of course, there is much more on our positive, a conservative agenda. not all that is popular, but the american agenda have shown they are ready for truth to trump hope. the truth is the government is not the solution to all of our problems. [applause] and a little plug here. this year i have taken time out to write a book about the truth that the nation faces and the solutions i believe we need to overcome them. i have titled it, "no apology: the case for american greatness." i am told there is a booth outside. most seriously, sometimes i wonder whether washington's liberal politicians truly

understand the greatness that is america. let me explain. . at christmas time, i was shopping at walmart to buy some toys for my grand kids. as i waited in the checkout line, i happened to look around the store at the sides with the yellow face with the big smile on it. i thought of the impact of sam walters on that company. he apparently was all about good value to the consumer and making sure they could buy anything in sure they could buy anything in the store they might want. rock-bottom prices, millions of items. it is interesting, the impact founders like sam have on their enterprises. in many ways, microsoft is a reflection of its founder, bill gates, just like apple is of the leader there, steve jobs. you have probably been to disneyland. it is a physical tribute to walt disney himself -- imaginative,

whimsical. virgin airlines is as irreverent and edgy as its founder. [laughter] if you look around you, you will see that people shape enterprises -- businesses, charities, movements of all crimes. for many years after they are gone, people shape businesses. people shape countries. america reflects the values of the people who first landed here, those who founded the nation, those who want our freedom, those who made america the leader of the world. america was discovered and settled by pioneers. the founders themselves launched a new concept of nation, one where the people would be sovereign, not the king. this would apply not just to government but to our economy. the individual would pursue his own happiness and freedom, independent from government dictate. and the american was free to be

an innovator, entrepreneur, inventor, founder. america became the nation of opportunity. we attracted people of pioneering spirit from all over the world. they came for freedom and opportunity, knowing that in some cases the costs would be high -- leaving behind family, learning a new language, living in poverty at first, even facing prejudice, working long hours. all of these pioneers of build a nation of income parable prosperity and unrivaled security. -- of incomparable prosperity and unrivaled security. people like robert ford, dave packard, and so forth -- these are some of the names we know. there are more names that are just as vital to america that we do not know. those number in the millions.

they created this country. that pioneering spirit is what propelled us to master the industrial age just as today we marshaled the information age. that course, chosen for america by the founders, has been settled for over 200 years. ours is the creed of the pioneers, the innovators, the strivers who expect no guarantee for success but want to live and work in freedom. that creed is under assault in washington today. liberals are convinced that the government knows better than the people how to run our businesses, how to manage health care, how to grow an economy, and how to order our lives. they want to get into government takeover what they could never achieve in the competitive economy -- power and control over the american people. if these neo-monarchist

succeed, they would kill the spirit that has built the nation. we will not let them do it. [applause] that is the liberal agenda for government. it does not encourage pioneers and inventors. it suffocates them. in a world where others have lost their liberty by trading it for the false promises of big government, we choose to hold to our founding principle. we will stop these power seekers where they stand. we will keep america america up by retaining its character as the land of opportunity.

we will welcome the inventor, the innovator. we will insist on greatness from every citizen. rather than apologizing for who we are or what we have accomplished, we will celebrate our american strength and goodness. patriots have liberated the oppressed and rescued the afflicted. the model of capitalism and free enterprise has listed billions of the world's people out of poverty. america has been a force for good like no other in the world. for that, we make no apology. thank you. god bless america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] our coverage continues tomorrow

morning. we would hear from the minnesota governor. let coverage begins in o'clock a.m. eastern. later in the day, president obama -- will hold a town hall meeting in las vegas. l.a. conversation with the open strip wall street journal" columnist. -- now a conversation with the "wall street journal) "on the spread them he writes a weekly column for the wall street journal. he had a book called "what's the matter with cancer?"

and he launched a cultural -- " what's the matter with kansas?" he launched a call from magazine. -- a cultural magazine. [unintelligible] what does it mean to you to be a liberal? guest: i was having fun with you there. what would i say? i identify with the labor movement. franklin roosevelt, harry truman.

i love the writing style of one person. that is what is most important to me -- putting together words and ideas. i write about domestic politics mainland. lately what has been fascinating has been the flowering of the conservative grass these days in the tea party movement. for a while, you go back to about a year ago and pretty much everybody i knew and the commentators thought we had turned a grand, historical corner and entered a new era of liberalism. now, it looks like that is not

so. for a while there, i enjoyed several columns and offering this and various pieces of advice to president obama. i lived in chicago before i moved to this city. a state senator was barack obama. i would see him at house parties and things like that. i remember when he ran for congress and got beaten. we moved here and he was still a state senator at the time. now he is president. host: did you ever say, that man could be president some day when you saw him? guest: he has this charisma and electricity. when he enters the room, everybody knows it. he is amazingly eloquent.

i went to a meeting where people were mad and yelling at each other. i thought i knew a lot about this subject. barack obama got the microphone. i did not know he knew anything about the subject. he spoke about it in a way that was so reasonable and was able to propose a half a point where the sides could come together. he did it in a beautiful style. very convincing. that guy could be president. it was amazing. host: you can send us an e-mail. our numbers are on the screen. one person says more murdock, oh, boy.

how do you deal with owning a pot -- working for a publication owned by rupert murdoch? guest: it is a serious newspaper. i have read it for most of my adult life. it has been a very good experience writing for them. they do a very good job of editing my column. they have never come to me and said, you cannot write about something. host: what is the tea party all about in your opinion? guest: this movement -- in some ways, i am very hopeful about it. in other ways, it is an awful thing.

i am from kansas. one of the moments that i look back to was the populist moments -- a third party movement that took over a lot of southern states. it is pretty far to the left by today's standards. it focused on language that the tea party the fed harkens back to in a lot of ways. -- t party movement harkens back to in a lot of ways. one man, sockless simpson, had a

populist angle to the movement. i liked it. the originals wanted a certain currency, we now have paper currency that is suggested by the federal reserve. the tea party movement -- the populist wanted serious regulation of the financial industry and the railroad. that sort of thing. they wanted national ownership of their roads. the tea party is now all with the regulation. the populist wanted a personal the populist wanted a personal income tax. the populace was very pro label. the tea party people are not to fund. -- not too fond of it.

what i wrote about was the dc be to ship of the tea party movement but do -- the d.c. leadership of the tea party movement. i paid them complement in that regard. they do have a d.c. contingent. it is described in great detail. as i was reading that story describing the dc leadership of this latest wavering. right wing flowering, names left out at me. -- names leaped out at me. a couple of years ago, i did a

lot of studying on the disgraced super lobbyist. uper lobbyist. i got to know a huge amount about his career and what he did. he was sort of a grass-roots leader. all of these characters from this story are dissipating in that. that is to their leaders are. it is always the same bunch of guys. here they are, this great rising up against corruption in dc and it is the same damn people.

it is a remarkable -- what would you call that? the same cast of characters that never go away. host: indiana, independent line. talking about american politics. caller: you talk about populist. i consider myself what'd you described. i hear unregulated grief. it seems like the right side wants to get rid of all of the regulation.

that would protect investors, and jobs, the middle class. whenever it comes to jobs, whenever the government does not protect from our own corp., american corporations to take our jobs and give them to somebody else so they can have more money at the top -- i just do not understand. that disrespect for the majority of the country. host: thanks. i will jump in. guest: those are things i think about all of the time. that is the subject of my last book, my effort to understand this phenomenon. you have epic deregulation going

on since the early 1980's. it is going back well into the 1970's. the crown jewel in the deregulatory fatah -- i am mixing metaphors. i hate doing that. in the bush and administration, and you had the fact of the regulatory push. you put people in charge of regulatory agencies that came out of the industry. you either do that or defund the agency. and as an unintentional aspect. these are people that should be minding wall street. they cannot afford to have a photo copiers in their office. the lawyers are going up against

wall street lawyers. they had to do their voter copying at king goes or wherever. that is how bad the regulatory system got in this country. in america, we either get away with the laws when we overturned last stiegel -- a terrible mistake during the clinton years. or return to the agencies over to lobbyists or we defunded them so they were incapable of working anymore. it should be no surprise to us in government failed. we have been electing government politicians that made sure they failed. host: we get the jobless numbers on thursday. the filing for unemployment benefits unexpectedly searched

last week. s urged. -- surged last week. . guest: it is going to take massive investment from the private sector to get jobs going again. as when private investment disappears. you would think this would being incredibly controversial. this is something like communism. host: democrats line. caller: thank you for your

brilliance writing. i think it should be mandatory reading in high schools. the last guest was on, and i thought it was ironic when he said that the response is a fear of the nation. that is not what it is. it is anchoreger. there has always been distain for the working class by one party. they think they can control them through ignorance and fear. every movement, every legislation that would ever proposed to help the working

people like labor laws and working hours and safety, age restriction has been opposed by them. so security to give our elderly some amount of dignity was opposed by them. medicare was opposed by them. they serve their corporate masters. we are at a point where we might be able to turn this around. the supreme court findings and nell given freedom of speech rights in the way of buying our legislatures in a terrifying prospect. we need a constitutional amendment. host: thanks. i have to jump in. guest: i am glad to hear people like our riding. what you said about the working class and labor unions is a fascinating point.

this is something you do not hear a lot about in washington, d.c. they do not have a lot of manufacturing or industry. by and large, there are lots of people in america that would like to join labor unions. we do polls on the subject of the time. just a couple of years ago it was 50%. if you take out the red flag word, labor union, and to say, would you like to be able to bargain with your boss over the terms of your employment, everybody will like to be able to do that. the problem is that that never happens. despite the obstacles that prevent workers from getting together and forming labor unions, we never really talk about those. all of those obstacles make it impossible to affect an employer. it is illegal for them to fire a

person that is leading a unionization movement. the penalties against it are so slight. they doubt those penalties way down and the regulated that part of the economy during the reagan years. recall that freedom. we call that free enterprise. that is freedom. joining a labor union -- you do not have that right. that is off the table in america. you have it on paper. it is an interesting twist. >host: what about campaign finance? guest: it is a disaster. people who are so far to the right in the tea party movement, everybody recognizes this will unleash the power on the running of the party. everybody knows it.

we will see the evidence of it this fall. on the other hand, i am not a lawyer. it is a disaster in terms of if you want to have a democracy. whether or not it is a misguided decision, i do not know. host:a tweet. it is not a very noble word. it is a way to communicate. here is what he writes. guest: is he referring to the auto industry? there are different things that failed the auto industry. one was the race by automakers to get their plants to mexico and other places and to the south where unions basically do not exist. you mentioned my magazine

earlier. we have a really good story in the current issue about detroit and what has happened to them. in some ways, it is people like the person that tweeted, they think that detroit has gotten what is coming to them. if you look at it in a different way, but it was what was right with america years ago. they often had a couple of cars and went on vacation and took their children to college. they were working class people. that model was deliberately destroyed by management. they did not like that because you have to pay your workers that much which eats into

profits. host: republican line. caller: thanks for c-span. it isn't the thing to give people an opportunity to put in their points of view. host: -- it is a good thing to give people an opportunity to put in their points of view. host: thanks for participating. caller: we do not need a third party. i think the main thing behind it is you get different view points where we can put out our point of view. with the democrats and republicans, it is so partisan that they cannot get anything done for the people they are working for.

they are like a bunch of spoiled rotten kids that want to go for their own -- this is not a ball game. they all should be working for us. they have gotten so far away from that. these are people that need more of a say in what is going on. of a say in what is going on. i heard a barack obama it is on track to save or create another 1.5 million in this next year. we are looking up with the census bureau says. there are 4.1 in the early in the united states. i imagine there is some close to that entering the workforce.

there'll be a deficit of 2 million jobs. host: thank you. guest: and do not know what to say about the statistics at the end. i think there are all sorts of jobs being made. any plus is a good thing. what you saying about the third party movement, his expression of disgust with the two-party system. it is hard to disagree with that. even if the newspapers every day in dc. is a hard thing that they cannot tackle the nation's problems. the one that drives me at the wall is the health care system. every time democrats get in, they get on his promise to fix this problem. it is an enormous problem. basically, it is a problem for everybody at some point in their

life. they cannot seem to fix that. but he said about their party movement is interesting. populism was the last third- party movement. vement. it put a terrible scare into political elites around the country. after it subsided, every state in america made the tactics that populism used against the law. you cannot have third parties in america. you can try it, but you will not get anywhere. one of the things thatñi would e really great is i would like to have third parties in this country. the first thing you have to do is overturned those laws that were passed earlier in the 20th- century.

but the populist used to do is take the dominant party in a place like kansas. the populists would ganged up with the democrats. a candid it would be nominated by the populist and the democrats and beat the republicans. in the south where the democrats were the dominant party, they would fuse with the republicans. they would nominate the same guy as the populist. it was a successful strategy. now it is illegal. host: independent line. caller:ñi hello and thank you fr taking my call. i have been watching c-span for ñiñhrñrñiñiunlike what you are . i am glad that there is a newspaper and people that are out there keeping an eye on our politicians. i do not understand these guys

are supposed to be working for us. we turn around and everything is for their next campaign, money, and power. did not release seem to care that everybody is struggling. we are all trying to do the best we can. we are patient people. i think politicians think that the american people are stupid and dumb. we see through your tricks and all the stupid things you guys do. i am glad that now we have places like c-span and in newspapers and writers like you to keep the fire under these guys to make them do what they are supposed to be doing. that is basically all i have to say. thank you again. i hope you have a great day. guest: this is a subject i have written about a great deal, the transformation of politics which is supposed to be public service and a process.

he has had enough of this town. washington d.c. is the wealthiest city in america? three suburban counties are among the top five wealthiest counties in the nation. çóñ.'all of that is not because government workers, bureaucrats are paid huge sums. they are paid less than those in comparable work in the private sector. it is because of the massive outsourcing of governmentçó work ñiwe privatize all of these ñidifferent federal operations d turned them over to private contractors. d.c. these skyscrapers and defenseçó contractors -- they wl take contractors from any gp'ch

of federal government. they make much more money on ñrthis then if we had bureaucras and workers do it themselves. we do that for ideological reasons. . . . it is like you'd see in europe or something like that. me in the cameramen were driving around in this neighborhood where a lot of these defense

contractors lobby. i guess it was a gated community are something. host: we have video there that we will show briefly. how it real briefly while we are -- guest: that is me, all right. host: we started with robert schuller, of the case-shiller index. you started out saying that you admired fdr. he does as well my question for you is, in an age of twitter, the white house is on twitter, on facebook, has all sorts of social networking -- is it possible to have the same sort of public attention that fdr could create with the radio? guest: yes, there is. this is where i go back to the sort of -- i love certain kinds

of political rhetoric. there is something about obama, a great speaker, probably the best orchard -- orator of my generation. i love listening to him. but there's not a single sentence of his that i can really remember over the last couple of years, whereas i can remember franklin roosevelt, i can remember what harry truman said. obama doesn't come out swinging, you know? he is really -- this is, i think, at the end of the day -- he really believes the stuff about bipartisanship. it is not an act for him and he does not want to ruffle feathers and he does not want to make enemies. a president has to make enemies. roosevelt did it. roosevelt chose the perfect enemies. host: who were the perfect enemies? guest: wall street. come on, you saw that coming. host: taxes, you are on. caller: -- texas, you are on.

guestcaller: in today's politicl climate, their rhetoric is divide and conquer. whether you are for or against it, health care, abortion, gay rights, it never seems to be inclusive. it always seems to divide and conquer pre and mr. frank was exactly right he does not want to ruffle feathers. he is the first black president, so therefore, he does not want to ruffle feathers. he wants to be inclusive. but you cannot do that. you have to take the bull by the horns and lead. that is where we are lagging right now, with the democratic party and members of the democratic party. in this climate that we have today, what i hear people talking about the tea party and good old-fashioned american values, let's go back, well, it

was not good for minorities. it was good for white men in general. guest: that's for sure. look, there are all sorts of examples of what the caller was talking about. what i have been talking about recently is the problem of government failure. we have been spreading around and sometimes looking at directly. but we have been living in an era of epic government failure, with hurricane katrina, the rebuilding of iraq, lead in children's toys, toxic spanish, the toyota recall, where the biggest one -- toxic spinach, the toyota recall, or the biggest one, the financial crisis, where regulators completely dropped the ball. çif you ask somebody tat thew3a party, they will tell you almost

for certain that it is because government cannot do anything right. that is not the case. government work all the time before the 1980's, before we started outsourcing it and putting lobbyists and a charge of regulatory agencies. government used to work president obama at, who is in a position to make this argument, to give us an alternative explanation of why government failed -- government failed basically because it was sabotaged for 30 years. he does not come out and say that. we need someone in a position of leadership like president about to make the case. i]çç-- like president obama te the case. i am doing violence to the argument is actually a lot more nuanced -- i am doing violence to the argument. it is actually a lot more new ones. but when someone says that government always fails, you

have to come back with your own explanation. host: gainesville, georgia, republican. caller: [unintelligible] this health care package is that nothing they're talking about -- is another thing they are talking about. i'm on disability. this are wrecks a drug program -- this rx drug program -- when your body changes with the eldest at all = -- illness and all -- they should have to cover all those medicines or not cover them at all. host: he brings us back to the health-care debate. guest: he was a republican

color. sounds like he was complaining about the high prices of pharmaceuticals. the market chose this prices. -- chose those prices. yes, i agree with the caller is an abomination and it annoys the heck out of me -- it is c-span, i have to say heck, right -- that obama and the democrats did not do anything about this problem. host: actually, we are people. you don't have to say -- we are cable. you don't have to say heck. this is the second george. caller: thank you for taking my call. seeing as i am on c-span, i will say heck, too, but i am actually a lot more angry than that. newt gingrich was on jon stewart

the other day, and he asked him about the people who are being taken to court, the terrorists, and his explanation was that richard reid was an american, a bald faced lie. those guys can get away with it. they can get away with saying anything they wanted we have been witnessing it for the last eight years. actually, that is not the big point i wanted to make the big point i wanted to make, and you are probably aware of this -- in the last eight years, the congress and senate have been fighting over $40 billion for old people at $4 billion a year. it was $4 billion for 10 years. remember that one? it was too much money, this and that. my mother, the last few years, has been on medicare. she said she never had better coverage in your life, ok, until -- in her whole life, ok,

until she got on medicare. the other thing, the biggest thing, actually -- when bush came into office, the defense spending was 300-something billion dollars a year. i pay attention to that stuff. now it is almost 600-something billion dollars a year. can anybody in this country say bankrupt? people better wake up, because the republicans do nothing but lie and they expect people to believe -- i am not a democrat, but i know a lie when i hear one. guest:w3ç interesting point. why do republicans do that? why do republicans do that? the eisenhower republicans would give you a new deal. they did it cheaper. that is who they were. there the party that wanted to cut spending instead, they with

the party that just let all hell breaks loose. they cut taxesçó and increase spending. they said it would work out. when will come down and get carried us to fix it. i did give us fairy dust to fix it. -- they said it will come down and give us fairy dust to fix it. they drove it up to these monumental peaks. i got an interesting explanation from this. he was the budget director under ronald reagan. he wrote when the best memoirs out there. it was his regulations of the early days of the reagan

administration. he gave up on the theory of the supply side early on but then he knew it would not work. what they were going to do is create an enormous deficit. then he came up with an alternate certification. justification for it. this is a good thing, because it would have a permanent state of crisis and keep the liberals in congress from spending any more on their liberal agenda. it was not just him and said it is. milton friedman, a great team of conservative economists at the university of chicago -- the great dean of conservative economists at the university of chicago, wrote an editorial in the 1980's it saying that the deficits were good because it kept liberals from doing their liberal things, forced them into a state of crisis. that is why deficits have a

weird of the war -- a weird allure for the right. it is counterintuitive. every time they get in, they run these huge deficits. it makes it impossible for government to do things like have a proper health care program. the disaster, of course, is when you have an economic crisis and the government asked to start spending money -- has to start spending money, but you see what i am getting at. great book, by the way.w3 çi]host: let us take another cl from -- let us take a call from woodbridge. i cannot believe it, it is another george. caller: this is wayne, not george. and i'm a first-time caller. so many times i hear people talk about the state of our situation here. the other caller said we are not dummies.

i am watching c-span so i understand what is going on. the solution has to come with the average person. there are funny things going on to be bailed out the banks. if the bank's work regular human people, it would have a bad credit ratings. but now that we have bailed them out, the situation has been skewed. we are going to these guys to have poor credit ratings and allowing them to rate as -- who have poor credit ratings and allowing them to rate us. let me go and give you the answer to this -- we have to give back to the people -- remember when people could buy several houses and write off the interest rate on as many houses as they had? that would benefit the average man. we have to go back to that. we have to go back to a chapter 7 bankruptcy.

they took that away. if i make a mistake and halfback ed, i can file a chapter 7 and watch that away and start -- if i make a mistake and have a bad credit, i can file a chapter 7 and wash that away and start over. who will be able to borrow? the credit is so messed up because the banking and financial institutions wreck the system. guest: totally right. remember when the bankruptcy -- was that 2005, 2006 -- one of the later acts of the bush administration was done, of course, on behalf of the credit- card industry lobbyists and bankruptcy -- and bank industry lobbyists. welcome to free-market bankers get off the hook and average guys go to the wall, and their credit ratings are ruined. host: will on the republican

line. you are on with thomas frank. caller: good morning, c-span. so thankful for your program. çit is a window for looking at all three branches of government. people are getting upset and they have a right to. mr. frank has told us a valuable things about the economy and our government and the republican partyt(. but i will tell you what, there was a lot of corruption going on. i believe that in 2012, this will break under the pressure. but i would like to say is two things. number one, the american government -- i mean, president obama came on not long ago and said in a speech that accountability and transparency. well, here they go behind closed doors and start doing these special interest groups. that is part of the problem in

america. there is so much going on behind closed doors that nobody knows what is going on. the american people basically know what is going on. the american people know that we need health reform so badly, but both houses have betrayed the american people. this is the problem here. monday at the health reform, people like bernie sanders used -- when they had health reform, people like bernie sanders told it like it was -- host: we really are overtime. you said you are a republican . your comments suggest otherwise. are you still involved with the republican party? caller: yes. this is the way it is. people right now are so fed up with both parties -- guest: i was republican ones as

well. -- once as well. çhost: i wanted to use his comments to close here. we started out talking about the tea party and anchor. where did you see the electorate going right now? this and, every single color we heard was angry, fed up -- listen, every single caller we heard was angry and fedç up. this is the advice i have been giving democrats, effortlessly, for years and years and years. democrats should be the natural party of discontented people calling in about health care disasters and wanted accountability in government, sick of the roadblocks and washington and the lobbyists running everything -- look, the party of the left should be the one that benefits, that profits from the public anger.

but they're not blind to. it is going to beat republicans again. republicansçç to a much betteb speaking to the angry voices in the sense that is out there all over america, not just in kansas anymore. it is an annoying thing. why can't the democrats get out in front of it? why can't the natural party of the discontent speak to the discontented? they have this mealy mouthed way e can k forthrightly about the problems. -- they can never speak forthrightly about these problems. it is going to happen to them again this fall. my answer is the power of money. at the end of the day, politics runs on monday. -- on money. if they want to raise money from

the people who have money in çamerica, wall street, big business, you cannot talk that way. people on the left cannot talk that way. they cannot talk like callers this morning. they have to talk in this nice, happy, bipartisan way. happy, bipartisan way. as a result, they lose. todd zomser talks on the senses. later, the cell will talk about president obama's trip to nevada and discuss harry reid in the reelection campaign. "washington journal" starts

seats morning. but it starts each morning. >> eric holder spoke at a conference yesterday but the his remarks are 10 minutes. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. i cannot see you with all of these bright lights. alice in detroit yesterday. we had to extend -- i was in detroit is shape. we had to stand and more snow. about washington, d.c., 2 or 3 inches is something we can handle. we've got 2 or 3 feet, so it's ap amazing thing -- an amazing thing you were all able to get here, so i thank you for joining us for this very important conference. i want to thank you, laurie. it's an honor to join with you and my old friend, tree, in welcoming our participants. many of you have traveled

mr. all across -- from all across the country, and i want to thank each and every one of you for your engagement and for your commitment to the principles that define who we are and who we can be as a nation. for well over two centuries now, we as a people have been striving to build a more perfect union, an america that lives up to the vision of our founders. a country where the words of our constitution can finally reach the full measure of their intent. it is no less than this ongoing work, the fulfillment of our constitution, that brings us together here today. now, i'm here to discuss a responsibility that we as stewards of our nation's criminal justice system all share. a responsibility to insure that the fairness and integrity of that system is paramount. i would argue that our criminal justice system is one of the most distinctive aspects of our

national character, and i would also argue it is one of the most praiseworthy. now, that said, we must face facts. and the facts prove that we have a very serious problem on our hands. nearly half a century has passed since the supreme court's decision in gideon v. wane wright. the court followed with other decisions reckizing the -- recognizing the right to counsel in juvenile and misdemeanor cases. today despite the decades that have gone by, these cases have yet to be fully translated into reality. that is a fact. but you already know this. all of you have read the reports, and all of you know the data. and many of you have learned this truth in the hardest of ways, by experiencing it on the ground. you've seen how in too many of our counties and in too many of our communities some people accused of crimes, including juveniles, may never, may never have a lawyer either spirally or

during -- entirely or during a critical stage of the proceedings against them. in fact, juveniles sometimes waive their right to counsel without ever speaking to an attorney to help them understand what it is they are giving up. this is simply unacceptable. and our courts accept these waivers. meanwhile, recent reports evaluating state public defense systems are replete with examples of defendants who have languish withed in jail for weeks or even months before counsel was appointed. when lawyers are provided to the poor, too often they cannot represent their clients properly due to insufficient resources and inadequate oversight. that is without the building blocks of a well-functioning public defender system, the type of system set forth in the ten principles of the american bar association and the national juvenile defender center.

now, as we all know, public defender programs are too many times underfunded, too often defenders carry huge caseloads that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to fulfill their legal and ethical responsibilities to their clients. lawyers under these caseloads can't interview their clients properly, can't file the appropriate motion, can't conduct fact investigations or spare the time needed to ask and apply for additional grant funding. and the problem is more about anything than just resources. in some parts of the country, the primary institutions for the delivery of defense to the poor -- i'm talking about basic public defender systems -- simply do not exist. now, i continue to believe that if our fellow citizens knew about the extent of this problem, they would be as troubled as you and i.

>> when equal justice is denied, we all lose. and of the fundamental integrity depends on representation on both sides. i recognize that some may perceive it on federal, state, and local governments. i reject that parameter. [applause] although they may stand on different sides of an argument, the prosecution and defense can in much the state can and must -- defense can and must share of victory.

problems in our criminal defense system are not morally. defense system aren't just morally untenable, they're also economically unsustainable. every taxpayer should be seriously concerned about the systemic costs of inadequate defense for the poor. when the justice system fails to get it right the first time, we all pay, often for years for new filings, retrials and appeals. poor systems of defense do not make economic sense. so where do we go from here? i want to speak with you clearly and honestly about this. this in the last year, i have thought about it, i have studied and i have discussed the current crisis in our criminal defense system. what i've learned and what i know for sure is that there are no easy solutions. no single institution, not the federal government, not the department of justice, not a single state can solve the

problem on it own. progress can only come from a sustained commitment to collaboration with diverse partners. now, i expect every person many this room to play a role in advancing the cause of justice, that's everyone. and, yes, i say this with the knowledge that we have some unlikely partners among us. some might wonder what the united states attorney general is doing at a conference largely about the defense that poor people receive in state and in local courts. likewise, many of you -- the local officials, budget officers and prosecutors gathered here today -- have not traditionally been engaged in discussions about the right to counsel. but all of us should share these concerns. it must be the concern of every person who works on behalf of the public good and in the pursuit of justice. that's what this conference is all about, expanding and improving this work. learning from each other. recruiting new partners, and

making sure that for our criminal defense community, government is viewed as an ally and not as an adversary. .. >> americans understand how their fellow citizens experience the criminal justice system, they will be shocked, angered, feelings that i hope would compel them to become advocates

for change and allies in our world. third, we must expand the role of the public defender. we must encourage defenders to seek solutions beyond our courtrooms and ensure that they're involved in shaping policies, that will empower the communities that they serve. now, i'm committed to making sure that public defenders are at the table when we meet with mother stakeholders, in the criminal justice system. i have charged the department's leadership with calling on our components to include members of the public defense system in a range of meetings. we will also involve defenders in conferences, application review panels, and other venues where a public defense perspective can be valuable. and it should not go without saying. every state, every state should have a public defender system. every state. [applause] in all of this, i stand with you

and with anyone who is committed to ensuring the sixth amendment right to counsel. it is as basic as that. last year, when i became attorney general, i took an oath to support and to defend the constitution of the united states of america. i also made a promise, a promise to the citizens i serve and the colleagues i work alongside. a promise to guard the rights of all americans and make certain that in this country, the nancy pelosi distribution centers gent are not -- the indigent are not invisible. so let me assure you today this is not a passing issue for this department of justice. i have asked the entire department of justice in my office, in lloyd robinson's and in components as diverse as the office of legal policy and the criminal division to focus on indigent defense issues with a sense of urgency and a commitment to developing and implementing the solutions that we need. in the coming weeks, we will take concrete steps to make

access to justice a permanent part of the work of the department of just tipples. -- justice, with a foe campus effort by our leadership office to ensure issues get the attention that they deserve of. government must be a part of the solution, not simply by acting as a convener, but also serving as a collaborator. now, once again, we stand at the beginning of a new decade. we must seize this opportunity to return to the beliefs that guided our nation's founding, and to renew the strength of our justice system. i have every expectation that our criminal defense system can and will be a source of tremendous national pride. and i know that achieving this requires the best that we as a profession, and as a people have to offer. i pledge my own best efforts and today, i ask you for yours. thank you very much. [applause] books,

coffee mugs and others. look for these and other gift- giving ideas that c-span.org

/store. joe biden gave remarks on the obama administration's nuclear security agenda. defense secretary robert gates introduced the vice-president at the national defense university. it is 25 minutes. the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and former commander of strategic command, general james cartwright. [applause]

to the community, thank you for all you do in service to our country. and to the students in particular, i wish you the best as you prepare to take on important leadership positions. you are really here to listen to what the vice president has to say so i will be brief. the topping -- the topic of the address is the role of nuclear weapons and one that is critical to america's national security and strength. president obama has helped focus our attention on reducing nuclear dangers and taking the ultimate steps of eliminating nuclear weapons. at the same time, as he and the vice president have said, as long as nuclear weapons are required to deter aggression and defend our country and allies, we will maintain a safe and secure an effective nuclear arsenal. before becoming vice president,

joe biden served for 36 years in the senate representing delaware. he served as chairman of the judiciary and foreign relations committees. he has established a reputation on being one of the foremost experts on foreign affairs. he has provided exemplary leadership on ventures -- on the issues of proliferation, the terrorists and the state of our nuclear enterprise. we are honored that he has come to share his thoughts on such an important topic. it is my personal honor and pleasure to introduce the vice president of the united states, joseph biden. >> thank you. it is an honor to be here.

>they could probably deliver this speech better than i will. the fact of the matter is that at its founding, former secretary of for gave us the essence of the national defence. he said not to promote war but to promote peace by intelligent and adequate preparation to repel aggression. that is what this is all about. that is what this speech is about. for more than one century, you and your predecessors have heeded that call. there are of your contributions greater that any citizen could make them to expire -- than to aspire to meet the goals of this university. many statements -- many

statesmen have walked on this campus. they pronounced statesman better than i have. [laughter] çincluding our own jim jones. you taught him well. a scholar and diplomat lector -- lectured here in the late 1940's. he was just back from moscow and as all of the stuff far from here. he developed the doctrine of containment and added a generation of cold war foreign policy. some of the issues that arose during that time seem like very distant memories. i see some old colleagues when i got there is a 29 year-old and

some of them seem very distant. the topic came to discuss is the challenges posed by nuclear weapons continuing to demand our urgent attention just as itç dd during the cold war. the president laid out his vision of protecting our country from nuclear threat. he made clear that we will take concrete steps toward award -- toward a world without nuclear weapons while maintaining a safe and secure arsenal as long as we still needed. we will work to strengthen our non-proliferation treaty and do everything in our power to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists and to state that the not already possess them. it is very easy to recognize the threat posed by nuclear terrorism but we must not underestimate how proliferation to a state could be destabilizing to entire region

is critical to us and to our security and may prompt neighbors in that region to feel that they have to garner a nuclear weapons themselves. our agenda is based on a clear assessment of our national interests. we have long relied on nuclear weapons to deter adversaries. we are now developing non nuclear waste to achieve these directors. we presented a plan of protecting our forces well into the future. conventional warheads with worldwide reach and others that are developing and being developed will enable us to

reduce the role of nuclear weapons as other nuclear powers begin to draw down even further just as we wish to do. with these modern capabilities and the deep nuclear reductions, we will remain undeniably strong@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @"

from developing the world's fastest supercomputers to cleaner fuels. their best known for their work to secure our country. we have asked our labs to meet our most urgent strategic needs in time and again, they have delivered. çin 1939, as fascism began its march, albert einstein warned president einstein -- president roosevelt that there will be a weapon the likes of which the world has never seen. in the southwest desert, we won that race and literally changed the course of history.

it became our supreme -- our most profound facility in developing non weapon nuclear advancements. during the arms race that followed the korean war, they designed and developed warheads to keep our nuclear capabilities second to none. these examples and many others illustrate that everybody in this room knows that the past century's defining conflict for decided not just on the battlefield but in the classrooms and laboratories. as an aviation pioneer once argued, the first world war was decided by brauawn, the second logistics', the third he predicted would be won by brands. he got it almost right.

great minds helped win the cold war and prevent a third world war altogether. during the cold war, we tested our capabilities under water and underground so we couldç evalue more advanced concepts. amaged our health and disrupted the environment and set backç our nonproliferation agenda. 18 years ago, george h. w. bush signed a nuclear testing moratorium enacted by congress which is in place to this very day. under that moratorium, our laboratories have maintained our regionals to what is known as the stockpile stewardship program. we are able to do that without underground testing using techniques that are as

successful as they are cutting edge. today, the directors of the nuclear laboratories tell me and the president they have a deeper understanding of our stockpile stewardship than they ever had when testing was commonplace. let me repeat that. our labs know more about our arsenal today than when they were able to explode weapons at our facilities on a regular basis. with our support, supporthe labs can reduce the impact on the arsenal. unfortunately, our experts were underfunded. 2000 employees lost their jobs.

between 2006 and 2008, including, highly skilled scientists and engineers. we used to handle uranium and plutonium when the great powers were winston churchill, harry truman and when -- and joseph stalin. the size of age and decay are becoming more apparent every day. because we recognize these dangers, we met with the heads of all three laboratories. they described the impact these budgetary pressures were having on their ability to manage our personal without testing. they say that the situation is literally a threat to national security. president obama and i agree. that is what we announced a new budget that reverses the last decade of dangerous decline. itç devotes $7 billion to maintain our nuclear stockpile

and modernizing our nuclear construction. to put that into perspective, that is $624 million more than the approved last year and an increase of $5 billion over the next -- five years. even in these tight fiscal times, we will commit the resources necessary to maintain our security interests. this investment is not only consistent with a nonproliferation agenda but the central to pursue and non- proliferation agenda. efforts to allow us to pursue deeper nuclear reductions without in any way compromising our security. as our conventional capabilities improved, we are going to continue to reduce our reliability on nuclear weapons. we will be able to reduce our capability.

responsible disarmament requires versa tile specialists who are able to manage the crisis. the skilled -- versatile specialists who are able to manage the crisis. a chemist to understand how plutonium can track nuclear -- missing nuclear materials and how to track those who are taking them. our goal is a world without nuclear weapons. it has been endorsed -- endorsed by leading voices in both parties. those include two former secretary of state'. the democratic chairmthese statr eliminating nuclear weapons and they called it a bold initiative for america's moral

heritage. during the 2008 presidential campaign, both president obama and john mccain supported this same objective. we are going to continue to build support for this bipartisan consensus, like the one around the containment of soviet expansion that george kennedy inspired. toward that end, we worked tirelessly to move the president's agenda. he shared a historic meeting with the u.n. security council which anonymously impress the key elements -- unanimously embraced the key elements of his plan. we are completing an agreement that will reduce levels to the -- weapon to the lowest levels in decades.

these verification measures are going to provide confidence that the terms of that agreement are going to be met. these reductions will be conducted transparently and they will be predictable. a new treaty will promote nuclear stability and bolstered the global effort to prevent proliferation by showing that the world's leading nuclear powers are committed to reducing their arsenal. it will provide momentum on global consensus that nations that violate the obligations should be held accountable. this strategy is already yielding results. we have tightened sanctions on north korea's activities to the most strict resolution to date. the international security is enforcing the sanctions as we speak. we are now working with our international partners to ensure

that iran faces real consequences for failing to meet their obligations. in the meantime, we are completing a government-wide review on nuclear posture. our budgets proposals reflect some of the key priorities including increased funding for a new complex, a kid that meant to sustain heavy bombers and land and sea-based missile capabilities under a new agreement. this review has been a full interagency partnership. another way of saying that, everybody is on the same page. everybody is on the same page. we believe we have developed a broad consensus of the importance of the president's agenda and the steps that need to be taken to achieve that

agenda. the results will be presented to congress soon. in april, the president is the one to host a national security summit to advance his goals of securing all vulnerable nuclear material within four years. there is a lot of it out there. it is a very high priority. we cannot wait for an act of nuclear terrorism before coming together to share the best practices and race security standards. we will seek firm commitments from our partners to do just that. in may, we will participate in the non-proliferation treaty review conference. we are rallying support for stronger measures for inspection and to punish cheaters. we have a basic bargain. that was that nuclear power will pursue disarmament and non- nuclear states will not acquire

such weapons while gaining access to civilian technology. that is the cornerstone and has been of the non-proliferation regime. before the treaty was negotiated, and that is back in the early 1960's, president kennedy predicted that the world would end up with up to 20 nuclear powers by the mid 1970 cost. because of non-proliferation and the consensus, that did not çhappen. 40 years later, that consensus frame. it is time for us to reinforce this and to strengthen the treaty for the future. well we do that, we are going to negotiate a ban on the production of missile material that can be used in nuclear

weapons. we know that completing that treaty will not be easy to do nor will it come quickly. the conference on disarmament must resume work on this treaty as soon as possible. the last piece of the agenda was the ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty. 10 years ago, we lead this effort to negotiate this treaty so that people see why we did it. it was designed in order to keep emerging nuclear states from protecting their arsenal p pursuing ever more advanced weapons. as well as those who were not nuclear states. we are confident and we have undertaken refused to make sure that our instincts are absolutely right. we are confident that all

reasonable concerns raised about the treaty back then, concerned about verification and the reliability of our own personal have now been addressed. the test ban treaty is as important as ever. as president obama said, we cannot succeed in this endeavor long. the endeavor meaning the reduction of nuclear weapons. he went on to say that we can lead it and we can start it. that is what we are doing. some of my friends in both parties have many questions about various aspects of what i have laid out. some of my own party may have trouble reconciling the investment of $7 million in our nuclear complex. some of the other party may worry we are relinquishing capabilities that have kept our country safe. both of these groups, we

respectfully disagree. as both the only nation to have ever used the nuclear weapon and as a strong proponent of non- proliferation, the u.s. has long embodied a start but inevitable contradiction. the horror of nuclear conflict may make the incurrence but the very existence of nuclear weapons leaves the human race ever at the brink of self destruction. particularly if the weapons fall into the wrong hands. many of these figures grew ambivalent about aspects of this nuclear order. ratings gave birth to the writings that nuclear deterrence argued passionately against the development of the hydrogen bomb. robert oppenheimer famously admitted after watching the

first mushroom cloud erupt from the device he helped design that he had become the destroyer of worlds. president obama is determined and the entire government is determined that the destroyed çworld oppenheimer feared must never become a reality. that is why we are pursuing the peace and security of the world without nuclear weapons. the awesome force must always be balanced by the weight of the shared responsibilities. every day, many of you in this room help bear that burden of professionalism, courage, and grace.

of grateful nation appreciate your service. but together, we have to demonstrate to the world we are going to live up to our responsibilities. together, we will leave this world toward a world less reliant on of their weapons. i thank you for all you do for the country and for taking the time to listen. may god bless america, may god protect our troops. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ ["stars and stripes forever" playing] ♪

clinton versus starr, on

"afterwords," part of "book tv" weekend. >> henry waxman, who has been in the house since 1975, spoke about the democratic legislative agenda and what he thinks are the differences between democrats and republicans. this is about an hour, 10 minutes. >> i can see before i started, this is an uplifting experience for me to be with you. i am delighted to be here. i think those who have been involved with this lecture series for including me as one of those to give a lecture in their honor. i was a student for seven years at ucla, four undergraduate and three years of law school. and even thought( i was a political science major, i did not have any of the three

honorees as professors. i do not know how i miss them. but they spoke in terms of making a connection between those involved in academia and those involved in the practical application of the theory in real life. so i feel very close to what they stood for. and this is a lecture series dedicated to their achievements, and i am honored to be here. let me thank also those involved in setting up the program. i had to reschedule myself at the last minute, and everybody was kind enough to excuse me for my inability to be here due to family considerations. and i thank you for your kindness that is extended to me and my family, for changing the date and allowing me to be here today.

just 13 months ago, president barack obama was sworn in as president of united states. he campaigned on hope and renewal of the american spirit and our political process. there was a sense, after his election, that with vigorous leadership we could confront the profound challenges we face. and i felt that, with barack obamaç selection, this was the moment where i could finally fulfilled the reasons why i saw election to congress in 1974, and in that the first four years, and maybe his eight years of his administration we would have the chance to pursue what i've always wanted to do, a real chance of finally reducing -- producing a real change, landmark legislation. health insurance that was affordable, accessible and high

quality for all americans. a sensible energy and environment policy that promoted energy independence, clean energy jobs, and reduced the a global warming pollution. prevailing over the tobacco lobby and its marketing practices. doing other important bills dealing with food safety, making sure he that the consumer was protected from abuse in the marketplace. producing open and accountable government. and a strong america, intelligently engaging, acting decisively could protect our security when we must. so this was a chance, as i saw it, of mary principal and politics and insuring that we used our political power responsibly to advance the agenda. because of that feeling, i decided to run for chairmanship of the energy and commerce committee.

i had been chairman of the subcommittee on health and environment, which is a subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee. after being chairman of that subcommittee for 16 years, the republicans took power in the house, i became the ranking member, which is the top minority member, on the government reform committee and became its chairman after the 2006 election, and changed its name to the oversight and government reform committee, because of the important oversight activities in that committee. and after two years, after the 2008 election, i ran for chairman against the person who had been chairman for a very long period of time, john dingell, lead and ranking member of that energy and commerce committee for 28 years. but i saw the opportunity that

we head of moving important, progressive legislation in health care and energy and other areasç, especially in that firt year of the president's new term, and i presented myself to the members of the democratic caucus and prevailed, and i became chairman of that committee. i knew and that committee we were going to be the key committee on two of the three highest priorities of the obama administration -- health care, energy, and the related issue of climate change, and his third was education, but in those first to grow, legislation had to be passed and had to come through committee. it also is very much part of my philosophy that government can, should and must be a force for good. if government were not involved, there is a real gap in the

opportunities that would be provided to young people in up -- and our citizens to advance to the place where they can reach their highest and full as potential, that government needed to be there to accomplish a very important goals. i wrote a book about it. and i wrote this book after i was approached by the publisher. the publisher sonny a picture -- the publisher saw me in a "time" magazine article when i first became chairman of the oversight committee. they said i was the scariest man in washington. that entry to the publisher. -- that in treat the publisher. he said there might be a book and this. -- that intrigued the publisher. a book that would illustrate that congress can work. if you look at the title of the book -- "the waxman report, how

congress will works with what you would think it was a tell- all book. but it is a book that congress really does do important things. goals too many obstacles -- and pushed back by a lot of the interest groups that did not want much insulation, but we were able to accomplish a great deal. we passed legislation revising the clean air act and dealing with toxic substances, toxic pollutants and acid rain legislation. we passed legislation dealing with the hiv aids epidemic, the ryan white act. we passed legislation providing competition for pharmaceuticalsç by getting generics approved. and we pass legislation to

provide for orphan drugs for people who had rare diseases, to the drug companies were not paying a lot of attention to them, because by definition, where diseases meant relatively few people were affected and there was not a huge profit potential is there might be for a drug that could affect and have sales for a much broader population. and after the oversight work that i hadç done, even as chairman ofok the health and environment subcommittee, particularly in the area of tobacco, and what the tobacco industry had been doing to put our kids, to smoke their brands -- to hook our kids in stay addicted to cigarettes, we wanted to patch -- to pass legislation to stop smoking on the airlines and get the fda to start regulating tobacco, the only product that when it is used as intended kills people

and is completely unregulated by the government. so we have accomplished a lot legislatively and a lot through oversight. they mentioned the hearings we had with alan greenspan, part of a series of how the economic collapse took place and what were the underpinnings of it. we heard from préval who were doing the bond ratings. -- from people doing the bond ratings, we heard from ahead of lehman brothers, which precipitated the decline in our stock market and our economy. we heard from the regulators, chris cox, alan greenspan and others. we looked into that issue, but we held oversight hearings about the waste, fraud and abuse of government, both in how we were doing in iraq in giving out contracts to companies like

halliburton and blackwater and findingç that our money was beg wasted, andç even the abuse of government in handlingç their hurricane katrina aftermath, where people saw that the government that was made up of cronies7s and people did not believe in government functioningçó would see their promises fulfilled when the government did not function after katrina. and the people who were displaced were put into trailers that were poisoning them from formaldehyde, and we even had people in washington, in the legal office saying, if there is for melo -- formaldehyde,xdç do not tell anybodyw3 about it because we might become liable. that was the response of government itself. ñrwe did get things accomplishe.

to me, it has always been a fundamental review -- the government must be involved. government must be involved to make sure the marketplace works. government must be involved to provide an opportunity for people to fulfill themselves. government@@@ @ v people like rush limbaugh and one back and the tea parties and sarah palin all espousing that same line -- do not look to

government. the net -- government cannot help you. government can do no good. this anti-government campaign has had a real impact in the thinking of many people of this country. they do not realize what government has done and can do. they do not realize the contributions to people in terms of social security and medicare. they do not realize the contributions that government has made in so many other areas. i felt that even some of the bills that we passed, once they becameç law, the public took tm for granted. of course we are not going to have cigarette smoking on the airlines. some of the people, as i look out in the audience, do remember those days, but a lot of younger people here would think it would be barbaric to go on an airplane flight for 5.5 hours and have to breathe in someone else's tobacco smoke people take for granted that they could go into

a supermarket and look at the nutritional labels so that they can be empowered to regulate their diets, because diet is so important to help. people have taken it for granted that we are doing something about air pollution. so a lot of things that have been done did not come easy. they were a result of fights that i go into in my book, and çñreventually successes that sometimes did not come right away but took years to achieve. but the bills and lost work. they worked better than any of us imagine. when we look at the record of those who oppose them, especially in the environmental area, where we were told the economy would be sacrificed, we had to make a choice do we what growth in our economy or a decline and job losses? if you look at the clean air act which is probably the strongest environmental law that we have seen in the federal government,

it worked to reduce pollution in an economy that has grown enormously, and the cost to reduce the pollution was a fraction of what was predicted at our hearings. you have to keep these things in mind when we hear the claims being made about legislation today. while i wanted this experience of passing legislation to be put to good use, with the new president and a chance to get things done. the first thing we took on was the energy-climate change bill. we moved on that bill first. president obama said, should we moveç on the bill first? and i love both bills equally, but i do favor the health bill even more. it is the mainstay of my presidency. i told him, that bill is coming, but we are not ready for it

right now. but we are ready to move forward on the energy bill, and i think we can achieve success on that bill in our committee and in the house, and after a success -- success breeds success. we will be ready to move on to health care. so we went forward with the energy bill. people did not think we could get a bill out of committee. and to set a deadline. we pushed everything towards that deadline to get that bill of committee. we had three goals in mind. to we in this country of our dependence on foreign oil. -- to wean this country off our dependence on foreign oil. the second goal, reduce carbon emissions that are doing so much harm. we needed to do this on the basis of what the scientists were telling us so that we did not reach the point where we

could not make a difference with what ever we did, that there would be a point where we would be beyond being able to remedy the situation,ç the global warming problem would take on a life of its own. and we did it for a third reason, the economy was suffering. as we moved to the new technologies in the area of energy, it could revitalize our economy and produce millions of jobs. we were able to do something that we were not able to do at other times on environmental legislation. we were able to work of a blueprint, established by a coalition of business ceos and environmental ceo's. by business ceos, i am talking about the people heading up the utility's, the coal industry, the gas, oil industries, general electric, some of the major industries in this country, who

wanted legislation because they wanted to know what the rules are going to be so they could make their investments for the future. there is money to be made by market -- establishing market forces to accomplish our environmental objectives. we were able to put the coalition together. -- by establishing a transition that would be mindful of the impact on the economy, produce the market forces to engender more research, and development of these new technologies, and try to ameliorate the impact in any particular region of the country. that was our goal. we were able to get a bill out of committee. we needed to work on a bipartisan basis, the way i view it. all the bills i have passed had hit republican support. they may not and then -- have republican support.

when we talked about the issues, we tried to enlist them in facing the problem and looking at the different solutions. the area of orphan drugs, some people said we needed a government takeover of the research and development of drugs for rare diseases. i said we have a vibrant drop -- private drug company in this country. let's give them the right incentives. republicans liked that idea. the drug companies like it, as well. we were able to get legislation through. çcompromise is notç a bad wor. compromise is essential to recognize the various competing interests and try to reconcile them as best we could. so i went to the republicans in our committee. first of all, i went to the rank republican. i said, let's work together. he said, i do not believe and

the sides. why do i want to work on legislation? are referred him to tom friedman articles. w3even as of today, tom friedman wrote another article. even if you do not believe it is fully in the science, is an insurance policy, let's do some of the things that would reduce our car and hamas -- carbon emissions. as a security policy, let's reduce our dependence on foreign oil. he was not moved. i met with republican members of the committee. some of them said they accepted the science that they were afraid of our solution. and i found them saying things are remembered hearing when we were dealing with the aids epidemic. the ranking republican member of the subcommitteeñr, he was from california. bill was a mean-spirited man. i do not to speak poorly of my colleagues, but i must be very

open about it. she wanted to criminalize gay people and those who had the disease he viewed as prime candidates to be shipped off to some island someplace, isolated. at a time when the epidemic was taking place, primarily among gay men who had no protections for their privacy or confidentiality of their medical records and who faced, before the americans of disability act, discrimination that was not illegal. they could lose their jobs, their health insurance, xdeverything. they were afraid. reasons to fear. there were republicans who said it, we do not agree with bill, but we are afraid to go all around him. and there were republicans who said, i do not want to take on joe barton. we ended up with one republican voting for the bill, mary bono

from palm springs area. we moved the bill for it to the house. with the extraordinary effort of speaker pelosi and her leadership team, and the hard work of the obama administration, we were able to get the bill passed. then we moved on to health care. healthcare, under president obama, he was a very modest proposal. he did not want to do anything radical. he said, let's leave people who have health insurance and are happy with it, leave them alone. let's work on thoseç people who do notok have health insurance, because they cannot get it due to discrimination on pre- existing medical conditions and the insurance companies will not sell them insurance for any price, or they are working people, for the most part, that could not buy health insurance. their employers would not give them insurance as an option. or they could not afford it. let's deal with those people by

pulling them together and bring them to an exchange that would give them choices for health insurance. one of the choices we hoped would have been a public option. but choices that would bring some transparency and some competition in the insurance markets. it was modest compared toç thoe who wanted a single payer system. was modest compared to those who wanted what was being called the wide-better proposal, which was a radical proposal. both of those would have gotten us out to date -- to universal coverage. they would have been disrupted and politically impossible. if you think we're having a difficult time with the bill to the house and senate passed, i can assure you we would have had an impossible job with anything more far reaching. but this was a good approach. that was approached we were working on it, with differences in the house and senate.

in the senate, because of the filibuster, which they needed 60 votes. we had 60 democratic votes. but we could not get the republicans in the house or the senate to work with us. now, that was not the first issue that would not work with us on. the first thing that president obama wanted to do to deal with the economy was a stimulus bill. and economists on the right and on the left were telling us, we need legislation, because there was no lending going on from the banks. and since that was being dried up, business was being dried up as well. we were losing jobs, and we needed government spending, through tax breaks and direct spending, to move the economy and stimulate it, while we are waiting to get past the difficulties we were facing.

despite conservative, republican economists who were urging is upon us, no republican in the house would vote for the stimulus bill. in the senate, three republicans voted for the stimulus bill. the two gentlelady is from maine, senator snowe and senator collins, and republican senator from pennsylvania, who decided he would support it as well. and when the senator from pennsylvania supported the legislation as a republican, he was told by the republican leadership, forget about your reelection. we are going to support a republican against you in the primary. and should you win, you will not be the chairman of the committee or a ranking member of the committee. you are taking yourself outside the family of the republicans. so, this kind of hardball has

been played by the republicans stand with enormous success and discipline. why would the republicans want to do this? president obama campaigned on the idea of reaching out and purging these partisan digs -- differences. i do not remember a president going to as great lengths as president obama has done to accomplish that goal. he spoke to the republican members of the congress, the house and the senate. he brought people to the white house. some of you here today were brought to the white house on health care because the president said, i want to engage this stakeholders. i want this to be an effort, not a democratic effort, but a bipartisan effort to deal with an extraordinary shame in our country, where we have a 40 million plus people who cannot get health insurance. and, if we do nothing, the system that we have is going to

be unsustainable. health care costs are going up too rapidly. we cannot sustain a program like medicare and medicaid for government spending. to me, it is amazing what people have come up to me and said, i do not want government-run health care. i am on medicare. leave it alone. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ n@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s it and let them have full responsibility. if we can ship them up, so much the better. senator demand from south carolina public the stated this

-- senator demint publicly stated this, this will be obama's waterloo. it used to be, once the election is over, we have to govern. then we go back to the elections and make our case. but the campaigns never end. it is forever campaigning. everything that is being done with the eye to the next election. discredit the abundant -- income and so we can become the incumbents. that has become -- discredit the incumbents so we can become the incumbents. i think the country deserves better. i'm sorry we are at this place. but i do not think it should defeat us. we have to do what we have to do, play the hand that has dealt us. in the house, we have struggled with our majority to get the majority of democrats to produce

a majority in the house. a lot of democrats have walked away from us. some of the democrats have gone to the white house and said, by an attempt -- i am in a tough district. i am better off if i vote and go on your legislation. i can get reelected. -- if i vote no. the president said, if you defeat the legislation, the democratic party will be out of the power. the ones who will be the first ago are those in the marginal districts. they will be the first ones to lose their reelection campaigns. then the president said something even more significant. why are you in public office? you can vote and no, you can vote and no, and then what you have to show for it? nothing. we have done our best to finally get our votes in line.

in the senate, after an extraordinary, messy effort, we got 60 votes on christmas eve for their version of health care reform. then with the election to fill, ironically enough, ted kennedy's senate seat, republicans have now taken a seat which will keep us from getting the 60 votes necessary to pass legislation, notwithstanding the filibuster. but when we adopted the budget in 2008, we adopted about it -- a budget reconciliation provision. it should be a reconciliation in a grander way. but it allows a majority to pass legislation consistent with a budget that was passed. and we made sure that health care could come under budget reconciliation. and they are very -- there are very arcane rules and limits of what can be done, but there are

some things what can be done. and some things that can correct the senate bill that is sitting in the house. so if we pass the senate bill, and reconciliation by a majority vote, the legislation will be completed. and the president will get the health care that he has wanted. now, people are saying, this is terrible what those democrats are trying to do. they are trying to pass legislation with a majority instead of 60 votes. i do want to tell you, not only is a legitimate under the rules. it is the way the republicans passed the big budget cuts for the president. the big tax cuts for the president. -- bush. it is the way they passed welfare reform, that was signed by president clinton. there is a long history of reconciliation being used to get major bills adopted. and it is going to have to be

the vehicle for us, if we are going to get legislation adopted this year to complete the achievements we expected to have done in the president's first year. well, i want to share these views with you, because i must say, i have never seen anybody like president obama. i got the opportunity to meet with him a number of times, to sit at the table with him, as we negotiated what we thought was going to be a way to bridge the differences between house and the senate bill. and i pushed things as far as i could. and achieved a lot of what we wanted in the legislation. in fact, it got to be of little amusing to me, because we would go in in a number of sessions -- the president of the united states sat down with house and senate members to work out the

specifics. he understood the specifics of the legislation. when they looked at how much money we could spend, the president would say, it would not like to hear this, henry, but we cannot afford this. i would say, mr. president, i understand we have to get 60 votes. i understand we have restrictions on us. but i am not giving up that easily. i think we can do it. we finally came this close to working out the agreements. and then the next tuesday was the election in massachusetts. we have got to go back and get the job done. we have got to get the job done in health care, and we have to get the job done in half -- in energy. in energy, people are already saying it is impossible. if we cannot get 60 votes for health care, how will we get 60 votes for an energy bill? there you need 60 votes. ironically enough, in my view, which may have an easier time getting the 60 votes for the energy bill, because with the

republicans being so partisan, senator lindsey graham said to me, who is a republican, a lot of republicans want to do something important. they know we have got to do something in this area. if for no other reason, he underscores this over and over again, for our national security to be protected from being dependent on foreign oil. lindsey graham, republican. joe lieberman, independent. john kerry, democrat. are working together to get a bill and the senate. i do not want to be a pollyanna about it. it will not be easy. i think we will have a chance to get a bill through in the senate as well. s a lot we have to do, but i hope that it -- as we move theseç things forward, especiay if we get bipartisan support in the senate and especially if the american people see that the republicans are being hypocritical about standing back

and not participating and are playing to the fierce, people's fears, as they talk about things that are clearly untrue like death panels and the fears of government involvement, which i çthink people should recognizes absolutely necessary if we are going to cover 36 million people, as our bill envisions doing. w3and holding down health care costs for the future. even getting a reduction in the deficit because of the efforts to hold down health care costs that is not just good for the health care area and the people involved, but it would be a way to get our deficit under control as well. but we have got to get back to being able to be civil, to talk with eachç other, to not approh issues as democrats versus republicans, and to start recognizing that we have got to

work together. that is my hope. it is the goal the president has set out. it is a goal i think he has so well articulated. it is a goal we are going to test next week, because he has invited the democratic and republican leaders and the leadership of the senate and house and the health care irritate in the health care area to meet together to talk about health care -- in the health care area to talk about health care. nevertheless, he will put out what he thinks ought to be the bill. he will call on the republicans to say, what do you have to say? what can you do to provide coverage? what can you do to provide cost control? what can you do to make the system better? and do not just tell us start from scratch, because it is not just the work of this last year, but it has been the work of many people over decades to get us to the point where we can finally achieved the goal that was set

out by it. truman and even before -- by harry truman and even before that we have an obligation as a society that cares about our economic well-being to reform health care and reform energy and to provide the jobs that our people need to get us out of the great recession and back on track. thank you very much for this chance to speak. i know there are going to the questions. [applause] w3>> henry, let me ask the first question. >> did you write it down on a car? >> no. i cannot write. anyway, tell us what you see happening in the senate to get both the energy bill and the health care bill going? the energy bill has not even

been taken up in the senate. so how do you see him making that possible? >> the energy bill has a lot of people who are supporting it. not just those who care about the in our mad. a lot of industry people, as i mentioned, -- not just those who care about ourç environment. the president has set out what he hopes to achieve in copenhagen. it tried to enlist other countries in trying to achieve those goals as well. if we are going to have an international effort to be successful, the u.s. has got to do more. we have got to show we are willing to meet those goals. and i think that we have the basis for bipartisan efforts in the senate on health care, as i mentioned -- on health care, we will have to use the parliamentary procedure of reconciliation. and let the majority work its

will and not be stymied by it one more senator elected to the senate of united states having a 49 senator -- having the 49th senator does not provide a majority. it provides and the chance to veto, but now they have a responsibility as well to work with us on this legislation. >> congressman, i am from the school of public affairs, the graduate school for urban planning and social were for and public policy at the school. dr. keller give the polite introduction from political science. i have to ask the tough questions from public affairs. one of the first questions we have as a tough one. you have seen a lot of presidential administrations now. after one year, what grade would

you give the obama administration? this is an academic institution. >> i see. i refuse to recognize the period of time and which i have to give him a grade. we are not any quarter basis, a semester basis. [laughter] you might say, we decided early on we will not do the first 100 days. we thought we would measured after the first year. i think the first year of the obama administration is now still taking place in 2010. so give us a little bit more time. i think he will get a very high score. i hope he will get an "a" on domestic policy. and of foreign policy, i think he has done very well in reestablishing a reputation of the united states, which had sunk so badly under president george w. bush. >> i gave grades here at ucla.

i was a reader. >> what grade would you have given that answer? >> an "a." there was a very young professor of political science. he started off teaching at ucla. he later went on to be, the dean -- president of brown university. he thought it was a good student. he asked me if i would read the blue books and give the greats. and i remember -- and give them grades. i remembered being so amazed at how many students could not articulate their thoughts. so, if they did complete sentences, they at least got a "c." i thought i was coherent and my answer. >> what are the prospects for financial regulation bill passage?

>> i think this is something that we have got to do. the house passed a very strong bill. the american public is quite angry about the abuse by our lending institutions and the banks. in fact, one of the ironies is republicans talk about the republicans talk about the bailout is if they -- as if they now that chairman dodd has said he is not running for reelection. he has a chance to get that legislation through and the senate.

he could not get richard shelby, the ranking republican, to work with him. but he is getting receptivity from this senator from texas -- corker from tennessee. who has indicated a willingness to work on a bipartisan basis on this legislation. the house has passed the bill. if the republicans want to filibuster a bill on trying to regulate financial institutions after what we have gone through, if i were being called in to advise them, i would think that is not a good idea. they have not asked for my advice, but i give it to them anyway. >> there are a number of cards and questions that came in about the attitude of the democrats. and they had words in them like -- week, why not stronger? i think this is addressed to both the congress and the senate and be administration. >> i have heard people say,

president obama was wrong in his approach. he should have said, this is what i want. he should not have waited for the senate to negotiate its proposal. he should have said, we have got to have the public option. we have got to have it this way. this is my proposal. vote on it. well, he could have done that. he would have been strong, but he would have lost. you cannot get 60 votes in the senate in that way. çthe clintons came out with a complete, a complicated proposal that, as you looked at it, in an academic sense, you could see how we could make a difference. but it was a proposal that was given to the congress that was a mistake, because congress needed to be involved. and we were involved in the house, starting with the obama proposal and came out with different results in the senate in a number of areas. but the senate had to work its

will. and it was not privy to see senator nelson -- not pretty to see senator nelson get a special treatment for nebraska. i thought he did himself a disservice back home. i think they thought that was game playing back home. if you really believe in it, if you thought reform is good, he should have been for. if he thought it was bad, he should have voted against it. what is this story? we now have established what eì+ are. we are now negotiating over the price. çi do not think that fully applies here, but it does give that appearance to people. i thought it became offensive. evenç senator nelson is saying, change the provision that i got through for nebraska, because i want all states to get one of% that i was given to nebraska. that is what we are going to have to do. -- to get 100% that i was given

to nebraska. president obama. he has been strong and pushing us. she has gone to a joint session of congress. he has used the bully pulpit. he has prodded and pushed us. that is what the president can do. has the congress and week? -- been weak? even with maturities, it has been difficult. in my committee, for example, there are -- even with majorities in his been difficult. even in my committee, there have been blue dogs, democrats, who have stopped the bill from getting out of my committee. we sat down. we had meeting after meeting. it was clear that every time they raised a problem, i said, there is a way to solve it. çbut they were not really tryig to solve the problem per se, they were afraid of the

legislation. it was ironic they kept on saying, just let the senate passed a bill. whatever the senate passes, we will vote for, because they expected the senate to have a weaker bill and they could be for the weaker bill. i understood what it was a politically, but they realized we had to get a bill passed out of the house and out of our committee. differences, which became the basis for the house-passed bill. >> a number of questions are about gridlock and the lack of confidence in government in general, but in the legislature, in the senate and congress in particular. that does not even bring up your old job at the california legislature. is this something we have to live with? are there reforms that can somehow break this gridlock in united states congress? and how serious is this crisis

of confidence in the public's lack of faith in the government and the congress now? >> i think a very serious. people are quite hostile to the ability of government to function, congress to accomplish the goals. even the president, as a leader of the party that is in power, cannot get his legislation passed into law. people are frustrated. they are also being fed a lot of reasons to be fearful. how can you trust the government? whatever government does and health care, it will cost you more money. and seniors are frightened about medicare. and people get frightened about taxes. they get frightened about -- when they hear these stories. for the longest time, we did not have a specific bill. it was a work inç progress as e decided with the final bill would be, in the house and the

senate, and the final bill between the house and senate. so, there are a lot of reasons for the problems in washington. the biggest reason, not just in health care, is the republican he political positioning against government, against the obama administration, against the democrats in congress, and they are getting away with it. but i do not think it is going to be as successful strategy all the way through, because at some point, people will say, wait a second. why didn't we get anything done? was it just the democrats? where were the republicans? what did they have to offer? what do they propose to do, and why should we turn to them? i think the party and no can get a very negative reaction, especially if the economy starts improving. the real, i believe, reason for so much of the hurt and anger in

this nation it is that the economy is doing so badly. there is so much unemployment and so much pain. if the economy starts picking up and people start remembering that this was not something that started when obama became president. it wasç already in full scale f economic recession by the time he took power. i think theç public will start realizing that they are being sold a bill of goods. >> very specific follow-up to that. if you were senator harry reid, would you let theç republicans filibuster the health bill? >> if i were senator reed, and i was being told there was going to be a filibuster on every bill, i would take some bills and say, let's have a book -- a filibuster. let the republicans go out there on and on on how they do not want the legislation. i think the best target for that

would be the financial reform bill. let them filibuster it. the health bill, we didç not wt to filibuster because wet( wantd to break the filibuster and get the legislation passed. çand that is why senator harry reid had to deal with a lot of difficult senate democrats. there were difficult. if you are a single senator, you can put at( hold on bills in denominations that are quite powerful. if you are a single senator who happens to be a democrat and theyç needed every single çdemocratic senator's votes,çu were in a position to ask for a lot. áuáhpjçñç possible. çin some of them work. a&h-r:lcdq+ çpossible. a&h-r:lcdq+ i thought heçç did a masterfub 2ao pass the bill on christmassy.

-- onç christmas eve. >> i have a dozen of these questions. these are students who have been working very hard on global warming issues, making telephone calls, whereas in your office and others. but if you were -- harrassing your office andç others, but if you were to give them advice in of fighting global warming and were those issues might be, what with that advice be? çmy ad"e to you is the same idvysed%çç give to a lot of outside groups. you have got*q forceful. çmççççhe's you have got tog the debateç in the right direction. (!ñ

you may not get everythingç you want. if you get everything you want, you may -- keep pushing for the right policies. that does not mean that if we do get a chance to get a bill through, you do not want people to vote against it. çyou should say vote forç this çbill and strengthen it. try to make it stronger than it is. you have got to play a very critical and important role of legislative process. i think the public interest, lobbying -- public-interest lobbying is often dismissed because theç real lobbyists hae so much money to spend. they seem, by"ttu of everybody else, to be so much more formidable. do not underestimate yourself. you represent public opinion. we've seen ballot proposals in

california where the tobacco industry and others will sponsor the proposal and all the anti tobacco groups have to say, is this has to -- this is paid for by the tobacco industry. and it goes down. let people know what is going on and why we need to get these provisions adopted into law. i too was so much for the work you are doing. just not attack me when i have to make a compromise. >> i have a couple questions about current health care costs, and in particular, the and the rate hikes. -- the anthem rate hikes. how can those be addressed? >> we will have a hearing next tuesday on toyota. and wednesday arnie -- on the anthem health care increases. wednesday, we go into the summit. we wanted to illustrate this anthem situation is a clear

reason we need health reformn because the insurance companies, especially in the individual insurance market, are looking to avoid covering people. they do not want to spread the risk. they want to reduce their risk. so they cherry pick the people they will get insurance to. i want to question them about who faces these increases in costs saw. . some people have suggested that the ones to are being asked to pay the largest increase in their insurance costs are people that the insurance companies, and them and others, feel have too good a policy -- anthem an others. d others. they want to minimize what the insurance companies have to pay. some of the people that would lose their insurance because

they cannot afford it, are going to be the healthier people, because healthier people will say, i cannot afford it and i will take a chance. people who are sick are. to say, i cannot afford it, but i cannot -- people who are sick will say,mçw3 i cannot afford, but i cannot take that chance. i need it desperately. it underscores the reality. in the individual insurance market, the insurance companies are tryingç to cherry pick to avoid people who are most likely to get sick and cost them money. if that is antithetical toçç t insurance ought to be. and that isç what we need to point out with anthem,ç and how they are not unique. other insurance companies are doing the same thing, unless we reform the system. >> i have a number of questions,

congressman, on the issue of transportation. we have an urban planning department. they range from what can congress do to get more people walking in@@@ @ @ @ @ will be operated by a battery or hybrid cars that will not be run at strictly on gasoline -- which is the primary basis for the oil

that we have to bring in from other countries. we need, however, to spend more money in the areas of mass transit. we have done a lot more in that area up by virtue of the stimulus bill that was adopted at the beginning of last year -- 2009. . .

it is a problem for the people who live near the airport. it is a safety concern. there is a pollution concern as well. we have been trying to deal with it. santa monica has been trying to do something, but it is a federally-run airport. we are trying to provide changes by telling the people at the federal aviation commission they have got to be more mindful of the concerns of the santa monica airport, but that has been a tough issue, and we're still struggling. >> two more issues. one is a speculative question. that is if you had the democratic majority now that came in 1964 and health care

legislation were peeinbeing put together, what would that be? >> there was that window. there was the tragedy of president kennedy. we could not kid medicare through. we were reading end popular publications about congress -- we were reading in popular publications about how congress could not do anything. then in 1964, with the enormous majority elected in the lyndon johnson landslide, we had the opportunity to pass an enormous amount of legislation.

he was a skillful negotiator, but the public support was there as well. that predated the propaganda that became so popular in the election. the government could not be trusted. people had their concerns about government, but they knew things would not happen unless the government were able to accomplish it. at that moment, could we have had a national health insurance adopted? probably not. the american medical association was strongly against this bill. the republicans were strongly against it, although we have a liberal and progressive republicans in those days. we have a very few now, so we had some bipartisan support for medicare legislation.

it is not just the numbers of one party or the other in our -- in power. if we had fewer conservative democrats and more liberal republicans, we would probably have an easier time to get progress of legislation through. it would isolate those in the republican party who are just no. they would be an aberration of republicans who could validate some of the ideas of medicare and other issues on the agenda, but i think we are not going to pass a national health insurance bill, a single payer bill in one fell swoop. we need to put things in place just as security is put in place. then it became the basis for

changes over the years that made social security better. the same is true for medicare. it has become a better system once it was put in place. i think something like what was proposed would be a better accomplishment and one we would hope to see, even if we had the kind of democratic majority we had in 1964, and the result in 1966 was the other way, and republicans came back, winning an enormous amount of seats. republicans are going to pick up more this november if no other reason than that it is a non- presidential election year. some of those inspired by obama the candidates are not going to come out and vote. now they are not going to be out there in the same numbers in the next one, so that as part of

the nature of things. what we need to do is break down the partisan barrier, where the republicans have to recognize their long-term interest is not to be the party of the south, a party of 30 batters -- of teabaggers, of people who say no and to isolate themselves from the independencnts. they have not offered a positive appeal. they have offered a - 1. it will be interesting to watch whether we can give the kind of majority we need and the support to get things through. once we get health care passed and the president starts talking about what is in that film, i

think it will be enormously popular. people have not heard the good things about the bill. they have heard the negative things, a lot of them not true regan we're hearing about transparency in the marketplace and competition in these exchanges. new ways we're trying to hold down health-care costs are redirecting the way it is processed, by trying to make changes for everybody. i think it is going to be a popular bill, and even though it is now being accused as socialism as well as medicare, i think it will be very popular. >> one more question. i have four cards in my head. three of them just say

afghanistan with a question mark. >> that is a good question. the president went through the process of trying to figure out, among a lot of fun and not very good alternatives, what to do -- a lot of not very good alternative, what to do, and he has decided to make a commitment for a limited time to see if we can turn things around. i hope he is right, but they fear he may be wrong. we have seen this too many times. i am skeptical. i have not made up my mind, but it seems to me we are again putting our hopes in the hands of corrupt leaders who do not have the support of their own people president karzai after we

win these military victims once the afghans to run their own affairs, and i am skeptical. we will see what develops, and this is a harder question then all the others. -- then all the others. we have a military that is over extended, and we have to decide what our priorities are in this area, and i think afghanistan does not harbor al qaeda as much as pakistan, and it is a broader problem. with our own military, it strikes me ask throwing good lives after the losses we have already occurred. that is my answer, and i am

sticking to it until i get more arguments. thank you very much. [applause]

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i remember, as i was preparing for this operation and worked at the graduate school in monterey and our gathering of academics that knew a lot about afghanistan and one of them put his arm around me. he is a fairly senior fellow and he put his arm around me and said son, you got two jobs. don't lose the city and don't

lose the airfield until the big boys decide what is going to happen here. i took that to heart. i have to tell you. when we arrived in 2009, we were entirely underresourced and had been for a long time. through nobody's fault but it is just the way it was. would have, should have, could have, if we looked back we could say we should have been doing counterinsurgency from the beginning but in 2009, the realities were we were dealing handily with the military insurgency and we were losing ground in the insurgency. we didn't lose, but we were not winning. next slide. the strategic context, and i will summarize here is important. in 2009, we were in severe stagnation stalemate in afghanistan and in our home population, certainly in canada. we hasn't translated military

action into something positive on the groundñr and so, we weren some trouble. we also had, for canada, very clearly, indications that 2011 was going to be the end of the canadian military commitment so there was a time period as well. this period demanded transition and we needed to change operations very quickly. resource limitations were going to change. obama had been elected. the previous administration had put one surge in that was going to arrive during our tour and o obama administration changed the focus from exclusively focused on iraq to a more determined focus on afghanistan. and that was really -- marks the third age. 2009 to whenever is an

adequately resourced, both on the military and civilian fronts, period, where the alliance will be able to do all of the right things in terms of secretarytorial reform and in terms of -- sectoral reform and the military so afghanistan can begin to recover. those three distinct ages, that third age started as we arrived. what i'm telling you, what we were perceiving before we arrived and i'll tell you what we did about it.çó kandahar city was becoming vitally important. it was very plain to us that as the lens shifted from iraq to afghanistan, it was going to tighten down on kandahar and essentially it is the epicenter

of the insurgency. i don't quivel at all about, you know, the assignment of resources. clearly the vital ground is here in kandahar. as that lens tightened, the international community started to discover really what were the challenges there, it would become the report card of the alliance in terms of its operations. success or failure in kandahar is success or failure in this mission. next slide. for me as a commander about to land in kandahar, some military factors were uppermost in my mind. time and forces available were most important. we were, as i said before, we were definitely running out of time. the afghan and canadian and other domestic populations were growing weary of a lack of definitive, tangible results ani

i think it is announcement warfare that one must protect through positive results the opinion of your population. we were not getting those. we were putting ourselves well in battle but were not translating battle into something that meant something. therefore we had no evidence of forward momentum in something as complex as a counterinsurgency. we could not achieve thatfect that is so critical in this fight but indeed, we were about to be reinforced. we essentially doubled the canadian capacity. we were soon to get far more forces into kandahar. the insurgency spread through

the insidious fear that froze that poblation into inaction. they couldn't commit. there was only enough military force to achieve combat victory and their lives weren't changing. if you're a family in kandahar, hearing about the billions of dollars that are pouring into kabul and the aspirations of the international community, as stated time and time again, but you were not seeing it in your hometown, you're like any population that hears of a government program but you're not getting any of it. we all deal with that. many of the dynamics that occur in afghanistan, we can relate to at a community level and our whole of government efforts, those u.s.a. i.d., the state department, all of the civilian acts that have been brought into kandahar and afghanistan were

working very hard. talented, dedicated people but not producing tangible change for the communities either. no community could feel the sum of the parts. therefore we were losing, or we were not winning. it is a fine line, içó know. next slide. i want to tell you a little bit about the insurgency. militarily, they are not a great insurgency, in my mind not because i fought them but they will not stand out as a great insurgency. militarily, they are marginally effective. they use some weapons to effect including improvised exemployees i devices. to keep a population intransigent.

they have a serious problem. in that although they remain quite potent at this unarmed intimidation, they don't have a plançó that would take them to i next step. what would happen, if in fact, their violence was to result in them having some element of power? they don't have a message. this is not a populace movement. the vast majority of people are frozen into unaction, unable to commit. the taliban, therefore, have aì+ problem because they have no plan.ñrr they have no platform. they have already had their go and it was largely rejected. not a popular movement so they are a spoiler. and that's key to understanding

the dynamic, when you start making your military plans. next slide. a simple view of the insurgency will show you that on the ground, they stage and manage their resources such that they threaten to isolate the city of kandahar. they operate from the north, the south and the west. to try and strangle the city. threaten the seed of power. threaten the afghani military forces. disregret the government. disregret the alliance effort. and this is -- it is impossible to deal with if you're not large enough. an afghan police force that on any given day causes more problems than it is worth.

we had on many occasions beat them to a standstill militarily, again, it wasn't translating. next slide. what is absolutely essential to understand? in kandahar is where does the population live. you must know where the population is. that slide shows you that 85% of the pop lagselation of kandahar province lives within four miles of kandahar city. we fought for years been four miles of that in the course of that three years, that population became more and more at risk. middle period that, population was undermined so we knew that that population needed to be serviced. now i want to tell you, you know, my sort of home grown view of how to -- what is a

counterinsurgency fight? what does it feel like? imagine a community at risk. we've got them in north america. communities at severe risk where you have a lack of an authority structure. a lack of education. gang itch. drugs. disenfranchised youth. we have communities like that in canada and indeed in the united states. throw into that mix, a heavily armed bike gang that would stop you from doing anything about that, that would prevent you physically from extending government services or any benevolent acts to that community just so you would look bad and go fix that fast. go deal with that quickly surrounded by 1,000 other communities at risk and a country at risk and put it

15,000 kilometers away. that's what we're dealing with here. this is as much about the social and political and economic fabric of this country as it is about the taliban. the taliban, as i say, are a spoiler and can prevent the achievement of this repair, this recovery of these communities. the life expectancy in kandahar province is 46 years of age. this country has been at war or in conflict for 33 years. almost everybody alive in kandahar province has been doing nothing but surviving their entire lives and in that environment, your loyalty structure starts to change. your loyalty to yourself, your family, your subtribe, your tribe and your business before you are loyal or able to be loyal to any sense of national

or level or aspirations or agendas. this population has been badly damaged on every level. and so it is not an armed struggle alone. i love it when people tell me it is not going to be won by the military alone. that's our doctrine. of course it is not. it needs to be our doctrine. those communities living in that 85% of the population that really need the focus of our effort. next slide. i'm not going to try to make you all experts on counterinsurgency today. this is general advance's simple view of how this works. if you want to move through a stable and able insurgency to allow adequate services to extend to the population then

there are a lot of people at play. there are a lot of actors whose effects must be marshalled and aligned working together in harmony so you can produce some element of human security and stability. now i would like to tell you, i learned something about security. the word security. it is not a good word. we use it all the time and i think we understand it but it is not a particularly useful word in a counterinsurgency environment because it sort of points to one facet of the challenge. i found in kandahar province that the provision of security is elusive. it doesn't really exist. and it can be easily compromised. security at the end of a gun isn't security at all. it is defense. and no community is particularly impressed when they have to be defended. if your hometown was being depended by your police then i

dare say you're not living in a very good home. afghans think the same way. if they have to be defended, there is nothing that happens beyond armed defense, it is a problem for them. you need to move very, very quickly from that sense of military security to something resembling stability and stability can only be brought to bear if you have all of those actors. afghan government, international government employees. n.g.o.'s. all of those people that can bring to bear the tools, the expertise and the funds that will allow for the repair of that social and political and economic fabric that is so vital. and when you to that, that community starts to get involved. they don't get involved in armed defense or "security." but they do get involved in stability. they have a vested interest in their town.

when they start to see the worth of the risk to get involved, to work with government, to take advantage of the international community's aspirations of how things can improve then they start to get involved in what we would call that one dimensional aspect of security. they start to call in, hey, there is a guy in my backyard with a gun. i don't know who he is. they phone in. there is an i.e.d. on the road right there. communities involved, motivated their own destiny, in partnership with their government and the alliance forces for as long as we are there are communities that will defeat the insurgency, and there is noo way. next slide. so we learned that battlefield success does not equal mission success. populations only celebrate results. certainly in canada, we don't celebrate the battle of

vinny ridge because we dealt handily with it. we celebrate it because it was the beginning of the birth of a nation standing on its own two feet. none of us celebrate d-day because of the slaughter that occurred on the beaches because we won that day. no population celebrates battle. for three years we only had battle to celebrate. yes, there was some incremental improvement in some sectoral way. where do you show the high points of success in unraveling the challenges of aed community? how do you get a -- of a damaged community?

how do you get to a population to celebrate like we would celebrate in linear warfare. you cross the line today. you feel like you're winning. there is nothing here that necessarily makes you feel like you're winning. we had to think about that. how do you engage your own populations and indeed the population that you're servicing to recognize success and in fact, invest themselves in it either politically or materially on the ground. it is true. in warfare, that we attack and defend centers of gravity. the center of gravity that we are servicing or attacking, if you will, is the population in kandahar or afghanistan. that which we are defending and it is true almost in every aspect of warfare is your own population. to protect your population's motivation, public willing l and

understanding of the environment and in my view, we have failed in this regard. we have failed badly. our populations do not understand this war. they don't understand counterinsurgency. to the extent that public policy options began to close. a population disengaged or uninformed or seeing only one small side of the equation will not be engage enough to commit to the long term or to the depth and detail that you need to be engaged in and so we needed in 2009 to transition such that battlefield success was not all that we were trying to celebrate. that we could celebrate something that came as close as possible to that liberation of the town of holland in that second world war. next slide. so, you know, the slide previous

to this, of the map, you had a lot of red, enemy lines. this is how i look at kandahar on any given day. where are we going to build and where will we use military force selectively to achieve success to protect that which we were trying to build and hold? next slide. the intent, therefore for my headquarters and the team that went in was to stabilize. that was a new policy, by the way. it is not easy to enter into a stabilization mode because it demands action on multipartners that are not necessarily accustomed to getting military orders to do something. but it had to be combined together. disrupt military forces by exception when we needed to. there was unfortunately lots of that because 2009 was also aven

age when everybody was trying harder, including the enemy. the efforts to discredit the election. on the day it would have been a disaster had we left the taliban unmolesteded a they prepared for that day. next slide. also key, was to concentrate -- not only get more forces and more resources but celebrity and actually put our area of populations on to that population so that is a subset of the province within 30 or 40 kilometers of the city. these things are critical. you may not know all of these areas intimately but i can tell you that odd-looking shape there, i know it looks like a humaning oran of some sort but it contains 85% of the

population. concentrate our efforts there. at least to get some action. huge challenge. tangible. rapid effects coordinating military and civilian activities. there are lots of n.g.o.'s but they are not easily aligned with military activity. thinker i'd logical differences. there are -- ideological differences. you need an element of precision and harmony as you try to unral something as complex as the social ills that beset some of these communities and you can't do it alone. it need to be part of the military. also some of the civilian agencies of government do not have at their disposal, they have bright people and

tremendous aspirations but not the tools that allow them to produce tangible, tactical effects in conflict. state departments, aid agencies and so on are not necessarily designed to work at that point and produce tactical effects but i have to tell you something. the operational art, that which wins war translates effective tactics into strategic objectives. the tactical detail counts. you must use the right techniques with the right people in the right amounts on the right population. it cannot be legislated into being. you have to work for it. you need to get tactical expressions that produce effects in an immediate way for that population. they have lived in kandahar,

certainly with promise after promise after promise. those promises had to materialize. to say afghan governance is weak is an understatement, of course. not only is it weak, it is corrupt. but in this environment of survival mode that i described to you earlier, the powerful act in that environment can act selfishly. do act selfishly. they are out for themselves, for their business, liss it or illicit. for their families. and? this environment, for their families. it is sometimes something that governance can't extend. and so there are so many fass s to that, to the threats against the population. some of them armed and dangerous

like the taliban, others are more insidious, embedded in the population. afghan governance suffers from its lack of ability to extend because much of the white collar has turned its attention away from afghanistan, has either fled in the face of enemy activity or it has died off. so to take a good idea for the mayor of kandahar city, who is a good man, to say i need to do this, to get that to happen, there is a physical absence of capacity. so you need to address that. and i would say here, that i found from my perch in canned that are the canada perceptions of what we were doing were

seriously out of step with what was actually on the ground. seriously out of step, which is dangerous, of course. and those people who are not accountable for the word of the other, would throw things into the mix, throw ideas into the mix that would confuse our population. why are you here when you can be here? why do this when you can do that? without any idea what they are talking about. and so, the challenges for us were to try and at least start to address that iconic image that sits in canadians' minds. it is that soldier coming home in a casket on an airplane. i am deeply grateful that my nation mourns every time a soldier dies and i am deeply grateful for how well we treat our fallen warriors and their families but we have made 140

deaths into such a monumental number without anything else to celebrate. that's what people focus on. the iconic motion of this mission needs to change from us appearing as victims to producing effects on the ground. that liberation of holland scenario that canadians can celebrate. is it worth it? is at least well-informed. next slide. now, most of that was what we were thinking before we went in and the things about warfare is you got to get specific at some point and so all of that theory, but we had to come up with the how and where? how do you really do this? how do wtu really do it? next slide. and this is where the village

operations came from. some of you may be aware of them. it is a fairly straightforward equation. the population lives in cities and towns and counterinsurgencies -- and therefore you need to be present in those cities and towns. add in the insensitivity to tribal mix and you can pick your towns and pick your target areas and this is what we did. it is a fairly straightforward idea, infinitely complex in execution and doesn't always work out well. we make mistakes but when you start to invest yourself in the population they are a little bit more forgiving and start to help you. next slide. stabilization, a town south of

districtñi governmen+d badly damaged through many years of warfare, still craters from soviet artillery in and out of town. what was really required here is a good study and analysis before went in. thoughtful approach. detailed consultation with all actors, political andñiñrñiçó nongovernmental.ñi and then on the dayñiñr4cd move through thu =]9mçó soñiñr you assure yourself so there are no armed threats presentñi and the were not and we could tell them that we were coming. tell the taliban you're coming, they won't stand and fight. they are afraid. they sprinkle a few i.e.d.'s around, the population tells you where they are because you shape the environment and give them an indication what you're all about and for the first time they start to see something other

than warfare. i maintain that canada's greatest strategic asset in this part is that smiling canadian soldier who having rid that town of its menace walks up to a tribal elder orvilleage counselor, shakes his hand and says i'm going stay and help you. he is the typical atmosphere of all of the good things that can happen. it is not all us doing it. we set deprns the afghans to do it themselves. employment. microeconomy starts to bounce back. kids go to school. they can get their polio vaccinations. the medical clinic opens up. as that starts to happen, the environment improves. the u.n. shows up. those marquee n.g.o.'s start to show up and that town and the towns that follow start to

invest in this. y, there are setbacks. yes, the enemy can attack us and in fact, the taliban hate this because they have got nothing to counter it. there is no counternair ty. and when they -- counternarrative. when they attack this, they are cutting off the nose to spite their face. just like you can't win if you don't do this, you lose if you attack it and they have got serious problem, and this, ladies and gentlemen, is the essence of what general mcchrystal has been talking about. this will grow in the future in canada. next slide. it grows fast. way up there in the upper right hand corner is where the town is. it grew to other villages rapidly. it is a gafflizing influence.

the population goes wow, they start to see the sum of the parts. this is what you're about. it is not just gunfire in my backyard. there is more to this. their government shows and it starts to become exciting and you need a little bit of excitement. winning a counterinsurgency is very much like making political excitement occur. people have got to get motivated. next sleight. and it grew more. taking a time -- town that was one of the most difficult challenges was one of these towns here and on the day the villagers welcomed the unit in and showed them where the i.e.d.'s were an said let's get to work. next slide. simply speaking in this condensed oombings with more forces available to us, we were able to visualize this. you got to start somewhere.

it grows. very, very quickly and it grows some more. you have to do some shaping. you do some shaping operations to accustom the population to the responsibilities and obligations to be involved in this and pretty soon, you get that. now, just imagine that green meaning starting to stabilize. imagine that, also occurring in a city and the environments to the north and to the west. that in my opinion is our strategic plan. a definite stabilizing trends in 85% of the population and we want to do that by 2011. that's what we have got to try and achieve. that's consistency, certainly with general mcchrystal and general rodriguez to see our military obligations.

set conditions. it won't be done. stabilizing. not stabilize. upward trends. positive movement. doing the right things and firing on all sill dars. -- cylinders. the population starts to come along. that's really what we're attempting to achieve and that can grow with more forces and future operations later on in the spring and summer will solidify that and perhaps be able to expand. next slide. the single most persistent threats, ladies and gentlemen, to success in afghanistan, will be the afghan people and their government. it is themselves. it is not that they don't deserve to win. don't deserve to have a country that works but remember that

shattered society. that skewed loyalty structure. add to the mix, those selfish, powerful actors and add years of warfare where we haven't been producing the results and the skepticism can arrive. that affects the public mind. when will they commit and how will they do so? let's not forget that this population, adequately motivated can do pretty much whatever it wants. it is getting it motivated. a fairly small group of talent, as the law and order party motivated and rid themselves of the enemy in a short period of time. afghan government responsibilities, nongovernment responsibilities, societyal

obligations to each other, motivate them to achieve that. i always end off on a thing about i.e.d.'s. you're all familiar with the term. improvised explosive device. it is what kills our soldiers the most. the i.e.d. is the weapon of the insurgency. it is their artillery. it is their mind. it is just the weapon. it is easy to make. and widespread. but i can tell you that the defeat of the i.e.d. is not an arms race type environment where you're trying to find better methods to debit them or find better explosives. you have to do that. but the population will defeat the i.i.d..

they see them buried and know when they are being made. it is really about the population. i.e.d.'s, like crime, can happen but a population, adequately engaged, your towns are safe where you live not because of the police but because of you. you pick up the phone and say there is somebody doing this. that's what needs to happen in afghanistan. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> general, thank you very much for that outstanding presentation and discussion. i think you have put a lot of important issues on the table. we have a little bit under 30 minutes and i would like to get into a bit of a conversation and bring in colleagues from the audience so that we can have a real discussion.

but i wanted to first of all some key things that the impression you left on me and some key things that you said. we didn't lose but we were not winning. success or failure, kandahar, success or failure of the mission. battle of the victory. the taliban is a spoiler with no plan. the challenge of aligning n.g.o.'s with the military. the challenge is changing iconic image from one of victims to success, to impact that calculation of is it worth it? you have put a lot of issues that i hope we can work through but i wanted to kick off our conversation by asking one question about from the coalition perspective and one from the afghan perspective. you said that one of the most powerful tools was the canadian soldier walking into the village with a smile on his face saying i'm here to stay. >> and i'm going to help.

>> exactly. one of the things we had a chance to chat about before today's session was the perception on the ground. are we there to stay? given the announcement of the u.s. surge, came in the context of july 2011, where we get a drawdown. obviously secretary rasmussen and secretary gates, it does not mean that it is out there. others have the 2011 date also. looming over the horizon. how has the debate in our capitals translated in our resolve to stay in the fight and how has that impact there in cooperation with the coalition? >> it is a great question because it was remarkable to me how well informed a lot of the afghans were. certainly some, you know, the i

tin rant farmers perhaps were not as well informed but they share information. they are well aware of the -- and even more astute, very capable in this information environment of the taliban themselves who know even better. they can spread words through the population. i think the -- that the afghans are a little bit more hopeful than sometimes they are given credit for or at least positive about our engagement. a little more trusting. they don't necessarily commit until they see the results but they -- 18 months is a fairly lengthy time. i will tell you from a -- you know, when we would speak to them, it is not that the alliance is all of a sudden going to disappear in 2011 but

there needs to be a period of time where afghans start to manage this themselves. i remember that period where the population essentially rid themselves -- the population got involved. you can't subcontract success to somebody else. it can't just be the job of the army or the police or the interior. it is everybody together. everybody can deal with this. by 2011 and beyond, they can do it. they will do it if adequately motivated. there is a fine balance, i think to it between never ending contribution at the level that we're at and this is a suggestion is that you have to have with them -- discussion that you have to have with them because at some point they are going to take it over. if we ask do you want us here? of course not.

most televisionxd programs will cut it off at the no. if you listen to the rest of the sentence, we are glad you're here now. we try and sound bite it and back in our own capital. so i think they dietschely appreciate it. -- deeply appreciate it. that just being our intent and are looking forward to the day when they can take it over. an unending commitment i think would be wrong as well, in their mindset. >> before i open it up to the audience, i just wanted to follow on that with a question from the afghan perspective. you concluded your presentation referring to one of those greatest threats that still remains, lack of effective governance. you talk about this and how obviously, your operation, are

creating -- particular afghans and afghan institutions. there has been a lot of focus and discussion and concern about the role of afghan ministries and the government and being able to pick up that part of the equation. how did you see this as you were winding up your tour in kandahar, given that part of the success, parts of the ability to be able to withdraw successfully as after gans picking up that burden, picking up that responsibility. how -- what do you see coming out of kabul versus coming out of provincial authorities, kandahar. what does that suggest as far as them being able to play that role? the afghans have to pick up and lead this process, yet i think in many of our capitals, the debate, as we watch it unfold

there is the fear of corruption and lack of governance. what do you take away from your experience in kandahar and how do you see the prospects for success? >> i see that it is entirely possible to occur. we did see it at the local level village and district level. the recuperation. of government services. and i think at that the low, tactical level should be able to sponsor that. whether or not afghan minute industries have the capacity, this is just the physical capacity, is something i know the canadian government activities are working on, build capacity. but whether or not they will take full advantage, full responsibility for the nature of the insurgency, as it is today,

and therefore start to campaign adequately along these multilines of effort that need to occur, remains to be seen. it is an emergency. it needs to be dealt with as such. they have got an enormous problem. rebuild their government and country at the same time it is dealing with an emergency that our nations would have difficulty dealing with if it were in our midst so it is a monumental effort. i believe that they absolutely have the desire. they lack capacity. there are some mechanical blockages in their society with some of these powerful actors who act selfishly first. whether that manifests itself in corruption or just bad business. that needs to be dealt with, for sure. it is a portion of the equation that needs to be dealt with. and ultimately, i think it comes

down to motivation. if they are truly motivated, at all levels of government and society, i think they can deal with it. i'm optimistic that it can happen but i'm a realist as to whether or not it will. >> almost bring some audience members into this discussion. let's start with a board member in the front row. who has the mic? terrific. >> thank you very much. fascinating presentation. there has been a certain amount of talk. >> please identify yourself. >> roger kerr. there has been a certain amount of talk around here about the desirability of working with, i think they are now called regional leaders. sometimes known as warlords in other terminology. give them an incentive, perhaps a monetary incentive, or other

incentives to work with us. in other words to have them be agents for change, as some friend of mine says you can't buy them but you can rent them for a while. i just wondered what you think of that as a kind of strategy? >> i, you know, to extend the analogy, i don't think renting is a long-term answer to anything. whether it is homeownership or dealing with that. interesting ux you know, sometimes you have -- interesting, you know, sometimes you have to partner with those who are able. those who are able have survival skills that have lasted multi generations. this would characterize some of the partnerships we formed in the early days in post 9/11. you know, you have got to get some things done so you deal with the most able.

they are not manifestly bad people but they have been shaped by their environment. i think it is important that we focus our efforts on the legitimate institutions of government, both official and tribal. and help them repair their societyal fabric as they would have it done. and aid them in where we deal with the powerful, very powerful people. shape it such that hay don't exceed cultural marks. this is what has happened across the country. some of the most powerful and perhaps most selfish have exceeded cultural mark so the society has recoiled. there is an element of how they do business that will always be present. but if you're constantly exceeding cultural marks and the population is getting no material benefit or support, you

know, bottom of the u.n. indices then the population is essentially -- it is despondant. you have to manage those relationships carefully and we try to. on any given day sometimes you need those powerful actors a lot and sometimes they need you. over time i think it is up to afghan and it is the president and his regime that needs to manage how they work with these unofficial but powerful actors just like we do in our society. >> i want to turn to a colleague with a lot of experience. >> my name is christina lamb. i was very interested in your presentation. i was intrigued when you said you thought in this third, current stage that the coalition is now adequately resourced

because even with the surge, announced by obama, there will be 140,000 troops which is what the russians had at the most. are there military commanders -- other military commanders said to really deal with the taliban, they would need 500,000. so i was intrigued by that and also you said that the taliban don't have a message. is it one of the problems that we have underestimated the taliban up until now, that they have actually been much more effective than we gave credit to and in that context, you talked, you didn't mention pakistan but you talked about the advantage they had in creating a safe haven when you talked about motivating the population to rise up against the taliban in a way they did with the mudge dean. -- mudged dean if you can

comment on that. >> where to start. why don't you ask me a heart question? [laughter] i honestly believe that working with troop figures is -- it is a bit of a game. i trust general mcchrystal's opinion of what he needs and how he employees forces. given x number of soldiers, you know, you need to use the following techniques. fewer number, different tech techniques, more, different techniques. a lot of times people will quote that larger figure if you are going to strictly militarily deal with the taliban. if your strategy is one facet, which is that you're on your own and you're going to crush the taliban. i come from a school where the

taliban will be made irrelevant over time through the population and you don't necessarily best create irrelevance by putting just through putting more soldiers on the ground. they are a part of the equation. it is necessary. more critical are their own soldiers, afghan security forces and the efforts to rehabilitate them. and so, i believe that i certainly come at this question from the angle of what technique would i use with those forces if they are condition centers. this is what the soviets didn't. they were not condition centers for the rehabilitation of society in all of this. so they didn't necessarily uniformly use all of these techniques and i really only have expertise in the south. there may be differences to this equation elsewhere in the

country, in the east and in the north but i know in the south, technique matters and no amount of force, if used exclusively, will solve this problem because even if you did defeat the taliban militarily, you still have this badly damaged, fractured society. that would be ripe for other insurgencies. so i think that is most critical but the taliban, as a -- i don't underestimate them, i can tell you that. they are lethal, but they are not working on a positive messaging campaign with the people so they can spread fear, dissent, you know, implant negative ideas but they are not exactly vying for popular

support. they are kind of relying that it will happen because the international community represents a foreign presence and i think they are underestimating their own population and are certainly underestimating us. so we ought not to ever underestimate them. i do believe that pakistan is essentially to the equation. and ultimately as been mentioned by the current administration in the states that it is a regional approach that is essential so you have to start somewhere. we started in a town, the alliance is starting in afghanistan, to stabilize that. and stabilize the critically important parts of the nation firmly believe there will be an element in afghanistan forever like there is in some modern european states and as we have delt with elsewhere in the

world, is it politically relevant? the country remains on the bottom of the u.n. indices forever? that's another way to look at it. great question, though. interesting. >> is there someone on this side of the room that i can bring? ? >> thank you, general, for your talk. thank you for your presence in kandahar as well. i think it is very impressive that the momentum has turned around. i'm carl force beg, institute for the study of war. to go on this governance issue a bit, i wonder if you can address the actual tactics when it comes to relationships, karzai or the family, how does one actually i guess go about sort of restraining those figures, restraining some of their worst

abuses and turning them into into forces for good, forces for our future goals? >> great question, carl. thanks very much. i have read your work and i think you and i would agree on most things. the actual methodology i have found is first of all you need to work at all levels all at once. so from the president's palace down to the living room there needs to be a consistent effort by all parties, so public policy, the national level down through the province through a distribute into a town, the aspirations and therefore the expressions of government need to be consistent. so there is a role to play by, you know military and non-military actors to help draw down, force in some respects, coerce, moral situation, if

necessary, to bring something, to government, particularly these government activity, health, education, so on, bring home to bear where we can legitimate matly create the conditions. it is not an easy thing to because i can say we're read. if the ministry of health says we're not going to show up because we're afraid. you have to get over this one-sided view of battle space. we need to have it from everybody. it needs to be stable. when you start to create that stable environment then it is working tirelessly in our civilian political officers and development officers work tirelessly to draw down, to put government services where they ought to be either through mentoring or through sponsoring activities.

i'll give you an example of something really critical. i think it was on august 25 after we were working in in this first district for a while. unama left kandahar city for the first time in two years and sponsored a significant meeting of n.g.o.'s and government actors and said ok, let's gets to work here. the secret is to make it or to sponsor conditions for the indigenous government and people to deal with. we can't possibly engineer their government. we can show them the best practice but we can't do it for them. carl, i think that the advantage to working at all levels all at once, particularly down at that grassroots level, is that you by pass pass a lot of the potential levels for corruption.

you cautious about where and who you contract with to help get things done. i deally you're using local capacity. if you're working at the lowest level and it starts to work, and it is happy and starts to grow, then those who would try and thwart it by perhaps being corrupt in their midst will stand in to the population in a big way but also to us and that gives us the opportunity then to follow up. and so we will. >> you mentioned the civilian side of the equation. i think your tenure in afghanistan was marked with an increase in assets coming into -- >> and u.s. >> but given dramatic mismatch, do you feel as part of the process unfolding right now that