read the dann thing and they find out it's against it and we wouldn't be standing here today. >> he makes a very good point. most members of the congress appear to be ignorant of the constitution. they out to take a course in it. they're totally unfamiliar with it. i heard steny hoyer say the other day that he thought congress was empowered by the general welfare clause to write this bill. well, there is no general welfare clause. the phrase "general welfare" actually limits the power of congress to tax and spend money. it does not invest congress with an additional power to make any law to promote the general welfare. >> peter, you want to make a comment? >> what you have got there is the legacy of three generations perhaps of judicial promiscuityy. in the early days of the republic, the congress would

sometimes consult with the supreme court the way state governors do and legislatures do, their attorney general and say would this be constitutional? we no longer do that. that service is no longer provided -- it was stopped being asked for. so now the rule is you try something and see if it's constitutional. we have done that in an era when legislatures are not inclined to do what they say and say what they mean, just provide agencies with general goals and see what they can get away with in the courts. so basically what you have got here is a congress that can see what he can get away with, is going to pass a huge law that is going to change the way health care works and then it's going to be very difficult to unravel, much like unscrambling eggs. it's going to be very difficult for the judiciary to say things, even when it might be inclined their unconstitutional because of the disruption it may cause. and also, let's face it any judge is only going to throw

out little pieces of the bill. you're not going to get rid of this whole thing on constitutional grounds. don't think you can hang your finger on that because you can't. the basic problem, the basic threat that we face is if this is passed, even if we have a change in the congress in 2010 which is likely not to be both houses and so forth, it's going to be very difficult to undo this bill simply because there is no way on god's green earth that the republicans are going to have 60 senators. so if they pass it, it will not be -- it is likely this is going to happen and it is likely that it is going to be very difficult to be repealed. >> when people ask why this is such a bad idea, just point them to the example of food stamps. we have people who don't have any food. we give them food stamps. we don't send them baskets of groceries to their dupe steps

or they would be saying i don't want corn chex, i want gra molea. basically the idea of sending baskets to people's doors is what we're doing with the health care plan. instead, we should use the example of food stamps. they go to the grocery store and buy what they want. betsy is right, we should give them refundable tax vouchers. >> or debt cards. >> they go and choose their own health insurance plans. at the same time, we allow insurance companies to market across statelines so that just as we have auto insurance companies say call us for a 15-minute quote, we'll save you bundles, we can have health insurance companies doing the same thing. we have the systems in place for other kinds of insurance, for other kinds of areas where people do not have a certain kind of good and we can use those now. >> one quick final word. >> j.d. hayworth in the 104th congress put target a bill that

would require the congress to put the enumerated power that it had whenever any bill passed, like within the title of the bill and even in the 104th congress which is the one that was the contract with america, etc., that bill never got out of committee. >> it seems to me we need sunshine provisions on all of these laws. i want to thank members of this panel. thank you very much for signing us off. [applause] >> please give us two minutes for a transition. we're going to move into the next panel. thank you for being so attentive. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a little over an hour from now, a celebration of the achievements of the tuskogee airmen. included in a short film in 1944 and narrated by ronald reagan that is held by the national archives and the

national african-american history museum at 7:00 eastern live here on c-span. now an update on relief efforts in haiti from general ken quinonez and the u.s. special coordinator. the pentagon lost their signal from haiti about 25 minutes into the briefing. we'll watch it until then. >> we're here at the pentagon. do you hear me? >> i hear you fine, dave. >> just fine. >> if you're ready, we'll kick it off from here. good morning. we're privileged to have with us today, ambassador lewis luck who is the u.s. special coordinator for relief and reconstruction and army lieutenant general ken keene who is the commander of joint task force haiti. ambassador luck is the former u.s. ambassador to the kingdom of swaziland and he has served for more than 30 years for the

u.s. agency for international development. general keene is the deputy commander of u.s. southern command and is currently serving as the commander of joint task force unified response in haiti. they both join us today from port-au-prince. ambassador luck and lieutenant general keene will both make some brief opening remarks and will be happy to take your questions. gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us today. >> thank you. >> i'm lewis luck, u.s. response coordinator. i'm very happy to be here today with my colleague, lieutenant general ken keene. i think it's fitting that we sit at this table together because we do this every day at various times a day on our joint effort here. i think it's symbolic that we are working very, very closely together, one of the most positive experiences i think that we have had certainly as

the lead agency, usaid working on behalf of all of the representatives of the u.s. government. the cooperation of the military has been absolutely extraordinary and we're very, very grateful for that. this catastrophe that we're responding to is in the hellatively early stages. we have gone from an emergency response into the subsequent phases of a transition to relieve. we early on in this response, we,ñi of course, concentrated o the immediate provision of essential services and food, water, medical services and so forth and we have seen, fortunately, we have been able to meet some of those immediate needs with all of our international partners, united nations and a lot of help across the board transitioning into other issues such as

sanitation, shelter, rubble removal and especially jobs. all of these are absolutely critical for the next stages. we have also seen an evolution of the kind of organization and cooperation with a number of organizations in this effort. the united nations effort has become more robust with many, many new n.g.o.'s joining cluster groups, are grouped around various sectors such as water, sanitation, resettlement and so forth. that's becoming better organized and moving in the right direction really every day. there have been more and more international partners that have joined the mix. we are seeing more and more partners like n.g.o.'s, other friendly countries to haiti. we're also seeing some significant progress i think in leadership in key sectors by portions of the haitian government. they are taking a real lead in

such areas as shelter, sanitation, reconstruction, planning, and jobs. it's been very satisfying for us to work with our friends and colleagues. we have recently had the start of a number of congressional delegations, senators, congresspeople, so forth, the head of usaid, he was just here and judging by the reaction of all of these officials, it's clear that there remains a very, very strong commitment on the part of our leadership and our government to stand with the hey shen people. there are a lot of challenges that remain. we have a whole lot of work to do. we wouldn't be truthful if we put it any other way. we made some progress. we got a long way to go, but we're working well together and if and when this effort succeeds, we would have been

responsive to the dan: of our president and our government and our commitment to bring long-term help to the government and to the people of haiti. i'll turn the words now over to general keene. >> thank you, ambassador. i want to also knowledge that ambassador lucke's leadership here, our military is here in support of our load federal agency, the united statesation for international development. this has been a strong partnership for the next day. .

. our firstñi priority when we moe military forces here -- within 24 hours of the earthquake striking, we tried to provide immediate emergency response to save lives. we did that by opening the airport within 24 hours. the progress that has been made in that alone has been tremendous. we moved in at numerous forces which i know you are familiar with. we went from a height of 20,000 soldiers, airmen, marines, and coast guard. today, we have approximately 13,000. 7000 of those are boots on the ground here in haiti. our focus has been, as i mentioned, initially providing medical assistance and distributing water and food.

over time, as we have met those needs, we have seen that need transition. we worked with buusaid and the un to support humanitarian assistance and their security needs. we support distribution points throughout port-au-prince as well as other cities. we assist in distribution of shelter and other needed items. as we see this transition occur. , we see our civilian partners to increase their capabilities here in haiti. we see the need for our military assistance dwindling. however, at the present time, there is still great need across the board. we remain decisively engaged in providing critical assistance to

the government of haiti and all the organizations i have mentioned. i want to highlight a couple of areas where tremendous progress has been made. i mentioned the airport. prior to the earthquake, the airport was taking in about 13 flights a day. that increased to a height of 180 flights a day, 126 fixed wing, the 60 broker wing. that has gone back down to 30 to 40 flights a day. the haitian air traffic controllers are controlling the airport from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the afternoon. that transition has taken place. it is an acknowledgement of the progress that has been made. another area that has seen progress is the port. in the initial phase, the

southport here in port-au-prince was not usable. it was critical to open that up to get the amount of bulk supplies and equipment into haiti that was needed. the success of that, being able to go from pre-earthquake levels of 100 containers a day to come up today, up to 500 containers a day -- we have not seen that level of need arise yet, but we are capable of doing that today. that has enabled the pressure to be taken off the air field. we are able to bring in supplies and equipment. in the area of engineers, we have seen engineering assets be used both in the civilñr sector- we work with usaid and the hour you and partners and look at significant -- and our un

partners. we look at significant problems such as rubble removal. we are working with the department of defense to get other technical assets brought in. as we identify where there is not a need any longer for military assets -- we send back aircraft carrier and the uss nassau amphibious wore their group -- amphibious warfare group. we are also finding places where we need additional assets. we have met those needs every time. as we look at our military requirements for supporting usaid and the government of haiti, we are dialing it back. we are right sizing the force where cutbacks are needed on the ground, and adding where more

resources are needed. it is a constant process. much is left to be done. as we go forward, which will be continuously assessing where the military needs to assist our partners here. i will go ahead and open it up for any question you might have. >> general, i am with cnn. you are talking about the transition period. maybe you can tell us what the major priorities are that need to be dialed up or dialed back, as well as where it stands right now for where the 82nd is being used. is that being looked at as being brought back home? >> well, our priorities rest with providing humanitarian assistance throughout the city. with its humanitarian assistance, what we are seeing now -- the principal priorities,

i am not going to elaborate on, but it gets to shelter. as we meet the needs, we are looking at tremendous requirements with regards to shelter as the rainy season begins. rubble removal is connected to shelter, as you might imagine, insuring we have locations where we can move folks. it gets into how you clear those particular areas as well as sustaining the medical needs. with respect to -- and that is where a determination of our needs and what we have on the ground, whether it be engineering assets or others -- with respect toñi the 82nd or ay other unit, we are working with the un forces here. it is all about how well our partners are able to build their capacity, whether that the ngos

-- whether that the ngos or other forces. with respect to the 82nd, it is working in the heart of port-au- prince. the partnerships they have forged with the un forces -- we are seeing that those forces are able to take over some of the humanitarian assistance tasks. but it is too early to tell which units may no longer be needed on the ground as we go forward. we are looking at that now and making assessments with the united naked options -- the united nation forces and southern command, in terms of redeployment of any of those forces. it is a constant process of right-sizing the force. we have already done that with the aircraft carrier and the 24th marine expeditionary unit. this is part of that same

process, identifying the ongoing needs for all of our forces, the 82nd being one of those. >> i am from reuters. can you give us a ballpark idea of how much money you had to spend on the military side of this operation? are there any projections of where we will be in terms of force size a month from now? >> i think others are probably better positioned to answer your question on the budget. i have heard figures that have approached to under $50 million. again, -- i have heard figures that have approached $250 million. i cannot tell you where we will be a month from now. we are constantly assessing where we think we will be a month from now and what we think

we will continuously need. we are making those recommendations. again, it will depend upon the conditions on the ground and what we are -- and what we encounter in terms of what forces are needed, making those adjustments as we go forward. >> i am from "voice of america." there is a story in "the washington post" saying the marines are making use of counterinsurgency training in terms of how they deal with the local community, in gauging local leaders, and so on. -- engaging local leaders, and so on. can you talk about how important that experience has been? >> i think it is critical. not only the marines but our

other forces, including our airmen and sailors -- the experiences they have gained in other places in the world, and as mentioned in that article the counterinsurgency doctrine in terms of how you interact with the local population, how you work with civil leaders as well as religious leaders, understanding the cultural dynamics on the ground -- it is critical in any mission, and certainly in a humanitarian assistance mission. we see the successes of that every day here. we have seen it from the first day that the first paratroopers arrived at the airfield. i had the opportunity to meet that company. i talked to the company commander and noncommissioned officers. we talked about that very topic and how those experiences would be important as they interact with the populists. they have to understand the needs and be able to reach out

to them. we have seen the haitian people welcome us with open arms. that understanding of the culture as well as the dynamics within each community -- if you are in port-au-prince, in one neighborhood, it is different than if you are in a western city. understanding the subtleties and differences within haiti is very important. >> i read the article in "the washington post," and i want to say that in our experience here that kind of sensitivity on the part of the troops is not an isolated case. this is happening all over port- au-prince. the interactions of the troops with the local population, for example on the distribution of food, have been encouraging.

the work with local officials has been rather extraordinary. every case is different. there has been an enormous amount of -- i guess the best word is "sensitivity." it is done in a very kind and collaborative way. i was talking with one of the soldiers of the 82nd at a distribution point. i said, "this is probably not exactly what you thought you would be doing when you joined the army." he said he feels great about it. >> i am with "stars and stripes." now that the military is starting to pull out its medical facilities -- we heard that february 20, the military will no longer be involved with

humanitarian aid distribution. at that point, what is specifically left for the military to do? is the military mission complete at that point? >> i do not see the military's mission complete on any set date to. we remain engaged across the board. i think the date you mentioned for food distribution is just one phase that the world food program -- is the next phase. what happens beyond that date with the world food program is being examined. if there is a food distribution program that will go beyond that, it would not surprise me. there will continue to be a need for either the un forces or our forces to assist in that effort in some way or work with the non-government organizations that are responsible for that to

be sure they have the support to continue. from a medical standpoint, i think this is a huge success story, although the medical situation is still very intense. in terms of the need on the ground -- today, i was provided some information that the pan- american health organization has indicated that 50 of 59 hospital facilities -- that includes everything from a fixed facility to, potentially, a field of medical side by any one of a number of nations -- has surgical capability. one of our ships, at its hospital beds and capability has declined 78% in the last 10 days, going from 378 down to

106. we see less traumatic injuries coming in. we are able to locate places within haiti -- medical facilities -- to play -- to place patients. as you pointed out, we thought we would need a significant capability for an interim after- care facility. i made the statement initially, within the first two weeks -- we thought that could be 5000 beds. that has not materialized in terms of being a requirement. we did build a tent city, if you will, which health-care providers that could take up to 100 patients. we never talked having more than 10 in there at one time. all of those have been discharged. the good news story is that the

patient load that we anticipated being needed to go into that facility have been absorbed into other medical facilities inside haiti. i think the progress we have made in terms of treatment and care for patients has significantly improved. that does not mean to say there does not continue to be a great need for medical assistance. we have a lot of ngos working extremely hard to provide this critical care. there is care beyond that that they are looking at in terms of rehabilitation of traumatic injuries that have occurred. hopefully, that gets that both your questions. if not, you can redirect me. >> if the u.n. takes over on food distribution and you are

pulling back medically, i am wondering what specifically the military is doing in haiti. >> while we will continue to be involved in doing is supporting usaid and our you and partners. in particular, i mentioned things like engineering assistance, logistical assistance. it gets into assuring that the capacity of the port continues to mature and that we are able to hand the port over to the haitian authorities. i mentioned the airport. it already has been announced the airport will see commercial traffic starting this friday. we need to continue to mature the capability of the government of haiti to take over the airport at some point. we will continue to be involved in those entities until they are completely transferred to either the government of haiti or other

civil organizations. logistically, we will continue to support usaid and the un as we move many types of needs, including the area of settlement as well as rebel clearing. i will let ambassador luke address -- ambassador lucke address those. >> at this point, the pentagon lost their signal from haiti and was not able to continue the briefing. in about 40 minutes, we will have live coverage of the achievements of the tuskegee airmen from the national archives and the national american history museum. now, a look at president obama announcement that it ministration -- that his administration will commit funds

to nuclear power plants. host: we are back with kevin camps, the radioactive watchdog , and alex flint, here to talk about the announcement yesterday that the government will be backing new loans for nuclear power plants, starting with two reactors in georgia. can i get your reaction first? guest: it represents a remarkable moment in time. we have seen an evolution in the discussion of climate and efforts to control carbon limitations, increasing awareness of how difficult it is going to be to meet our electricity requirements and some of the decisions that need to be made about what technologies we should pursue. the president has said nuclear has to be part of that mix and is going to support efforts to

build reactors. that is a tremendous milestone. host: is it enough? lindsey gramm has been a supporter of trying to change legislation to include provisions for nuclear power. the republicans would like to see more in the lines of 100 new nuclear reactors. the money in the pipeline right now would produce around 10. is it enough? guest: it is interesting to be involved in the discussion of how many reactors we need. there has to be a process with the congress and the administration to decide what programs and incentives the government wants to put in place. we are going to build some number of reactors. they are going to produce electricity without emitting co2. if we decide to build less reactors, we will have to do a better job of developing carbon sequestration technology for

other technologies. i think there will be a lot of wind and solar, a lot of efficiency programs. it is a question of which basket we want to assemble. nuclear plants will relieve some pressure from the other technologies. we think it is a great step forward. host: should republicans in congress agree and support the amount of money obama has put in the budget for nuclear power? guest: the administration is authorized to offer $18.50 billion in loan guarantees. the president has requested an additional $36 billion. we hope that in the appropriations process, that additional money will be provided. that will build not just a few reactors. will justify building out new manufacturing capability and

infrastructure. that is where jobs get created. a real industry could result from this. host: beyond nuclear was not happy with this announcement. guest: we are concerned about the financial risks for the taxpayer. over half of these reactor projects will default, according to the cbo. the american taxpayer will let -- the american taxpayer will be left holding the bag. we're also concerned about the radiological risks. the nuclear regulatory commission identified a major safety flaw with this design. it is the shield building which is supposed to protect the radioactivity containment from things like earthquakes and hurricanes. we have a design with a safety flaw that is being supported by federal taxpayer financial risk.

it gives a new meaning to the term moral hazard. the environmental movement of this country is united in opposition to these loan guarantees. we are hopeful that this request from the obama administration to congress to triple the program will be stopped before it is implemented. host: yesterday, president obama made an announcement about the different sides coming together on this issue, and made the point of saying that this affect our economy. we have a little bit of what he had to say. we will show you that. >> my budget proposes tripling the loan guarantees we provide to help finance safe, clean nuclear facilities, and will continue to finance clean energy projects here in maryland and across america. there will be those that welcome this announcement, those who think it has been long overdue. 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. i want to emphasize that 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 still debates between the left and the right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs. host: he said also that this is not just nuclear. the administration is going to focus on wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. why not meet the president halfway on this issue and support what he is trying to do? guest: there are good ideas and

bad ideas in energy. nuclear power is a bad idea. we have 50 years of experience. the industry has not solved the nuclear waste problem, the possibility of a catastrophic release. there is still nuclear-weapons proliferation problem. this is a 50-year-old industry. it has enjoyed public subsidies for that half century. again, it is trying to gobble the lion's share of energy loan guarantees. solar, wind, and efficiency are left with crumbs. it is time to make wise decisions. we cannot do it all. we have to do the important stuff. host: i think for taxpayers, the loan guarantees are a big issue, that the cbo found that the risk of default is 50%. if each plant is around $8 billion, that leaves the

taxpayer with that bill. guest: let me answer your first question that you asked of kevin. is there an opportunity to reach a consensus on climate legislation? that has been a difficult issue in washington for several years. we have seen members of both parties get involved behind the scenes. their level of knowledge has gone up. we have seen more republicans willing to embrace renewable. we've seen democrats change their traditional position on nuclear. i think there is a possibility of a consensus. it is difficult right now to get a deal on a big proposal ready -- a big proposal like this. this represents an evolution in the prospective parties' position on these issues. this is a big step. it is promising. eventually, there has to be a deal. this is a milestone in the process.

let me speak about loan guarantees. kevin has raised a false issue. he is citing a cbo report done in 2003, about a loan guarantee problem that was not enacted. the cbo did an analysis in 2003 and said some of the things kevin has said. that is not the program we are talking about. it is irrelevant to the program in place right now, where companies have made applications and received an initial commitment. the commitments are conditional. they are conditional on meeting a whole bunch of requirements. one is that the nrc approve the design, the destruction, -- the construction, and the operation of their reactions. we have a long way to go through the regulatory process. when an applicant applies to these do d.o.e., they look at te

risk of default. they calculate that risk and they charge the applicant for that risk. the applicant pays, upfront -- writes a check to the treasury to cover the risk of default. not the whole loan, but the risk of the default. if the government calculates a 1% risk, the applicant writes a check for that 1 percent. -- that 1%. they cover the anticipated default rate. this program should cost the government nothing. host: because there is no economy for nuclear power, because the regulatory structure of nuclear power makes it difficult for any of these

companies to thrive -- on top of that, you do not have a disposal system for this nuclear waste. guest: first of all, nuclear energy is very competitive. the power sold for nuclear power plants has been the lowest source -- the lowest cost source of electricity in this country. it is very competitive once you have the reactors in place. in addition, the nuclear industry has a lot of regulations. we embrace and welcome the fact that this is a strictly regulated industry. we pay the government cost of imposing those regulations. we pay the costs of the nrc. we pay $800 million to the department of energy for their nuclear waste program, which is in a state of turmoil right now. we send money in every year. we are paying for the government

costs associated with no clear power plants. -- with nuclear power plants. we are paying taxes, we are supporting hundreds of millions of jobs. guest: it is economically great for the industry, but i would like to respond to some of the things he has said. this loan program is similar to the one in 2003. the congressional budget office estimate is still important. the current loan guarantee program may be worse in some regards than the one in 2003. they were looking at 50% coverage of the cost of the project. we are now talking about 80% coverage. this put the tax payer further back in line for compensation, behind for an export banks, if

there is a default. in terms of solving these financial risks, there were scores of atomic reactors beckon the '70s and '80s that got their nrc license and then the project was canceled. the license is not going to take care of the financial risks. they can still fail after they get their license. in terms of the 1% figure, there has been tremendous obscurity at the department of energy which flies in the face of president obama's call for transparency in government. we cannot look at the methodology for figuring out what the subsidy should be. there is a 50% default rate. alex says 1%. the other 49% would be covered by taxpayers. we are talking about billions of dollars per reactor. that is a contradiction of any idea of fiscal conservatism. host: how do you respond to

supporters who say this is clean energy -- there are no co2 emissions? guest: there are carbon dioxide emissions. from mining, to processing, to waste management -- in terms of clean, there is more than just the carbon emissions in the fuel chain. there are also radioactivity releases. in vermont, we are seeing a reaction -- a reactor leaking tritium into the groundwater. it is being discharged with nuclear regulatory commission permission into the connecticut river and into the air. tritium is a carcinogen which causes birth defects and genetic damage. nuclear power plants

automatically generated. host: let us keep the conversation going, but involve our viewers. caller: good morning. i think you for taking my call. to kevin and alex -- i sat here and was basically appalled at the results of this proposal for this estimation -- this ponzi scheme to protect us against default. the other comment i would like to make, and i directed to kevin -- with respect to the tritium loss, in the connecticut river, the tritium escape is 200 times

the maximum acceptable limits. how can the government build more -- and i am not necessarily against nuclear plants. if your house is on fire, how are you going to start another one? guest: i used a figure of 1% because that is a number that the congressional budget office frequently uses when they make estimates about the current loan guarantee program. i was not implying that that was a specific risk of default that the doe has agreed to with a specific company. i simply wanted to use it as a hypothetical. it stands in stark contrast to the 50% seven sites, which relates to a program we are not talking about. about ground water, the industry

prides itself in complying with environmental requirements. a certain amount of tritium releases is allowed. tritium has many industrial applications. it is in all emergency exit signs, and other things along those lines. our communities want higher levels of notification. the one confidence in what the reactor operators are doing. we notify communities when there are any releases of tritium from these underground pipes. that has resulted in an increase of notifications, an increase in awareness. at the vermont yankee site, there has been some tritium released from an underground pipe. the operator is looking for that site and, drilling test wells. they are getting closer and closer. that is why they have been finding higher and higher levels. they are going to go in and

remediation that problem. the question is whether any of that tritium has made it to the boundary of the plant site, and we are not aware that it is. we do not think it has had any effect on public health. we think this can be managed safely. guest: where to start? tritium remains hazardous for 120 years. the vermont department of public health has said that the tritium is likely already reaching the connecticut river from these ground water leaks. the energy company, under oath, said there were no buried pipes. there is now a perjury investigation by the vermont attorney general looking into officials' false statements under oath. where does it to% figure come from? it is based on the past record of the nuclear industry.

50% of reactors that were funded were never built. capital costs are where the financial risk is. the point is to build a new reactor. the nrc chairman has set a $10 billion price tag as a good estimate, and it is skyrocketing from there. we sought a reactor in pennsylvania up with a price tag of $15 billion. guest: we need to put these numbers in context. the reactors in georgia, when they go on line, will meet the demands of 1.6 million homes. that is uncomfortable, when you talk about providing electricity without limiting greenhouse gases. the cannot get that must -- that much reliable baseline electricity from windmills or solar cells.

you can have intermittent power on the grid, but you need base load to meet demands going forward. it is impossible to meet that requirement and avoid greenhouse gas emissions unless you put online these sorts of facilities. host: on alex's point, here is a piece in "usa today." it planned to supply energy to about 400 homes. it said it would cost, in total, about $60 million. if you cannot provide that much electricity with other types of energy -- wind farms, wave forms -- the amount you can provide with nuclear power --

guest: i would like to refer you to a book, "carbon free and nuclear-free." when it is about six -- wind is about 6 to 7 vrnycents per kilowatt hour. wind is going down in cost over time. wind and solar have been left with the leftovers or the crumbs, and yet wind is very cost competitive with nuclear power. it is the fastest-growing new source of energy worldwide. solar is becoming cost competitive. the rocky mountain institute shows that energy efficiency is 7 and 210 times more cost- effective, dollar for dollar, -- is seven to 10 times more cost-

effective, dollar for dollar, the nuclear power. energy efficiency is the main thing we need to do. wind and solar do not have insurmountable risks like the potential for catastrophic radioactive releases. host: joe, on the democratic line. caller: we are at the epicenter of mountaintop removal in west virginia. we try and get the laws of the state or the country and forced down here, and we are looking at mountaintop removal from coal, which is devastating our area. it destroyed between 1 million and 2 million acres of forest. the water pollution with the hubble -- with the heavy metals is making this place basically uninhabitable. the coal industry does not pay its true cost of generation

either. we need help down here. it is not going to be -- nuclear is not going to solve this. if we do not ease up on coal production here in west virginia, there is going to be no west virginia and no appalachia. we agree that energy conservation is the key to this thing, the easiest, quickest way to cut production. electrical generation is not necessary if the demand is way down. guest: i am very sympathetic to the situation. there is immediate impact to the community through electricity production. the company gets 50% of its electricity from coal, 20% from natural gas, and 20% from nuclear. the other 10% is from things

like wind and solar. when we look at how to meet our electricity needs going forward, we are not going to be able to get rid of called immediately. we cannot replace 50% immediately. we need to figure out how to burn coal without having the environmental impacts we do. we have to do the same thing with natural gas. we need to expand our solar and renewable portfolio as much as we can, but it is only about 2% of our current generation needs. you could quadruple it and still deal with only a small fraction of our electricity requirements. host: james, in new york. go ahead. caller: c-span is probably one of the best tv programs on. one of your guests said we need nuclear power to reduce co2

emissions. this is another instance -- no matter what problem america has, we are not getting anywhere while big business controls it. if we put all our money into renewable resources and got more of them on line, i am sure we would get more of a percentage of energy needs from them. i want to dwell on co2 emissions. we have been led to believe that it co2 rises and falls and that is what regulates air temperature. that is absolutely false. at the i.t. cc -- the itcc leaves out the sun when it deals with the climate on earth. the sun goes through warming and cooling cycles. the celestial bodies of this planet, mainly the oceans,

release co2. it is not a pollutant. it is a nutrient. it is a fertilizing gas that nourishes this planet. when the sun cools, co2 levels are reabsorbed back into our celestial bodies. during the time of the dinosaurs, one thing that gave us all of the gasoline we have today -- the earth had about 10 times moreco2 than it does now. the earth exploded in growth. host: what is your question? caller: why the need for more nuclear power when if we invested that money into renewable resources we could move forward and have more of our energy needs met by them? host: let me change the question a little for you, ken keen. what investment would beyond nuclear, your group, like to see

an alternative energy? give us a dollar amount. guest: to begin to answer that question, i would like to talk about "carbon free, nuclear- free," where alex gibbs figures -- gives figures. by the year 2014, the united states could phase out nuclear power and fossil fuel from both electricity and transport sectors. this could be done affordably, for the same percentage of our gdp that we currently spend on nuclear power and importing foreign oil. this is technically feasible and economically affordable. we need to do it to solve the climate crisis. we need to shift our priorities away from these dirty, dangerous, and expensive technologies like nuclear and fossil fuels. some of the nuclear energy institute's biggest members,

companies like southern, companies like american electric power, detroit edison -- these are some of the biggest coal companies. they do both. we need to have another direction. to give the obama administration credit, they have talked about renewals and electricity. if all of this loan guarantee money gives too -- goes to the nuclear industry or carbon sequestration, the new ideas are going to go to the wayside. we are funded by private donations by individuals across the country. we applied the foundations, but that is a big challenge. host: and the democratic investors or large donations from wealthy individuals? guest: we are a non-partisan 501c3. host: on the republican line, you are next.

caller: how are you this morning? my question is, being on the conservative side of the republicans, why is a utility in texas not put on line rather than spend all the money -- the billions of dollars -- for a new company, for a new reactor to go on line? guest: 1 it brings up a good point. there are several reactors around the company that were not completed, and we need to look at whether those should be completed. we have had a lot of success in bringing reactors that were at some sites -- at some stage of completion back online. we of recently gone from 103 reactors to 140.

that is one of the first place is the industry looked at. we brought a reactor online just a year and a half ago. it is one of the reasons we think we can manage new projects on schedule and on cost. host: any idea about jobs created by that? guest: they had 2000 people on site doing reactor completion. at maximum construction, they will have 3500 people on site. it will result in 800 permanent jobs. host: from california, on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: this is not a question. it is something i have to say. if we cannot pay our bills and have people jobless and depend on other countries, what

difference does it make if you have a nuclear plant? host: what difference does it make? guest: it is important that the president linked his announcement with the u.s. economy and what our future is. one of the things we look at in the nuclear industry is the fact that there are 56 reactors being constructed around the world. most of the components for those plans would have been built here in the 1950's, but today a lot of that industry has moved offshore to japan, korea, france, china, great britain. if we build reactors in some number here in the u.s., which will bring some of those jobs back to the united states. we will start doing some of that manufacturing. there is a tremendous role for skilled workers in building not just the facilities but the machine shops that will produce

the components for them. he estimates he has 1500 people working on building reactors for the southern companies. there is an opportunity for thousands of well paying jobs with good security. host: is the average hourly wage? guest: we pay 40% above the prevailing wage in the surrounding communities. host: what about the economic impact? guest: southern co. and the state of georgia are engaged in a construction worker in progress policy. they get to pay for the projects in advance of their completion. it is making the rate payers and willing shareholders and investors -- the it ratepayers

ratepayers unwilling shareholders and investors in a project they may never get electricity from. there was a large rate increase to pay for the construction. in missouri, where that is illegal, the company tried to override that law in the state legislature to try to charge the rate payers to build a new reactor. the reactor has been cancelled. guest: construction work in progress allows the utility to pay for their costs as they incur them so they do not have to pay interest cost on their debt. construction work in progress and loan guarantees reduce the rates over time -- over the long term. the opposition to these programs would drive up the cost of

electricity generation in this country. caller: i was watching the show on cable a week or so ago, and they were talking about france has developed a nuclear energy recovery system. they recycle as much as 94% to 96% of their uranium. but part of the issue in the united states is what to do with the waste. i have never heard discussed, anything about a planned recovery like this. guest: i am glad that question was raised. recently, the nuclear regulatory commission chairman said that the idea that france has solved its radioactive waste problem is one of the best myths out there. the truth is that if the french are recycling their nuclear waste, that myth is 1% true at most. the plutonium fuel program has

largely fallen apart at tremendous expense to french taxpayers. it is created an environmental disaster. there is an underwater pipeline from the processing facility where plutonium is extracted -- this would be illegal if the french were dumping radioactive waste from ships. that is illegal under international law. they found a loophole, and underwater pipeline where the discharge gallons of radioactive waste every year into the ocean. the radioactivity has been detected as far away as the canadian arctic. other countries are calling for this process to stop. we stop reprocessing under the ford administration because it was a nuclear proliferation nightmare. india had just used it to explode its first nuclear warhead.

the ford ministrations response -- ford administration's response was to outlaw nuclear reprocessing. this is a non-starter as a waste solution. host: in california, go ahead. caller: windmills are all in mr. kevin's mind. we have windmills in california and they have been shut down. they were shut down because the disturbed the flight patterns of birds. host: do you want to respond? guest: i feel like i am arguing with somebody who says we cannot put men on the moon. we clearly can. what france has done is demonstrate that nuclear energy can be their primary source of

electricity and they can deal with the used fuel. france generates 80% of their electricity from nuclear. they have some of the lowest costs in europe. the recycled air used fuel. it is called a closed fuel cycle. it is a wonderful demonstration that this can be done. the argument that the united states somehow does not have the technical or engineering where with salt, i think, is disingenuous. we have the ability not just to do what france has done but to do the job better than what is going on in france. host: here is a tweet. if there is only a 1% default rate, while loan guarantees? -- why loan guarantees? guest: it reduces the interest on the debt. they say $15 to $20 million a

month. it reduces the costs and the risks. it is a risk mitigation strategy. it does a good job of ensuring that customers will have as low a rate as possible for electricity. host: has beyond nuclear done a vote count in the senate of the prospects for the initiative on nuclear? there is already $18 billion available. in the budget for 2010, obama asks for another -- he wants to triple its. where are the votes in the senate? guest: that remains to be seen. the environmental movement of this company is going to activate memberships across the country and let members of the senate and the house know that this is a bad idea. we will fight at every turn to prevent this massive increase in subsidies to the nuclear power

industry. guest: i think the votes are there. there has been a growing recognition of the role of nuclear energy. there is a interest in manufacturing jobs in the upper midwest. that idea is becoming clearer. it is a theme in the president's comments yesterday. having those jobs in the united states is going to result in a lot of support. guest: can i comment on why there are changes like that in congress? the investigative reporting workshop recently reported that the nuclear power industry, in the last decade, has spent $645 million lobbying congress. in the last decade, they have made $63 million in campaign contributions. this is a powerful industry, politically. they throw their weight around.

they throw their money around. we have members across the country you have to deal with the radiological and financial risks of this industry. we're going to do all we can to bring some democracy back to this equation and try to influence energy policy for the better. guest: do you think the president's statement was the result of pressure along those lines? guest: he is trying to win republican votes on the climate bill. we think it is a mistake to do it this way. some of his senior advisers have close ties to the nuclear industry and are giving him bad informationhimrah. rahm emanuel is tied to the largest nuclear company in the country. this has significance for

environmental and climate health. host: let me show our viewers a story in "the wall street journal." it calls for $39 billion on tax increases for fossil fuel producers and an estimated $1.40 billion to help developing companies reduce deforestation and shift to low-carbon energy sources. from pittsburg, on the democratic line. caller: the last few months, i have been fighting with our government in pennsylvania about a dangerous way to dig for gas. a house blew up in ohio. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] . . to learn more about these programs, consult our monthly calendar which are in the lobby along with a sign up sheet which you can receive by mail.

if you will find grocers about other in national archives programs and activities. now, tonight's program. as war began drifting toward the united states in 1941, congress directed the air corps to compose a union of african americans. until then, they had no african american pilots. our military was still segregated and face resistance within the war department. and all african american unit was formed early that year and began a pilot training in alabama. it was near the tuskegee institute. tonight we would hear about the exploits and heroism of the tuskegee airmen. before began a program, i would like to introduce russell davis

who is the national president of the tuskegee airmen, inc., honoring the accomplishments of african americans who have participated during the war. general davis began his career in 1958 as aviation cadet. he left active duty in join the national guard in 1955. he rose through the national guard in 1988 with the chief of the national guard bureau. he served until 2002. general davis. [applause] >> good evening. thank you very much for your kind introduction. it is a real pleasure to be here with you. i would like to thank the archives for bringing this on. the story of the tuskegee airmen is an interesting part of america's history. not just the military history of

our united states army and the other services but of america. the tuskegee airmen are brave men who fought two essential wars. the second was against the axis of powers bu. these brave men and women -- i am talking about approximately 1-- 15,000 or 17,000 people who were involved from 1941 through 1949 with the military was integrated. it took another few years before that actually happened capita we all know about correa. these brave men came to tuskegee in the south at a time

when it was not popular to be there. the united states army of war college study had been done a few years before. they were convinced that african-americans did not have the wherewithal to fight, would not stay in the fight, did not have the intelligence or the skills to fly airplanes and more portly to work together as a team. predict importantly to work together as a team. there were proven wrong. the tuskegee airmen did a great job of flying. the unit of 99 started down in tuskegee. they got into the military . subsequently, three additional squadrons performed the -- they

are deployed as 33 32nd fighter group. we will learn more up as to get into the presentation. the key to the whole thing is that they were there and they did their job. one thing i'd like to see about the tuskegee airmen and what i have learned about them is that it was not just about flying. it was about the charaaring and patriotism of these great men. but they work alongside and with our united states military. they started out separately. they were integrated into the military. they did a magnificent job. some stayed in. some got out. the change by 994 pilots. there were navigators, radioman, flight engineers, the crew chiefs, the entire base was populated 100% by african-

americans. both my parents were there. my mom quit teaching school and went to hold backpacks. mum was in procurement. did my dad was in procurement. -- my dad was in procurement. we had 14,000 plus documented that we know about. but me say one last thing and i will close it out. the tuskegee airmen inc. is a corporation that i am president of that is designed toçó support the legacy and heritage of the tuskegee airmen. they provide opportunities for young people in aviation. when i say young people, it is not just young african- americans. we haveñi leadership awards. we have scholarships. everybody can participate in those.

those men and women who were victims of discrimination want to make sure that they do not perpetuated in a different form. such as reverse discrimination. those have been my mentors over the years. i had the privilege of flying in the air force for 44 years because of them. i had the privilege of serving our united states air force. i was promoted to the general. they opened the doors. officer in listed civilians -- we did not have contractors in those days. they did an outstanding job across the board they proved that they could fight and they would fight and that they knew how to achieve a victory. if they have done that many times in their personal lives.

that is what it is about tonight. it is about those men who did that, the tuskegee airmen. tuskegee airmen inc. are those who came in later years. you all know about the stolen valor act about people who claim to be . tonight to have a couple of the real deal. we will be introduced in a little bit. atlantis man and one of my best friends. but a maintenance man and one of my best friends. we will get into a lot of the details. if you want to come and go to tuskegeeairmen.org. we want to let you talk to some of them and ask questions. he is a longtime personal

friend. his into books on the air force. he knew a lot of the tuskegee airmen. he is now writing from what he heard about. he knew these men. he knew most of them. on today's notice, he stepped up to the microphone and did -- on two days notice, he stepped up to the microphone and a presentation. we will show a film. there is a guy's voice that you recognize in april. thank you for allowing us to come in to where we honor these great men and women who served our country at a time when it was not popular. thank you. [applause]

>> now i would like to bring up one of our archivists from the media service division. dan will introduce a film about the tuskegee airmen, "wings for this man." dan? >> thank you. welcome to the theater. i am an artist here -- and are convinced here. -- archivist here. welcome. the film that has been chosen for screening is titled "wings for this man." it was the first motion picture unit in the army.

it began in 1944 and was completed in 1945. it coincided with the third anniversary of the training of african american airmen that have been training. surviving films of the first motion picture unit, which can be found of several record groups, have a unique history of their own. interest barack -- it was brought together by warner brothers. it brought the expertise of hollywood to the military. they would produce 300 training films, mainly aimed at air force personnel. the films themselves stand out among the best collections of historical military training films better now part of nara's film. the focus on one problem was

swiftly replaced with stories, plot twists, production values, experienced actors and their readers, and a professionalism in committee that had previously not been seen in the military. they are a valuable record of their place and time. this film specifically demonstrate all the characteristics that the first military unit was known for. it differs in significant ways it was inherited by a young army air force officer named ronald reagan and. it focuses not on a technical process or a specific skill that required of pilots to learn but rather focuses on the achievement to date of the tuskegee experience. intended to be more palatable

for a wider audience, it offers a pictorial record of the activities there. it seems to have the intention of predicting the unification of the american war efforts among the soldiers. reagan's description of the soldiers as "americans" instead of "black americans" is telling. he calls them citizens and workmen. this is a departure from other wartime motion pictures which focused on the role of black soldiers. it is not different from all other films of the first motion picture unit describes white men who joined the ranks. for it to be a successful, it took men with wings, which is a

phrase used to donate of this achievement among soldiers while applying the soldiers of the tuskegee experiment should be judged strictly on their merits and not on racial factors. it is said to be forward looking. the film was not widely seen in its time, which limited the effectiveness. although the powers that be in the war department saw fit, the ending of the war to other priorities in the first motion picture unit was disbanded. today it stands on its own as a visual document showing the contribution made by the tuskegee airmen. we are very happy to bring it to you tonight. please come and join it. thank you. -- enjoy it.

thank you. [applause] ♪ >> it is morning, 20 miles from the enemy. these are american boy is going to work.

the morning fighter patrol. they are flying over italy. there are others like them flying over berlin, the coast of holland, a china, and over germany. they are in search of the enemy. enemy planes, and nearly three to one. the routine morning patrol goes on. they close the range, 3,500 feet, 3100. 2000. the odds are still three to one. they are spinning down in flames. routine morning patrol. they are good planes, wonderful

planes, and their pilots are good, too. listen. >> i got one airplane. >> and american far from home fighting a war around the world. >> two came on my right. i put up a stone wall. quite a wall of bullets. not long ago, if they were students of the university. there are plain citizens from anywhere, usa. they change jobs. they change clothes. they took the train into the future. they did not know what the future would be. many hope they will get the chance to fly and fight in the air. some wanted that chance more than anything in the world.

deep inside alabama is a famous institute. it was founded july 4, 1985. since that independence day, it has graduated many into science, agriculture, and industry. this school is the first of its kind. its founder, booker t. washington, was a pioneer who broke open a road for others to follow. this man had a dream come and the dream became real. >> she lifted a veil ignorance from his people and pointed a way to progress. close to this school and the work this man had done, the united states government, determined to build an airfield. three yearsñi ago, this was just another farm and alabama. there was misunderstanding and distrust and prejudice to be cleared away.

three years ago, there was only an idea. ideas are powerful things. today there are fighter planes flying overhead. instead this form and yellow pine, there are hangers, repair shops, barracks. instead of corn, concrete strips. that is not enough. you cannot make a fighters what with a cane. fighter squad with a can of paint. it takes men. a shoe salesman must learn how to fly. a group of average americans must become a team of fighting men with wings. there is a new world up here. a man has to learn his way around. it takes many weeks of learning to make a fighter pilot bt.

a lot of that is learned and a hard wooden chair. it is a combination of a mathematician, athlete, a scientist, and a sharpshooter. he has got to know what goes on inside his plane. the heart of the fighter is still and copper. the bloodstream is gas and oil. the brain is the man who flies it. it begins in a safe plane, two wings instead of one. it flies many hours inside a closed room. in the morning, he may be flying over a sheet of paper. in the afternoon, he may fly the same scores above the clouds. he trained his muscles down here very close to the ground, but he will use the same sense of balance and coordination in the skies above tuskegee.

for this job of flying is never easy. sometimes, it is very tough he is learning how high and fast and how far to go to reach the enemy. theory of light, radio code -- he is getting muscles in his mind. it is getting hard and quick. he is coming into the clear. here above the warm familiar hills of alabama, at these americans are ready to fly in combinations they will use to hunt down the germans. in addition to a fighter groups, they began to treat -- trainmen for bombers. one thing is proved.

you cannot judge a man here by the color of his eyes are the shape of his nose. on the flight strip, you judge a man by the way he flies. here is the answer to the propaganda of the japs and not seas. here is the answer, wings for this man. here is the answer. wings for these americans. squadron after squadron in tuskegee, tough little planes and then striking with thunderbolts and then writing p-51's. it was never easy for these men. they were pioneers and no pioneer had it easy. they fought hard to break. and they won. now they fight to the enemy. -- now they fight the enemy on

his own soil. they fought the enemy. out to the first class a graduate three years ago, on a handful are left alive. -- so that liberty might not perish from the earth. three years have passed since the founding of tuskegee airfield. 750 pilots have been trained. 50% of them have been in combat. this is only the beginning. this is the general after the celebration. >> here for the first time, they have been groomed to fly warplanes. these men were pioneers.

that you may be considered in the movement. >> under the be did these men, a new road is being beaten up, brought up by thousands and 10,000. it is a good road for our country. these men remember them marching or flying. they remember backing them up, their families, their friends, who expects so much from them. the men and women of every color that made these plans. backing them up, the most powerful force in the world, the o0ó9?zu(óçó=eçeryúmk >> now i le

dr. rex ellis, associate director of pretoria's affairs at the smithsonian museum of african-american history and culture. it is scheduled to be completed by the fall of 2015. dr. ellis is charged with overseeing the directing and managing of all curatorial collections, education, and outreach programs in this new museum. before coming to the

smithsonian, here is the vice- president of the colonial williamsburg foundation. he will be discussion about the tuskegee airmen with a distinguished panel. dr. ellis? >> good evening. that film was quite something. i think what i would like to do is go ahead and introduce william broadwater. he was a tuskegee airmen . in march of 1944. it marked the beginning of a x!oñdlong and successful aviatin career that earned him entry into an elite circle of aviators that will later be acclaimed for their remarkable aerial combat record in world war ii. mr. broadwater was assigned a bombardment group. he did not see action in world

war ii. he was nevertheless involved in the aviation experiment aimed at ready military pilots. we will ask him about that after the war, he began a career with the federal aviation and the lustration, potentially achieving the highest level by an african-american within the faa traffic service. in 1980 he retired from the faa and received the service award. he is a founding member of the tuskegee airmen, inc. east coast chapter. he was the national president from 1976 to 1977. mr. broadwater. [applause] >> dr. alan gropman is on the national security policy at the industrial college of the armed forces. previously, he was chairman on the department of grand strategy

and globalization of icaf, which is the international -- and assure college of the armed forces. dr. gropman was an analyst and program manager for the sicon corp. and an adjunct professor at the national war college. in 1986, he retired from the u.s. air force after 27 years of service. he served as deputy director of air force plans for planning integration at the u.s. air force headquarters where he supervised air force long-range planning and air force basic doctrine and input into national military strategy documents. from 1981 to 1983, he taught at the national war college and served as part of the faculty. dr. gropman is the author of

many books including "the air force integrates, 1945-1964." he will realize this is just a chip of a very large ice block. dr. gropman. [applause] i am reminded of it0a poem i was taught by a math teacher. he did not teach me much math. he taught me this p oem. i do not know the author. i must've been 15 when he taught this to me. he must have recited no more than two or three times. my youngestñr suppled mind just took a hold of it. at the was apropos for this evening to begin our conversation.

"dear mr. president, you are commander and chief, therefore, i appeal to you for relief. as a trained to fight and perhaps to die, i await your reply. i am a soldier in alabam, wearing the uniform of all will sam. when i get on the bus, i have to ride in the back. we sit only in places for men who are black. these people just do not understand what we are fighting for. mr. president, i do not understand. -- a democracy that is the black man . that we ask you just one question. why must your soldier's right in the back, segregated because their skin is black? as a trade to fight, perhaps to die, respectfully, sir, i await

your reply." i have no idea whether he back to their and saw himself as a victim or whether he left after writing that poem and when to do something about what he saw and the unfair system. but we tonight in the presence of gentleman who did not just stand by and allow what the world thought to be the reality of their lives. i would liket( to begin by talkg to predict by asking dr. gropman, can you give us some context, some sense of that time, at the time that the tuskegee unit was established? what was the night states like in terms of racial environment and the environment in general? what were they up against? >> the. we were talking about when the

tuskegee airmen were created about, a large and out of a promise that the president roosevelt were reelected you create a black flying organization, was a miserable america. it was a segregated and violent america. blacks in the self work -- south were threatened and terrorized. that is the word we would use today. they were terrorized to stay back. they were asked to risk assassination. that is a story that continues well into the 1960's. he was assassinated almost solely for the reason he advocated blacks voting in mississippi. it is terrible and the 1940's. world war ii tended to weaken

the fabric of segregation, but it did not end until the 1960' s. socially, it did not even in the 1960's. tuskegee airmen, one of the members of this chapter, would the crockett, came back from flying 100 missions in korea. he was stations at the air force base in florida. there was an elementary school on the air force base. it was for white people only. the school was on the post and it was segregated in the united states air force. they did not do a damn thing about it. the context was terrible. woody's kids were taken to a

dirt floor, a two-room schoolhouse. woody was a hero in world war ii and the korean war and his reward was to have his children not permitted to attend a school on the air force base bedewed that symbolizes what the context was -- air force base. that symbolizes what the context was. >> you were raised in that environment. i know you were born in pennsylvania. were you raise their as well? >> i went to school in pennsylvania and philadelphia. >> coming up the environment. >> it was numbers style segregation. -- northern style segregation. blacks were not allowed anything but many of jobs. my father was a landscape gardener. he hadn't his own business.

i had a great advantage because of a great education. the schools i went to is where very well the people went also. to very wealthy people also went. it was a chance for me to realize who i was. i was the only black in the class. i had a lot of confidence that i could do anything based on my own status of my classroom and fellow students. i got into the military without finishing high school. my friends went off to four years of college. they got a college diploma. i was able to do that. i came up the other end and got my commission and learn to fly. i wanted to be in the military.

i did not want to roll around in the mud. that is what happened when you did not sign up. i took the high road and taught myself how to fly from reading those magazines. i went down and took the test to do they said they wanted to keep me retest. they said they wanted to keep me. i was on my way. >> you looked up in the air and said you'd like to to do that? >> we had inspiration. he was a gentleman who cut his first license in 1926. if that is commercial license in 1932. he worked for my father for a while.

we did not have an airport. he landed in a baseball field. >> airplanes would circle the hospital. that meant to come and get me. just to touch this airplane. i was 10 years old the first time i touched an airplane. i knew i was going to be a pilot. war started when i was 16 years old. i was the youngest person to go through the flight program at tuskegee. i really was 18 going on about 30. i had been on my own since i was 15 due to circumstances at home. i was making a good living when i went into the service. made uniforms. i always looked over my shoulder. i said they are going to find

out that did not finish high school and kick me out i. it came to pass that i have no problem passing the tests. i had a crew of six guys behind me. that was it. >> you talk about the fact you are able to pass the test and get an. there were other young men from your neighborhood who also were struck by and wanted to become pilots and did not make it? >> four buddies were inspired by the same things. he was truly an inspiration. he is considered the grandfather of the tuskegee airmen. he was a chief pilot in the program. he rode with all of us. >> i know you know about chief

anderson. tell us a little bit about the black barnstormers, especially in terms of what they did to begin the whole idea of aviation. >> the black barnstormers, among whom was chief anderson himself, one of the more interesting aspects is that chief anderson new [unintelligible] >> he went to my same high school. >> his father was a physician and chief analyst. when doctors used to make house calls. anderson told me several times in interviews i was conducting at the smithsonian or elsewhere that he would call on him when

he believed there were things happening in tuskegee that needed to be on thimproved. there were other barnstormers and other people who inspired y youth to get into aviation. anderson set records buin his youth. because of his terrific skills, he was the chief pilot in the civilian pilot training program at tuskegee. general chappy james worked for him as an instructor before he moved over to tuskegee and learn how to fly combat aircraft. there was a rich heritage of a black aviation before tuskegee

was created. there was no doubt in anderson's mind or in the minds of the people running the naacp in that area than giving the opportunity, if the door be opened, blacks would achieve. if they achieve, they would lead the path to racial integration. >> was there any doubt in your mind that you were not just learning to fly but the you were part of a movement to change perspective of african- americans? >> no question about it. we were very proud of our guys. we had said the information about how they were doing. we knew they had been condemned. we knew they could do it. when i found of the the fliy cod

fly, they went overseas and nobody wanted them. it came about that davis had to come back to congress and justify keeping them in the unit. they had not had any kill because and not seen anything. while he was testifying, one of our guys shutdown an enemy 109, a top fighter for the german, with the p-40. it is a smaller plane and did not fightcompete well with the germans. they said, give them a new airplane and see what they can do. subsequently, we got to the p- 47. then the p-51.

by the time they got there, and they had established themselves in the force. they were absolutely devastating. they probably had more flying time that anybody else but a they spent six months and michigan just lying. the more you know year -- anybody else. they spent six months in michigan just flying. the more you know your airplane, the better a pilot you will be. we lost 60 in one day and 30 the next day. two days later. at that rate, we are not one to be able to stay in the war very long. [inaudible]

they gave them these p-51's and equipped them with tanks. they have a range. imagine sitting there in that fighter for 1,600 miles. they brought them all back. the also got something like six kills and that mission. the germans had tremendous machines. we had never seen these airplanes before. they could go straight up to 25,000 feet. but they found out by chasing a few of them, and they would come back and hit them going down. they chased a couple to see what would happen.

they were running out of fuel. they have to go back home. this started chasing them. bake at three of them getup -- they got three of them. >> for those of us who have only been in modern aircraft sitting as a passenger just watching through the window as clouds go by and letting the pilot take care everything, tell us something about what it took to fly a b-25. i am talking about pressure. you mentioned the cold air. i am talking about pressure in the decibels of sound. i'm talking but the planes shaking loose. i'm talking about what it took to fly. they are not just flying but they were fighting. thompson then but the difficulty of fighting. but the bomber has a different

mission than the fight to. we have a lot of competition. they both needed to help with the war. the bomber guy -- they had to bore in on a target. once they do it, it does not move. we may have 55 jurors and hitting that. he has no choice. he has to get the bombs delivered and try to get back home. that is what the tuskegee airmen became so well-known. the bomber groups started it in these guys stick with them as an escort team. they did not run off. pretty soon, these bomber units are looking to us as escorts.

if you are going to get the mission done, you have to save the bombers and get them to the target of back home. the tuskegee airmen excelled at that. >> did you want to make a comment? i wanted to ask a question about the film, because you were grunting and groaning. i said, there has got to be something here that i'm not saying. -- seeing. could you give me some sense of the value of the film? >> the film was not shown. it was designed to be shown to a black audience. there were film clips inside that film taken from "the negro soldier." if you are familiar, you would have seen that.

at the classic line is the one that i called your attention to was ronald reagan saying, "here in tuskegee, you cannot tell the worth of the man by the shape of his nose or the color of his eyes." you can see the scriptwriter going through agony over this thing. if you listened only to ronald reagan's narration, you never know you are talking about black people. there are all sorts of euphemism s we use. it is very far from the truth. the united states army air force did not want blacks in the first place. they did their best to keep the blacks back from flying in combat. it was almost a year after the 99 was fully trained and demand that it was sent overseas.

when they are sent overseas, the 32 group was joined and everything was done to discourage them. they were segregated overseas. they were given that information about when things would occur. three months after they arrived, the group commander try to get them out of combat in tried to kill the 332nd which was been in training. the united states air force did everything it could to kill the tuskegee experience. it was not an experiment. no one intended to experiment. the air force tried to keep it as as late as -- i saw it as possible. >> you talk about integration. you talked about harry truman and immigration being something that was a value in terms of its

ethical perception but that it was something else that made integration more valuable. >> the tuskegee airmen, the primary reason why the united states air force integrated in 1949 and had all the other services. in 1947 when the air force became the chief of personnel -- he asked for a steady. he demonstrated whether or not segregation was based upon racial inferiority or prejudice. the tuskegee airmen proved that black men giving the same training will do the same job. the tuskegee airmen shot down 110 aircraft. before the war, there is probably one white the whydah said that was possible. that would've been the commander of tuskegee. he was alternately opposed to black men flying airplanes. there was not a general on their

side. franklin roosevelt had created the tuskegee airmen partly to ensure he won the black vote in 1940. he promised if reelected he would create the unit. 1c is reelected, he created the organization -- once he was reelected, he created the organization fo. they had a unique record in saving the bombers. general davis he was the commanding general of the 332nd changed the name of this airplane to "by request" because the bomber units requested the tuskegee airmen because their record was perfect in protecting the bombers. the cheese personnel and 1947 new the record.

he also knew segregation was a terrible thing. men had two barracks and to mess halls and two gymnasiums. worst of all, it caused friction. there is always some white individual who would say, you do not belong here. then there were race riots all over the united states in the second world war. there were too gigantic race right after the second world war on army air force base is the de at this point, the air force decided we have got to do away with this. it is based on prejudice. if we get the same training, we will get the same results. the tuskegee airmen proved that. the really proved that during world war two. >> talk to me.

general davis mentioned that this was an effort that involved both men and women. can you tell me something about your family and how you are being a pilot affected your family and how that influence your decision to go forward? >> my family knew little or nothing about aviation. i am from five kids. my older brother was a merchant marine. they were afraid i was going to get killed. everybody thought it was a dangerous thing that seems to be something that seems to be held today. yet today i was talking to six classes of kids. i asked how many wanted be a pilot, 0.

i tell them how great flying was. i'll try to convince them. i asked them why. you are more danger at school. i know pilots that had 65,000 hours i feel safer in an airplane than i do driving down a freeway. i still do. my family was a disconnected. it they didn't know anything about it. i was kind of out there. >> the danger of it never struck you as something that would make you want to do a u-turn? >> anybody who flies in the military knows that the best definition of flying is hours and hours of practicing my second of stark terror.

the device seconds of stark terror. you have to learn in be smart enough. that includes losing the engine. if you have more than engine, that is helpful. icing --people do not even think about that. you would be surprised how many small aircraft go down every year from icing. you are flying on a beautiful sunny day and do not realize your collaborator is clogging of the light in the cannot give a new air. all of a sudden, it is that simple. when they hear about the accident, they think it is dangerous. it is really not compared of the speaking. the number of line -- hours

flown by pilots is equal or better than people in cars. >> what reduces the incidence? >> i stayed so long in f m a. the faa. at the my first 747 -- i flew my for 747. the pilot show me his new system. he appears that when he gets to 15,000. he takes a little disappointed in the machine. -- a little disk in the machine. the plane continues to climb. it flies automatically until we are in chicago. we are in a holding pattern. [unintelligible]

this thing is so automated. he gets about 700 feet and then takes over the runway. you are hearing about these c- span.or[unintelligible] pretty soon the pilots may be expendable. we may not need them. space is operated mainly by machines. you do not have to prepare for the survival of human beings. that is terrible. we feel we have done away with pilots. we also have automatic lane systems right now. they can land with zero.

not all the airports are equipped to handle it. in washington, [inaudible] it is wide open. huge runways. that sort of thing. they tested that 15 years ago, the military. was an automatic landing system. we were all sitting around waiting to hear the results of the test. they were successful. they are probably getting more sophisticated ever since. >> there is a big difference between flying commercial airlines were no one is shooting at you. i had two tours in vietnam and more than 670 combat missions. there is a difference. i did