platform for job creation and investment. there are some real problems that we need to solve. i am going to push to move forward as quickly as we can because i think it is critical for world leadership in this area. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> think you, mr. upton. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. the first broadband plan was the 1996 telecom act. that, of course, actually resulted in broadband being regulated under title two. from 1996 until august 2005, broadband was under title two, just for the record. during that time, we got a lot of policies that were

implemented, consumer protection, universal service, protecting consumer privacy, interconnected and competition provisions, access for individuals with disabilities, consumer billing protection. what was also possible under title two? the fcc could [inaudible] if it wanted to. the availed themselves of that car right until august 2005 for everett thought it was necessary. i do not think wish to pretend that going back to title two would mean the earth with a stop spending on its access -- the earth would stop spending on its acix. -- axis. i know that the sec is fighting in court to different -- to defend the current free market.

hopefully the court will uphold that. if that does not, cool heads will prevail and we will work with the sec to ensure that all of the goals that are in this broadband plan, universal service, investing in the competition, privacy, disability access will all be implemented. the agenda for connecting america does not change. i know that there are some people out there saying they should not have the authority under title 1 or title two. they turn it into a ditch that is enforcing the law without any ability to do rulemaking. i disagree with that. history says that that is completely wrong. -- i disagree with that. this is the next innovation of that. this is broadband planned #two

going into the 21st century. do you agree? >> your live did. it could not possibly be wrong. during those years, from 1998- 2008, i was in the private sector. i am very sensitive to the effects that policies can have on investment. i am confident that this fcc will tackle all of these issues in a way that has great respect for the private investment that we need to get to world leadership on broadband. as i have mentioned, the fcc has been operating under title 1. a company made a decision to challenge that in court. the fcc is defending it. i believe we have the authority and that we will have the

authority. >> i agree with that 100% otherwise the whole history of the telecom act of 1996 makes no sense. all of those regulations were implemented under title two. it really does not make any difference except that there are some companies out there that enjoy the forbearance that was engaged in by the fcc during a to a killer. of time. -- during a particular period of time. competitiveness, darwinian inspiring competition, introducing its into every single aspect of the marketplace is how we got hulu, google, youtube, and ebay. not one home in america had broadband in february 1996 when the telecom act was signed. 10 years later, it is a

completely different dialogue in our country. one final question on e-rate. we have both introduced e-rate 2.0 to change the way in which we look at e-rate to make sure there is more taxes. how do you feel? >> i feel it is essential. i think you and the committee for your work on e-rate over the years. one of the things i see is how frustrated teachers are by the fact that some of their kids have broadband access and some do not. they are frustrated that their facilities, while the have connected classrooms, are not good enough to give them what they want. tackling that is a recommendation of the plan. >> we thank you, mr. chairman, and of the commissioners for their excellent work on this plan. it is going to actually play a

historic role in ensuring america regained its position as number one. >> the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this question is to commissioners. i am concerned about changes to privacy lot. can you explain why this is necessary? cleanse the first. to make -- >> the first point to make is that the internet should be open. the plan is very clear that we need to make sure that companies can enforce their rights and that we do not have rampant piracy on the internet. over the course of our broadband proceedings, we heard from teachers and others in the

education community that. it's -- that pointed to some areas that they're teaching would be inhibited but not to challenge the fundamental. -- fundamental point that it is essential. >> those with copyrighted works need to feel comfortable post an on-line. we need to have the strongest possible privacy rights. the need to be able to work with carriers to police and act against stolen intellectual property. first of all, we are not experts on intellectual property or copyrights. just as a note of caution when it comes to any recommendations that could be seen as wanting to intellectual property rights. i think will help if we have

stronger party rights enforcement requests there is no discussion in this document about legal content protection for it is not a priority at all? >> i believe there is some discussion and we would be happy to follow up with you on that. intellectual property is not a central issue in the broadband plan. there is an endorsement of the importance of copyright protections and there is the identification of an issue that was raised with us in the record with respect to education and a suggestion for further work on that. >> sections 11.4, 15.7, and 15.9 had some discussion there. some this -- some concerns that we would be suggesting a weakening of the intellect or property rights protection. >> to akko my concern in the document, the example you cite

in ferreous is actually -- use a teacher's seeking to use beatles lyrics to promote literacy is the example that you cite. in education, the best way to improve literacy is to cite the beatles? this is the example you used for this argument. do you care to comment on that? >> what i would be happy to do is to make sure that we share with your office the comments we received from educators on their concerns in this area. i am confident the reports emphasize the importance of intellectual property and puts ideas on the table. we would certainly be happy to be a resource to you and i would be happy to supply the information we received about the process on the issues that that addresses. >> i would appreciate that very much. does anyone else care to

comment? >> i have not visited with the educational community, but i haven't visited with consumers and media companies. video is the driving broadband adoption. for media companies to put their expensive content on the web, they need to have assurance that it will be protected. i think it is very important we consider this as we move forward with broadband and it is important to protect intellectual property. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> think you come ms. bono mack. -- thank you, ms. bono mack. >> i hung on every word of your testimony and welcome it. thank you again for your extraordinary work. i am convinced for your testimony and otherwise that you recognize the need for speed.

i continue to have concerns when it comes to spurring competition with new and innovative uses of the spectrum. there are so many entrenched interests that seem to be able to stop new ideas from taking root through delaying tactics. i think this concern has been raised by other members of the committee, as well. if we are going to see that 100 megahertz reaches -- 100 megabits reaches 100 million homes they need to complete rulemaking faster. we need to see immediate action. i do not know what you all have to say about that. i think it is more in the hands of the chairman. i am disappointed that the advanced wireless spectrum was

not recommended for immediate deployment. you're not surprised by my comment, mr. chairman, on that. it was a proceeding that was teed up years ago. i do not think that businesses can afford to or should be able to have to lose money for years. it is my understanding that the department of defense's spectrum that you are considering paring that spectrum with the currently jammed system including the drones for the attacks in afghanistan and pakistan. the systems in the band with cost over $100 billion and cannot be relocated until 2013. i do not know if you want to

comment on this. i never really see the d.o.t. giving up the spectrum. -- the d.o.t.. have you contacted them? have they contacted you? that is my first question. if you do not find a spectrum are the october deadline outlined in the report, are you actually going to auction the specter and put it in use as soon as possible? i will continue with my questions and then you can answer them. on the next generation 911, we are cochairs of the e-911 caucus and of all offered legislation. if you have had a chance to look at, what is your take on that? there are some things to ask. we are going to submit more questions that you can answer in writing. public television and their broadcast spectrum issues.

public television stations are very different than commercial television stations. you obviously appreciate that. as the commission looks ahead to grow making announced in the plan to reclaim the 1 20 megahertz spectrum from these broadcasters, can you give us any assurances that public television stations will be protected from involuntary reallocations of the spectrum? i think it is important that they're protected. i think the represent one of the treasures of our nation. those are my opening questions and i will submit more to you, to the commission to respond to in writing to. whoever would like to answer, i welcome it. >> i would be happy to do so. on the first issue,, our staff at the fcc and their colleagues

at other agencies have to talk about spectrum trade with regards to the spectrum have mentioned, they have identified a potential opportunity that could be very good to the country in terms of pairing. i completely agree with you that it is a bad practice to extend proceedings of the death in at the fcc. we put a deadline on exploration of the pairing alternatives. i believe the plan goes on to say that is the pairing is not possible that the commission should proceed, adopt rules, and auction off the spectrum. with respect to e-911, i think we owe you and the other congressman thinks because i think that is discussed in the broadband plan as far as looking to the future on public safety in the 21st century and tackling 911 and how people are using

communication devices. on public tv, the answer is yes. for public tv, too, there's an opportunity here for a win-win and i think we can work on that with everyone together. >> thank you so much. i am very excited. the cobwebs are being cleared and we have a vision for our future. i really look forward to working with the commission and the fall subcommittee on this. thank you. >> the gentle lady from tennessee, mr. blackburn, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank you all for being here. i have to tell you that it is the lack of attention to intellectual property and the way you are putting the question is troubling to me. i think that we have to look at the fact that -- you are talking

about wanting a robust broadband deployments and expansion. to not have some of the intellectual property protections, and i know you are not the central agency that handles that, but i do think that it is worthy of eight revisit -- a revisit. that is one version of that fear used. fair use. i have about seven questions. i am not going to get through all of them. commissioner mcdowell, you mention something i want to go back to. that is the notion of that neutrality -- net neutrality. those rules could complicate efforts to enforce the law.

illegal content, illegal downloading, and i would like for you to expand a little bit on the relationship between net neutrality rules and enforcement against illegal content. >> first of all, proposed rules and to call for a car about for illegal content -- a carve out for illegal content. that includes matters of national security and child pornography. my concern with adopting those rules in general is the amount of uncertainty in will inject. i will be filing a letter with the committee regarding my position on that. it is being litigated before the courts. these things do take years. in the meantime, would new rules actually give network operators pause in terms of acting on a number of fronts including the enforcement of intellectual property where it might not be so clear especially if we're

talking about relaxing or undermining fair use? i think it creates uncertainty. after the 1996 act, we had the legislative, regulation, and a litigation cycle that went on for a decade. i think if we try to promulgate such roles as we would of the top five years of uncertainty and that is not your for intellectual property rights holders. >> mr. chairman, let's go back to commissioner victor, -- commissioner baker's comments and the push to get to the content online. if you want to ensure both a robust broadband deployment and the protection of intellectual property and its content from those copyright industries, they are going to be essential and

contrary to that growth. how are you going to go about that? i think we have to realize that our copyright industry has contracted nearly one-quarter of the real growth we had in our economy last year. you're talking about ease of access. how are you going to marry those two? we are all interested in it. we have a lot of innovators that have invested a lot of money in new platforms. how do you guarantee that? >> i could not be more firm in my conviction and that it is essential to be able to protect intellectual property on the internet. i've been clear but this is the first day i sworn in as chairman. i understand that it will been video -- it will be video that will be an important part of driving broadband error and one of the main ways a strong broadband policy will promote

job creation and innovation in the country. i think in general i am in complete agreement with you on this. we have to be sensitive as a commission to suggestions that we have from teachers or others saying, can you look at issues to see what makes sense? we would not do anything in this area without a robust, open, percent the tory proceeding to hear views from everyone. -- for us, open, for suppository -- participatory proceeding. thank you for being here. -- >> thank you for being here. i submit the balance for my questions and we are appreciative of your participation. >> the gentleman for michigan, mr. stupak, is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. waxman talk about public

safety and i have a couple questions. the national broadband plan proposes a brahmin and priority access to public safety organizations for all licensed holders in the 700 mhz from. what type of obligations would be placed on commercial providers to ensure that public safety is given more than just primary access but also robust and resilience access at times of emergency? >> the details of that are exactly the kind of thing that would get worked out in the rulemaking that would hold. what you described is the goal. with to put in place a mechanism where public safety can have prioritized access, the spectrum that it needs. the team believes that there is a path that can work for public safety and deliver on the 9/11 recommendations and that is also reasonable for wireless

industry's plan and take advantage of this unique moment in time where if we do this as the commercial networks are being filled out a, we can do this efficiently and deliver on the 9/11 commission recommendations. >> in order for it to work, you need to have a ready and willing commercial partner to work with for law enforcement. very confident we will have its in all parts of america, especially the rural areas? how would public safety proceed to have this plan? >> i asked this question of our team. i wanted to make sure that we met the goals. they're confident this mechanism will work for public safety and that commercial providers will provide the access as described. >> even in areas that are not developed now? >> that is certainly something we would be able to follow up with you on the idea is that as we push forward on a of 4g of broadband -- on a 4g mobile

broadband effort, it would be expanded because we could do the commercial networks and together. i fear if we do not do that, in some areas we will not get any 4g networks. there is public safety spectrum that is their that it is not being built. >> you mention 4g. provide support for 3g -- you provide support. how are you going to get 4g when the minimum is 3g in the proposal? how would you determine which provider in a given area would

receive support if they are only supposed to be a3g and public safety need 4g. >> 3g is the foundation for 4g so i tihnk it is part of the solution. you are raising issues that we would develop in the rule making. in the meantime, we would be happy to follow up with you on the development of this plan. >> let me ask you one more. in the compensation scheme that will be in the universal service fund over 10 years -- is that what it is? how does the fcc plan to ensure the necessary support for liberal telecommunications remains considering how essential to many of these rural companies? >> we believe this proposes a change over 10 years.

as i said to one of the earlier questions, the team is also suggesting an alternative to accelerate the transition. there is a possibility of identifying additional funding and we would be happy to work with the committee on that. the goal of the plan would be to deliver what you are seeking for rural america. >> i appreciate the goals and analysis that went into this. whenever we do this, whether it is the touch mission -- telecommunicattiosn act of 1996, we just tell rural areas that we will get to them. you say we need 4g, but we cannot even get basic cable in some of those areas. the bill we introduced, the collaboration act. give me a quick comment on why we need it and hopefully we can commence the chairman to get a

hearing on this soon. >> i want to commend the again on introducing the legislation. i think it would be a great step forward from the standpoint of dispatching the business of the commission. we are all standing around in the room waiting for the hearing to start. we could have talked about some stuff on broadband and may be resolved problem or two. we all had lockjaw that. -- at that point. i think from the standpoint of doing business, and we have the five people here who come from five very different backgrounds who have different talents to contribute and different perspectives. you can only contribute from those people sitting around talking about those issues. you built in protections. the system we have right now --

if there was one reform that i could make at the fcc, the one new proposal would be it. >> banking very much. -- thank you very much. >> one example to augment that, i had the opportunity to cheer the joint board at usf. thank you very much, mr. chairman. my colleagues are members -- as they remember the we had a lot of new voices on the line. the commissioner was in the middle of a very significant point. it was 17 minutes after the hour when commissioner baker -- copps had to get off line.

we lost the exchange we lost the chance thought. it is a very cumbersome process. i think you for recognizing that even on that level where no votes would be taken that this country would be better served having a process that is more relaxed. >> thank you. >> let me assure you it there will be a hearing on your measure in the not so distant future. >> the gentleman from alabama, mr. griffith, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity. if many mentioned staff, is it your staff that is going to make the recommendations so we remain competitive and enhance the creativity of our internet? >> the sec staff is what i was

referring to. -- the fcc staff. >> is there a group that is specifically in tune with what has happened in the marketplace in the last 10 years? has the relationship with the that marketplace -- >> that is the job of the staff of the agency to be proactive, stay on top of market developments, and make sure we can discuss it necessary to do our jobs. but those individuals have experience in the marketplace and understand the reality of the capitalistic system and the development, risk capital, that sort of thing? . .

thank you very much for being here. >> thank you, mr. griffith. the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in many districts, like mine in sacramento, there are far too many households who cannot afford broadband service. a recent survey found that 93 million americans do not subscribe to in-home broadband services in large part because of affordability barriers. the fact is that the high cost least many low-income families in urban and rural areas at a severe disadvantage in our economy. i introduced a broadband affordability act last year for

universal broadband adoption. this bill will ensure that all americans will have access. i am -- i applaud you and the commissioners for having this central element of your plan. however important is it in your view for the economy and for the country to close the divide? >> said think it is essential. i appreciate your -- >> i think it is essential. i appreciate your leadership on this. today, job postings have moved on line. most jobs orequire on-line applications. if you do not have access, you are disadvantaged. most jobs, they require digital

literacy. it is one of our biggest? globally, where other countries are ahead of us -- it is one of our biggest gaps globally, where the countries are ahead of us. >> if this were implemented, in your view, how much would you estimate the adoption rate would be? >> we expect to move from 65% to 95% reduction in the next two years. -- 95% adoption in the next two years. we want to work with smart pilot projects so that we can figure out what works and focus our energy on those. >> that is it a focus on urban and rural areas. >> right.

>> broadband is going to play a major role in a sustainable path to clean energy. as i mentioned before, i will soon be introducing legislation that will complement many of the recommendations made in your plan to modernize our nation's smart grid. in doing so, it will be more reliable and efficient and ensure its resilience during national disasters and will help consumers make more energy efficient decisions. how important do you believe broadband is to modernize our smart grid? >> the have buses to look at the relationship between broadband and energy and health care and education. -- they have asked us to look at

the relationship between broadband and energy and health care and education. >> can you expand on the point man in the plan about the importance of ensuring that consumers have greater access to information about their electricity usage? why is it so important? water the barriers in order to provide that access -- what are the barriers in order to provide that access? >> many technologies rely on broadband connectivity and wireless connectivity to full ec and visualize. homes that do not have access -- to fully see and visualize. homes that do not have access fail to have the benefits of those kinds of technologies. the nature broadband as a general-purpose technology that can do so much innovation

investments and benefit- producing activity relies directly to energy. >> in sacramento, the utility district, they received $129 million grant for a smart cred. we felt it was very -- for a smart grid. we felt it was very important to look at how the connection is so and important when you look at the community and what we need to do. for some reason, when you think about things like smart meters and being able to find out what is being used in a house, people seem to understand that this is somehow connected to broadband. so i think it is important. thank you. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.

i am very impressed. i like a lot of what we're saying current but when i took a look at your statement, -- what you are saying. but when i look at your statement, there is no mention of the neutrality. this is a great work. makes me want to salute the flag. but then you introduce a sweeping rule on the neutrality. today, i heard you tell this panel backethat a light touch on regulation has generated all of this competition. but there is argument that you had the ability to regulate the internet. maybe you can commanders and how we get from that position to net neutrality and your position of the day -- and a position today

-- maybe you can expand on how we get from that position to net neutrality and your position today. >> i have been very public for lea very long time to preserve a free and open internet, pro investment rules, pro competition, and pro innovation. we have an obligation to make sure that we have an open architecture of the internet and that it continues going forward. i see a real consistency between my priorities of innovation and investment and preserving a free and open internet. >> the very things that you referenced in your speech to the brookings institute, where you talk about -- where you talked about chevrolet and apple pie,

is great stuff. these innovations did not happen because of this social justice notion that we will have this exchange of innovation and we will be in the backyard and have kumbaya and played drums. it happened because someone was going to make some money, right? >> absolutely. >> you say that you believe in a light touch and a free and open internet and that is why we are going to regulate the internet. there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant. when you get into the regulation of the internet, you will make a determination. you have to make determinations. you are arguing the fact that you have the ability to do it. i agree with the panel. i do not think you do. obviously, yet we are going to disagree. unit to help manage and where it says, in what section -- you

need to help me understand where it says, in what section of a law, that that is so. >> i am not in favor of regulating the internet. >> but you are in favor of net neutrality. >which is regulating the internet. >> i disagree with that. the fcc had rules that applied to the on ramp to the internet to promote competition, to make sure that those are free and open and fair. i do think that we should continue that in the internet world so that the next facebook or the next e. they are the nex -- or the next ebay or the next whenever has a chance. >> when the federal government, the fcc, gets into the business of setting up what those rules are that do not exist today, you

have regulated the internet. i don't see how you think there is no harm/know foul -- no harm/no foul. we're going to create these big programs to give broadband to people because maybe you have all gotten in and regulated the internet where there is not a clear market solution, but there might be in your terms a social justice issue for having that broadband at the house. now you have completely dismantled the very model that got us to 200 million folks having access to broadband. how you do not intertwined that is beyond me. you say "light touch." four days later, you unleash a progressive regulation of the internet. what is next?

obviously, this is something that you are wedded to and are fully committed to this. so you have clearly laid out the platform to do this. is it your position that you are going to continue to pursue a that you have the right to regulate the internet? >> if i may, when i started at the fcc, the prior administration had adopted a set of principles for a free and open internet and enforce those principles against the company. it was the prior administration that did it. that is why we are now in court. they were principles that were then attached as a condition of the merger. there is a landscaper and this area where there were open internet rules in effect, but they were confusing to people,

diminishing predictability and certainty. i think it is important to incorporate high, clear, level rules of the road. there are -- there are certain people involved that will tell you that there are certain things that you should not be able to do. i think there is a way to do this completely consistent with and investment growth policy. >> thank you very much, mr. rogers. your time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i have enjoyed this hearing so far. i have a question concerning access. do you believe that pursuing a purely engineering approach to meeting data flow challenges would make net neutrality an obsolete issue? >> one of the suggestions i

made for the rulemaking that we proposed is increased transparency, increasing the information about the engineering network management rules that would be available to entrepreneurs and cto's. it would have the effect of minimizing government rules. that is something that -- it would have the effect of minimizing the role of government. that is something that i would like to introduce. >> that may be enough to override when government neutrality issues there are. >> i think you are on the right track. what can obviate the need for -- there is no need. the internet is not broken in this regard.

the most robust area for competition has been wireless. the commission has worked hard for years on getting on licensed use of the tv white space off to the market. we announced a brought -- we announced a ground breaking order. it was absolutely a wonderful moment. but we have bogged down in our progress. on mises use of white spaces could obviate the need for any -- miss use of white spaces -- all licensed use of what basis could obviate the need for any rules -- unlicensed use of white spaces could obviate the need for a new rules. >> thank you.

i have another question for you. do you feel that the plan will succeed in meeting the six goals that are identified? do you think the plan, as written and published will? >> is an ambitious plan. -- it is an ambitious plan. all the moving parts will be difficult to say that they will realize the recommendations. but we can always be optimistic. >> one more question, if you do not mind -- i certainly appreciate the risk of additional regulation. creating jobs is as very important to me, considering the situation in my district and the country. do you think there's any risk of abuse without further

regulation, without additional regulation? do you see that as a potential problem? >> in the context of net neutrality, the antitrust commission filed comments in january. it not only said that the marketplace was not broken, but it was downright optimistic. more competition is coming because of wireless. the federal trade commission also looked at this. their report said that we need to be very careful. this is a competitive marketplace. while new rules have the best of intentions, they could create more uncertainty. >> would you like to take a stab at that? >> as it relates to competition, i am concerned about the future. in chapter 4 of the plan, it

describes what 2012 looks like. it talks about rolling out a new product that would provide incredible potential high speed. it also points out that, in the market that we're speaking, the competition may only exist and at 280% of the market. if we -- exist in 18% of the market. i do not see robust competition in that particular section of high speed deployment and availability in the next couple of years. >> i appreciate and understand the concern. my concern is that we proactively pursue these regulations. i think the market is competitive and any significant change in the regulatory

environment will cause investment to dwindle and that will cause jobs to dwindle. i think we need to be very careful in this area. >> thank you so very much. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> let me move over here. thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. let me see which questions i can ask and which ones we will submit later. in 2007, the fcc determined that a wireless service is not required to provide another wireless carrier with roaming services if the second carrier holds a license for spectrum usage in the same geographic location. is there anything in this plan that changes that? >> what we are trying to do is revisit that a little bit on the

premise that rowling is central to competitive environments -- that roaming is central to competitive environments. this would inhibit the small loans and inhibit their ability to interconnect -- the smaller ones and inhibit their ability to interconnect. we are trying to look at that and see what other changes need to be made. >> you think there is some potential that this will reverse some of the 2007 structure? >> i would not say that. that proceeding has not happened yet. the plan does identify roaming as an issue whose resolution could affect speed and competition in the mobile

broadband market. it suggests that it is something that the commission needs to look at. >> the previous view was that, if you have a license to serve the area already, you were required to provide your own service. do you have a view on that? >> as a policy matter, we need to encourage billed out from their home region. there was a concern in 2007 about making sure that rowling was not a resale. -- that roaming was not a resale. that has to be a fundamental policy objective for us to encourage build out in how your own area. >> this committee and this congress passed a bill where the fcc would create an inventory of

all the spectrum out there and how it is being used. that has never been voted on by either the house or the senate. i think this report calls for the need to find another 500 mhz of spectrum. do you think it would be helpful to analyze how the spectrum is currently being used? would you encourage us to move forward and ask the fcc to find out how the spectrum is currently being used before you try to find more megahertz of spectrum? >> the spectrum inventory bill is very important. it is the recognition of the importance of spectrum and mobile to our economic landscape. much is known already. the demand on our noble network, the constraints we are -- the demand on our mobile network,

the constraints we are heading into, there's information about where licensees are. the white -- the wireless industry came and suggested we needed 800 megahertz of spectrum to satisfy forthcoming mobil needs -- mobile needs. of course, there is a lot more work to do and i look forward to working with the committee to find a sensible way to on the spectrum for economic activity, to make sure that the broadcasters are treated fairly, that the viewers are served with the possibility of generating billions of dollars through auctions. >> i thought this committee was right when we encouraged the that you be funded, allow, and directed to make that review. i hope we do that.

if we do not do that, what is the impact on over the air broadcasting on any spectrum reallocation? i know we have some areas all over the state that are not served by the same over-the-air broadcasting in the digital conversion. how worst does that get as we reallocate the spectrum? in narrett -- in some areas of america, you pay for the satellite or you do not have television. >> the goal for the proceeding would be to respect the needs of the viewers, especially those who still get their tv signal over the air. the congestion issues we are concerned about are chiefly market issues. we can make substantial progress for the country and a small number of large markets. we can free up significant

amounts of spectrum for our mobile broadband economy, generating auction revenues. we have confidence that there is a win-win here. the congestion issues on april 0 -- on the mobile broadband side are [unintelligible] >> a lot of the un serve people are the people closest to the station -- a lot of the unserved people are the people closest to the station. thank you to all of you for being here. >> thank you. the gentle lady from the virgin islands is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome.

before coming to energy and commerce, i was on homeland security. the issue of interoperable was and remains a big challenge and one that i am very concerned about. i have heard concerns that the 10 megahertz of broadband might be inadequate for public safety needs. is there now or will there be in the future? from your comments, it seems that you are pretty satisfied that you are meeting the needs of public safety. do you have concerns that there is not enough or do you plan to expand the spectrum later on? >> my charged to the team at the fcc was to take a fresh look at public safety mobile communication needs and recommend a plan that would most quickly and effectively deliver

on the 911 recommendation. there is no strategy to build the network. this is a plan to get the network built, to act consistent with the airport authority that we have already. -- to let consistent with the authority that we have already. >> thank you. does everyone feel the same way? ok. commissioner cliburn, when you came before us in the initial hearing with the commission, you talked a lot about the concern about preserving the diversity and closing the gap for women and minorities. do you feel that the plan provides enough capacity potential to meet those concerns?

>> it provides some promise, but i remain concerned in some sense. the concern for me is that, when we talk about -- i am for voluntary spector reallocation. but the potential of that is that some of these entities, who may be financially strapped, maybe the first to sell the space, which would possibly further dilute the gains in their quest for diversity. but the frontier, when i look at the overall plan, i am hopeful. it provides a host of opportunities. some are named and some are not. low-power television, entertainment, and other types of sourcing a program over the internet, they are growing

enterprises who exclusively want to stay in that space because of the flexibility and the potential for keeping more of their dollars. while i am concerned on the other front, i am hopeful that this base will be one that has literally the sky is the limit potential. >> so it would be the role of the fcc to do the outreach to make sure that these smaller entities know what is available or is it our role or the fcc rule? >> i think it is a global effort. when i go out and speak, a young lady came up to me and said that she was in her senior year of college, what should she do? she wanted to get into broadcasting. i am a proponent of "in the meantime."

you can use the internet to promote yourself and recruit yourself. i look at this as an opportunity and a bridge. >> thank you. >> i know that preserving and stimulating competition is a major part of the plan. are there any new mandates imposed on the industry in the broadband plan? if so, which industries would have mandates that might require additional investment? >> the plan itself is not self- executed. there are several ideas in the plan to promote competition. i spoke earlier about the complaints that we heard from the commission about small businesses that want to move on broadbent, but they are unsatisfied with the choices -- on broadband, but they are unsatisfied with the choices

that they have. there are issues that require further work. thank you. i yield back with every time i have left. >> thank you. the gentleman from nebraska it is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it has been asked before, but i have not ask it, as the old saying goes. i am going to ask it in terms of the over-the-air tv and the option of being able to give back or sell back the that part of the spectrum. the second half of that is -- if there are not enough station holders willing to give back some of their spectrum, we have heard that you will not just force it. does the fcc even have authority to force them to give

back for have the authority to take back some of that spectrum? >> the authority we do not have is to structure an incentive option with respect to any band. we have the ability to ensure that any spectrum that is used that way, some of the proceeds are used [unintelligible] on the first question, i would emphasize that there is a real issue ahead of us for the country and our ability to lead the world. we have all the ingredients lining up with the incredible innovation we are saying, the fact that we are moving quickly to 4g. we would be happy to share with you the data that will close the gap. >> i am aware of that. i was just wondering if you have

the authority or if congress would have to give you that authority to grab back the spectrum if they do not voluntarily offer it to you. >> the authority we lack is the incentive option. >> so if we were to take that back, you would have the authority. >> in general, yes. >> ok. whether you give it back for buy it back, i do know if they have the power to sell it back. i like the plan. of course, we are going to disagree with some of the details. but i view this plan as mostly an infrastructure. in a lot of the opening statements was on the uptake rate.

i want to talk about what part of the plan do you think is important on the take rate, which then dovetails into "affordable." that is a term of art, not necessarily signs. are there mandates in here on pricing? how would you make this "affordable" for more people to take it once we get the infrastructure and access out there? >> i can get us moving quickly. >> we can go to michael. he needs to be involved. >> i think there is a competitive environment out there to reduce consumer costs.

i think that digital literacy is important so that people understand the importance of this to their individual lives and to the future of the nation. going back for just a section to the previous question you asked -- licenses all expire. we're not necessarily talking about going in and grabbing. i have been a believer of use it or lose it. in a broadcast system, while serving the public interest, my advice to the broadcast industry, while you are looking at all of this [unintelligible] >> i hate to be rude to you, but i only have 23 seconds left and i want to follow-up on the affordability and how we're going to do that. i thought the e-rate was the

answer to that question. in this discussion of affordability and take within urban course and rural areas, has the e-rate not been successful? >> e-rate has been a stunningly successful program. just from the standpoint of connecting kids to the 21st century, i has been an outstanding success. >> thank you very much, mr. terry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this has been an excellent hearing. through the joint efforts of this committee and the subcommittee that i chair, we

draft day in federal policy legislation. in recent days, much has been made in the planned proposal to commission future spectrum auctions for free broadband service for advertising business models. if the sec imposes conditions on spectrum, -- if the fcc imposes conditions on spectrum, the purchase price would be through advertising-based services. [unintelligible] if i am a better at the option and i do not know what the final rules of the road would be with respect to protecting consumer

privacy, then i may not be inclined to the dissipate. this puts the cart before the horse and could open the door to another set of unsuccessful auctions. with the passage of privacy legislation, what impact do you think this passage will have on your option design for the 700 mhz license? >> the privacy issue is an important one. it is discussed in the plan. it is one of the looming topics that the plan does say needs to be addressed. it gives consumers and businesses in the confidence they need to participate in a broad ban future.

i think we're glad that there is more proceeding in legislation. clarity on the rules of the road would have a visit -- would have a benefit to the business community. i agree with that. >> would any other commissioner like to respond to that? >>as you know, one of my observations of the broadband plan places too much emphasis on the induction side. small businesses are a critical

part that could help to offset the huge numbers of layoffs that we have witnessed from large carriers. [unintelligible] minority ownership has been a concern for you over the years. have you plan on addressing this very silent omission in the national broadband plan? >> there is complete agreement on the importance of small businesses said the challenges and opportunities around broadband. we held three workshops on business issues. i would be happy to follow up with you. with respect to training,

information, digital literacy for small businesses, there are recommendations in the plan with respect to small business administration, a joint projects, get the information that they need. with respect to the affordability issue that we heard from small businesses, their recommendations with respect to moving fort on competition issues to get more competition to help reduce price -- respect to moving forward on competition issues to get more competition to help reduce prices, i hope we can follow up and make sure that we are being as clear as we should be. >> for my part, i commend the emphasis on the plan on small businesses. i have dealt a lot with small

and medium-sized groups. [unintelligible] >> i think my time has expired. >> thank you. the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i have some of the same concerns as mr. blunt. i think you have addressed those questions. obviously, on the issue of the spectrum, we cannot afford to ignore the incredible opportunities that it has to connect folks beloin rural and - income areas.

that is certainly the case in vermont. you heard this and you understand it, but it is important for me to say it. the opportunity to create jobs will come to the rural community soon. i appreciate your concern on that. i want to ask you about this. the commission recognizes and addresses the problems in the wholesale market, particularly with high-speed, special-access connections. and vermont, with the help of the governor and the legislature, the vermont telecommunications authority has addressed the high cost of wire list back hall. it is one of the most significant potential barriers to our area to get wireless

service to rural vermont. we have an impediment that requires leadership and guidance from you. i want to go down the line a little bit about your views on that. thank you for coming into my office and saying hello. >> i am glad that we had the time. special access is important. we are taking a look at that. we need to gather the data. we are in the process of doing that now to look at what parts need to be regulated and what needs to be unregulated. >> thank you. >> i recognize the importance

and that it will increase competitive options and make the cost of deployment lower. i am looking forward to engaging more fully with the that'. >> let me elaborate on this. in vermont, we have been trying to encourage some local generation of power. local generators have to use the wires and polls that were there before and hanhand. to some extent, these chargers remind me of the battle that we went through. it is the property of the honor on the one hand appeared on the other hand, -- on the one hand. on the other hand, there is a necessary -- there is a

necessity of not reinventing the wheel so that all of the economy can prosper. do you have any thoughts on how to thread the needle. >> that is a very perceptive question. sometimes it does come down to the nitty gritty, such as paul attachments. >> that is what it is -- such as paole attachments. >> that is what it is. with special access, for three years, i have been calling for a mapping. i want to commend the chairman for issuing a public notice so that we can make a very informed decision on what is next. >> on the special access, i think it is time to do this.

the broad band planned to seize this up -- the broad band plan tees this up. i do not think we should take forever to resolve that. i think we need to get the essential core of data we need and then go ahead and act. >> i agree with the tip of my colleagues. i think it is an example of the kind of blood and guts issue where government plays a positive role to promote investment and competition and to tackle the rules. i think there is opportunity in this issue and others were very healthy discussion and debate and to focus on the barriers in the marketplace. >> my time has expired, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you very marcmuch.

>> c-span.or[unintelligible] [laughter] >> you are recognized for five minutes. these are going to be -- >> these are going to be yes or no questions. webster's dictionary defines the word "voluntary" as being done, made, brought about, undertaken by one's own accord or by free choice. is that the definition that would be applied to the word open "volunteer" in the commis's broadband plan? >> yes.

>> i assume that would apply to the questions where they are talking about voluntary channel sharing and motivating the existing licenses to voluntarily vacate [unintelligible] >> yes. >> if the fcc does not receive authorization to provide incentive options or if they do not provide significant spectrum, the fcc should pursue other mechanisms. are these other mechanisms going to be voluntary? yes or no? >> i think that language speaks for itself. the other mechanisms would be determined in the future. >> if these -- or rather, if

they are not voluntary, how would they be accomplished? >> sir, that would be speculation. i focused on a near-term win- win. >> there's a concern here because everybody wants to know what this is going to constitute. would we assert that these other mechanisms would be 100% voluntary or involuntary or what? >> i would be speculating to talk about what would happen if we face a spectrum crisis in the country. >> i hope you understand that this is a point of no small importance. to all of the witnesses, this is again a yes or no question. i apologize if this is

discourteous. does the commission possess the authority, whether under the communications act of 1934, the telecommunications act of 1996, or otherwise, with which to require broadband networks to unbundle access? >> i would like to be devised by counsel. we have been focused on broadband policies. >> i will ask you to submit the for the record. >> ok. >> i would say yes. >> i would say no beard >> i would say i would submit that later. -- i would say no. >> i would say i would submit that later. >> i would say no. >> unbundling network access would have a chilling affect on further business to expand on infrastructure.

yes or no? >> i am not sure that that lends itself to yes or no because unbundling means different things to different people. >> i think that would give the same answer. the shorter answer would be "not necessarily." >> if history is our guy, yes. >> i echo mr. [unintelligible] >> yes. >> does the commission intended to require unbundled access to broadband networks? yes or no? >> again, the plan speaks for itself. it does not speak about unbundled elements. >> i cannot predict with the commission will do here. >> i can predict what the commission will do your. >> i cannot answer at this time. >> i hope not. [laughter]

>> my time is running out. mr. chairman, the plan mentions wireless services as a source of the spectrum. on february 16, 2010, i sent a letter to the commission outlining my concern that it would result in interference with satellite radio signals. can you unequivocally assure me that this will not be the case? yes or no? >> if the agency says that there is no interference, then there will be no interference. >> i did not hit the enter. >> if the engineers at the agency say that there will be no interference, then there will be no interference. >> will it allow for comment prior to its implementation? yes or no? >> i do not see why not. that is the way we always do.

>> ladies and gentlemen, they do very much. i reiterate my request for the privilege of sending a letter for further questions to the commission and have answers inserted into the record. >> thank you. the record of this hearing will remain open until such time as a letter has been sent to you containing questions that's there is members of the committee made -- questions that various members of the committee may ask. we thank you for your attendance here today and for sharing your views with us extensively. we have been here for about three and a half hours. we have certainly been enlightened by the information you have provided. hopefully, you have been enlightened by the views we have expressed as well. the gentleman from florida is

recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, just for the history, a letter from 2007 from this committee to the fcc about the de-block. -- the d block. we sent a letter to your predecessor recommending a similar approach. i am optimistic that congress will consider legislation encouraging them to build a public safety network. hopefully, your staff can help us draft something to implement that. >> thank you. this hearing is adjourned.

>> which president was wrapped buried -- which but that was buried wrapped in an american flag? andrew johnson. find these and other presidential faacts. >> it is a guide book and in many history -- and a mini- history. >> it is a resource guide to

every presidential graveside, the story of their final moments, and insights about their lives. "who is buried in grant's tomb" is now available. >> taking note a look at the $787 billion in damage stimulus plan, just three -- just under $353 billion has been committed and two hundred $2 billion has been paid out. -- and two hundred $2 billion -- and $202 billion has been paid out. for more information, go to c- span.org/stimulus.

>> bill bennett examines america at the end of the 20th-century and the beginning of the 21st. he is interviewed by walter isaacson. this year's national book critics' awards ceremony, look for highlights of the virginia festival on the book. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> whether you are researching former president ford just watching -- former president or just watching their speeches, you can find them at the c-span video library. every c-span program since 1987 is available. it is cables latest gift to america. -- it is cable's latest gift to

america. >> this is c-span. up next, president obama announces a new treaty on nuclear weapons with russia. following that, speaker nancy pelosi signs the health care reconciliation bill. .

>> good morning, everyone. i just concluded a phone call with president medvedev us. after a year of intense negotiations, russia and the united states have agreed to the most sweeping arms control agreement in decades. one of my missions has been to address the threat of nuclear weapons on the american people. that is why last april, i stated that we sought a world without nuclear weapons. a goal that has been embraced by

presidents like john f. kennedy and ronald reagan. this will not happen in the near future but i put together an agenda to pursue it. to secure formal materials from terrorists and reduce nuclear arsenals. a fundamental part of that was the negotiation of a new treaty with russia. furthermore, since i took office, i have been committed to a renewal of our relationship with russia. we can work effectively in the interests of our two nations and the prosperity of the greater world. we have worked together on afghanistan. we have coordinated our efforts through the g-20. we're working to pressure iran to meet its international obligations. today, we agreed to a new arms control measure.

in many ways, nuclear weapons represent the darkest days of the cold war and the darkest threat of our time. we are leaving behind a legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future of our children. we made progress that is clear and concrete. we have demonstrated the importance of american leadership and partnership on behalf of our own security and that of the world. the new treaty makes progress in several areas. it cuts by 1/3 the nuclear- weapons that the u.s. and russia will deploy. it reduces missiles and launchers. it puts in place a strong and effective verification regime and maintains the flexibility that we need to have in protection of our national security. with this agreement, the u.s.

and russia, the two largest nuclear powers in the world, send a clear signal that we intend to lead by holding our own commitments under the treaty and to strengthen our efforts to stop the spread of these weapons and make sure other nations meet their responsibilities. i am pleased to one-year to the day to my trip to prague, we have been invited to prague to sign the treaty. in the following week, i will post a 40 leaders of nations and we can hold a summit on a clear weapons so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. we will come together to continue to strengthen the global non. proliferation regime. cooperation between the u.s. and

russia will be essential. i want to thank the president for his personal and sustained leadership as we work through this agreement. we can agree through closer cooperation. my national security team has worked to make this possible. it includes a tireless negotiating team. the u.s. will be more secure and the american people will be safe i will be continuing to work closely with congress in the months ahead. we have worked on a bipartisan effort of arms control. leaders of both parties have seen the importance of securing these weapons.

earlier this week, i met with john kerry and dick lugar to discuss this. throughout the morning, my administration will be consulting senators and my administration will be consulting senators from both parties as we prepare for a strong bipartisan support to ratify the new treaty. with that, i will leave you in the able hands of my secretary of state, henry clinton, the secretary of defense, robert gates, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, robert mullen. >> thank you very much. has president obama reiterated, that is one of the highest per

these of the obama administration to pursue an agenda to reduce the threats posed by the deadliest weapons the world has ever known. president obama said the fourth in his speech in prague last year and today he and president medvedev reached an agreement to make significant and verifiable reductions in our nuclear arsenal. long after the end of the cold war, the u.s. and russia still possess more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. we do not need such a large arsenals to protect our nation and our allies against the two greatest dangers we face today. nuclear proliferation and terrorism. this treaty represents a significant step forward in our cooperation with russia. we recommended to reset our

relationship because we saw this as essential to making progress on counter-terrorism, nuclear security and non-proliferation. we will continue to have disagreements with our russian friends but this treaty is an example of the deep operation on a matter of vital importance. it shows that patient diplomacy can advance our national interests by producing real results. in this case, results that are good for us, russia, and global stability. this shows the world that one of our top priorities is to strengthen the global non- proliferation regime and keep nuclear materials out of the wrong hands. the new treaty demonstrates our commitment to commit to this --

to strengthen our efforts. we can hold other accountable to do the same. i know that secretary gates and admiral mullin will have more details but i want to make clear that we have adhered to the russian proverb that ronald reagan frequently employed --, "trust and verification." we will reduce the chance for misunderstandings and miscalculations. president obama insisted on a whole government effort and this is exactly what it was. he and president medvedev met several times and spoke often by phone. the chairman of the joint chiefs' staff and secretary gates worked closely with their foreign counterparts. i met with my counterpart many times and spoke with him on the phone too many times to count.

and the under secretary was here with us to help us complete the agreement. she was assisted by our state department expert team. teams of people at the white house, the defense department, the state department worked to make this happen. why look forward to working with my former colleagues in the senate. they will be our partners in this enterprise. i know that president obama had an excellent meeting with senator kerrey and senator lugar. general sounds and others of us have a brief members along the way. -- general jones and others have worked to to brief members. it is my pleasure and honor to turn the podium over to my friend, secretary robert gates.

>> this treaty strengthens nuclear stability. it will reduce the number of nuclear weapons that both russia and the u.s. are permitted to deploy by 1/3 and maintains a verification regime. our arsenal remains an important pillar to our defense posture. it is to reassure allies and partners who rely upon our umbrella for their security. we can accomplish these goals with less nuclear-weapons. the reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad or does it limit plans to protect the u.s. and allies by improving and a plane and defense systems. of our negotiating position was provided by the defense department's nuclear posture review. as the number of weapons

decline, we will have to invest more heavily in our infrastructure in order to keep our weapons -- our weapons safe, secure, and it effective. we want to make sure the departments of defense and energy have the funding necessary to accomplish this mission. this treaty carries a personal meeting for me. my professional career began as a junior officer in the strategic air command. one of my first assignments was home to 150 icbm's. i have been involved in different to negotiations in my professional capacity. president reagan signed the intermediate range treaty which marked the transition from arms control to the disarmament.

that accelerated a start and reaches another important milestone with this treaty. the journey we have taken from being one step away from mutually assured destruction to the substantial reductions of this treaty is testament to how much this world has changed and the opportunities to make our planet safer and more secure. >> good morning, everyone. i would like to add that i, the vice chairman, the joint chiefs, our combat commanders stand solidly behind this treaty. we have made our recommendations and we helped to shape the final agreements. we appreciate the trust and confidence placed in us by the president and vice secretary gates throughout this process. we recognize the trust and

confidence this house to foster and our relationship with the russian military. -- this helps to foster in our relationship with the russian military. i met with my russian counterpart no less than three times during the negotiations. each time we met wheen grew closer towards our portion of the result and a better understanding of the common challenges and opportunities our troops face every day. the new start deals directly with us some of the most common challenges. our stockpiles of weapons are dramatically reducing the stockpiles. this treaty achieves a proper balance, more keeping in today's security in burma. reducing tensions even as the pollsters non-proliferation efforts. -- keeping in today's security

in the environment. it protects our ability to have a global strike capability if that is required. it allows us to deploy and maintain strategic nuclear forces -- and bombers, submarines, missiles. through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that would -- which we have been charged to do, to defend the citizens of the u.s. i'm confident in its success and safeguards. >> we will take three or four questions. >> , how confident are you of any ratification in the senate?

you mentioned no limits on a missile defense. do you see in the future in gauging with russia in any kind of limitations on missile defense? >> we are focused on ratification. we are working hard we will engage deeply and broccoli with all of the members of the senate -- and broadly with all the members of the senate. i will not send any timetables but we are confident we will make a case for ratification. if you look at the last three major arms treaty, the treaty of 1993, 95-0, the second treaty, 93-6. in 1988, 93-5. when it comes to the goals of this treaty as were outlined by

bob and mike, the great balance that it strikes, there should be very broad bipartisan support. >> will continue to try to engage the russians as partners in this process. one of the technical benefits of the adaptive approach that the president announced is that it actually makes it easier to connect the russian radars and capabilities to those in europe. we think that there is a broad opportunity to not only engage to the russians but also make them a participant. >> do you believe that these reductions are enough?

>> i think that this is a major achievement in our relationship. equally importantly it fills the foundation of the trust we are accomplishing between the u.s. and russia this is a very complex relationship and it is one that we have given a great deal of attention to from the president all the way through the national security team. we believe there are other areas of cooperation we can pursue. we continue to look for ways to engage with russia on missile defense in a way that is mutually beneficial and which secures us against these new threats.

the relationship coming out of the by national commission that president obama and president medvedev announced have covered some much ground and we'd would be glad to give you an in-depth briefing on that. it demonstrates that we are not just talking about the big- ticket items like european security, iran sanctions, missile defense. we are looking to create more people to people contacts and more business investment. we are committed and we will work together. >> you are facing a difficult task to convince the u.s. congress and the russians will face the same task. please tell me how the russian

interests will take this into account >> the russian leadership will be in the best position to speak to the russian interests and how those are met. what we both believe as we went through the negotiations was that cutting our arsenal by 30% was in the best interest of both of our country'ies. more confidence between us. the concessions made were clearly in the interests of russia. we have to go to the congress, but president medvedev has to go to his legislative body.

>> obviously a couple of deadlines were missed. what are the sticking points and howard ave resolved? what is your message to the europeans concerned about the missiles aimed at them? >> in any complex negotiations, there are going to be points along the way it where negotiators have to go back to their capitals. the negotiators needed to negotiate -- i had to talk to my counterpart many times because president

obama and president medvedev were very clear. we want to do this and get it done in a timely manner. it took quite a bit. we needed to make it clear that this was a priority of the highest level of our government. the russians responded to that very positively. we began to work out the last details. we made a decision that we wanted to have not the treaty agreed to only, we wanted the protocols. sometimes they have been submitted and the work of the protocol goes on what we wanted to go through all of the technical work in the protocols so that when we went to the

senate, it was that we can look at the treaty and the protocols. that was some of the time taken to be able to get to the point where we felt like we had the package necessary to go to our legislative bodies. we have consistently conveyed it to our friends and allies our commitment to our partners and to their defense. the adaptive approach that the president concluded with the best way forward on missile defense makes europe's a for. -- europe safer. there is the ability to build confidence in our central and eastern european partners with russia. everyone aware that this is something on going. one of the reason that the

presidents will meet in prague is that we want to send the signal that this is good for europe, the u.s., and russia. >> when people are listening to this, their eyes glaze over. can you explain how this paves the way for progress on preventing terrorists from getting these weapons? >> we have a long-term vision of moving towards a world without nuclear weapons. we are realistic about how long that will take to convince everyone that this is in the world's interests. the steps we are taking will make a statement of intent. the start treaty says that the

cold war is behind us and the is a massive nuclear arsenals that these countries maintain no longer have to be so big it. this is in our security interests and his towards -- and is towards the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. the largest gathering as leader since the end of world war two in the u.s. will happen and is devoted to the idea of how we keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorist and row regimes. russia and ourselves come with more credibility having negotiated this than the non proliferation treaty which takes it further in how we can bring this regime into the 21st century.

iran and north korea are pursuing nuclear weapons. you have to look at this whole approach on proliferation. >> it was a fairly brief conversation finalizing the treaty. the president mentioned it to president obama that he wanted to speak with him next in the czech republic. >> you mentioned the overwhelming majority -- is anything that concerns you about this political environment? is the pentagon uncomfortable about the campaign?

>> national security has always produced large bipartisan majorities and i see no reason why this should be any different. we have had a very dynamic political debate in our country over health care which was brought to a successful conclusion this week to the betterment of the american people going forward. i do not believe that this ratification effort will be effected by anything other than individual senators assessment of whether this is in the best interest of american security. what you will hear over the weeks ahead as we testified and

make the case to the press and the public, we are absolutely united in our belief that this is in america's interest. it puts us in a very strong leadership position. i believe the vast majority of the senate will see that this is in america's interest and it goes beyond policy. >> let me say a word about this from my perspective. there has been a very intense continuing consultation on the hill as the negotiations have proceeded. two of the areas that have been

in the concern is are we protecting our ability to go forward with missile defense and we make the investment in our nuclear infrastructure so that the stockpile will remain a reliable and safe. missile defense is not constrained by this treaty. we have in our budget, the president's budget almost $5,000 for investment in the nuclear infrastructure and maintaining the stockpiles. we have addressed the concerns that there may have been on the hill. i echo the sentiments of secretary clinton. i think the prospects are quite good. the president has been very realistic in terms -- the

president discussed that there might not be able to have zero nuclear weapons in his lifetime. others are attempting to develop them. we will do this in a realistic way some of the other steps of trying to get control of fissile material, these are concrete steps to move in that direction that i don't think anyone expects us to come close to. >> to what degree will missile offensive be addressed? is there some kind of linkage on future plans with the u.s.? is any concerns you have about russia? >> can i ask the undersecretary to address this?

>> president obama and president medvedev of discussed this agreement. this is a strategic offensive weapons treaty and there is a relationship. that is where this discussion ended. when you see the treaty and the protocol, they are -- on missile defense. when it comes to romania, the approach is in phases. we have gone too extensive lengths to brief the russians. frankly, most of the status review has been on the web 4 weeks and months. we don't clear every

conversation that we have with allies and friends before we do anything. we talked to the russians and they knew about the romanian invitation in 2015. >> i would like to follow up with the secretary of state. what does the russian cooperation portend and what you had with iran in the sanctions? >> we have had very constructive talks with all of our partners and in depth consultations with the russians, most recently last thursday and friday. we are pursuing the plan that we

set forth in the very beginning of this administration. this is an 80 stracke process. the first track was engagement. the president has reached out to the iranians. the other track of pressure in the event that the iranians would not engage or refuse to comply with their international obligations. there are many questions that raise concerns about the behavior is. i think that this would be widely viewed in the authoritative source in coming to the united states. this summarizes why the international community needs to move on this second track. i believe you will see increasing activity in the very near future as we work to bring

to fruition a resolution that can muster the votes that are necessary in the security council. president medvedev and president obama talked about this continuously. honwhen they are together, they talk about this. we were out on the new yankee stadium field for the n.y.u. commencement.

she was at the center of activities. one of our goals is to try to move the world towards a recognition that nuclear- weapons should be phased out. from our perspective, that is our goal. it is what we are dealing with the nuclear security summit. a number of the region's in the area will be represented. it remains one of our highest priorities. i'm going to reaffirm our commitment to convincing countries that the path of non proliferation is the path they want to be on. >> verification is an important

part of the process. the american people are talking about the treaty, what can you say about your level of confidence in the verification process? >> the verification measures have been designed to monitor compliance with the provisions of this treaty. for example, because the -- of missiles was not an issue, telemetry was not nearly as important for this treaty as it was in the past. we don't need telemetry to monitor compliance. znevertheless, there is a bilateral agreement to exchange bilateral agreement to exchange telemetry informationno carrier0

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> james rubin and francis

townsend discuss foreign policy. after that, nancy pelosi size the health care reconciliation bill. then a speech by minnesota gov. tim plentawlenty. tomorrow on "washington journal" we will have the white house correspondent for the "christian science monitor," on the anger over the health care bill. there will be a maryland law that would ban employers from using a credit check as a reason to deny employment.

>> saturday, supreme court justices antonin scalia and steven briar on the constitution. is it a living document? >> 1 thinks this is producing a flexible system. tuesday contrary, it is producing rigidity. >> we have to deal with an organization that is capable of passing laws in accordance with the powers given them by the constitution of the u.s. "america and the courts," saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> and look at the the foreign- policy challenges facing the united states. james rubin and francis townsend

talk about issues including the future of iraq and afghanistan, chinese influence on foreign policy, and the prospects for using preemptive military action against iran. >> this year, we are exploring the second decade, 2010-2020. we are asking what is next for america. earlier this month, we heard candid analysis about the state of our economy.

our speakers told us that the road to recovery would be a bumpy one and everyone from government to thanks to government need to make responsible decisions about how we spend and how we say if. tonight, we turn our attention to foreign policy and national security, both challenging areas for america. our community is particularly in need for global perspective. we are very proud of the institutions that we have here like the defense language institute, the naval post graduate school and the monterey institute for international studies. we thought that the awareness of the international community is essential.

today, with multinational corporations, shared currencies and the tremendous increase in technology, we lived in a global world. as new powers emerge, how can we balance economic, political, or humanitarian concerns. our financial institutions become more interconnected, how can we promote a global stability. as we look to bring a successful conclusion to the words in iraq and afghanistan, are we paying enough attention to the failed states and emerging nuclear

powers? which of the americas will be in the new world order? who will lead the world? we will ask these questions of two foreign policy experts from diplomacy to national security. our guests have firsthand knowledge of the complexity, the current global issues and the challenges facing america and today's world. our first guest works as the chief spokesman for the state department during the clinton administration. he was a top policy advisor to madeleine albright and a special negotiator during the coast of low war. currently, he is a professor at the columbia school of international and public affairs.

please join me in welcoming her james rubin. [applause] our second guest served as special assistant to george w. bush for homeland security and counter-terrorism and is chair of the homeland security council from 2004 until 2008. she spent 13 years focusing on international law enforcement. she appears regularly on network and cable terrorism has a homeland security expert. please welcome francis townsend. [applause]

guiding the discussion is an emmy award winning journalist and has covered major international events ranging from watergate to september 11th. he currently serves as the anchor of "wide angle," and is the walter cronkite professor of journalism at arizona university pl. please join me in welcoming aaron brown. >> it is great to be here. i wish the weather had been better. i think in a time when public discourse is about the loudest

voices not necessarily the most intelligent. the work of the institute is putting that notion on its head. thank you for allowing us to be here and also for your participation. looking out 10 years, who will lead the world? it seems to me that governments operate in their own self- interest. the chinese work with sudan and are for. the israelis do. they build settlements and announce it in the vice president is there. is this whole notion of leading

the world is a bit like herding cats? >> i don't think so. the u.s. is going through a debate. it is time to look to our own infrastructure and economy and our own problems and put aside a little bit of the extreme focus on the rest of the world that occurs and as evidenced by the wars in iraq and afghanistan. there are some who believe that the u.s. has the largest military power and they can make decisions by itself and force them on others. and i tend to be in the middle. i think that there is an international system. i think that we build our own economy and our own

infrastructure. when things need to be done in the world and making sure that afghanistan will never again be a home for a terrorist organizations. there is the slaughter of bosnians in sarajevo. there is only one country which is indispensable and that is the united states. we don't need to ram things down other's throats but as the only truly global power, we have an interest in an international system functioning. the hard part is enforcing those rules and the difficult cases. in those cases, countries like china, brazil, others step aside and let other people take care of it and worry about their narrow interests. we have a global interests.

we have helped to create global institutions. we were smart enough to know that if they work well, they will help the world to function. that means international agreements on human rights. those are good things for the united states. that is why we are unique. that is why we have an interest in the system. as strong as china may become economically, i don't think that they will have a global role militarily to. >> what does that mean to lead the world? >> he said that we are indispensable. it is important that we not

believe our own press in that sense. >> if we act in a way that we believe that we are indispensable, we don't put forth the critical work. i learned everything that i needed to know about it, see in the third grade. do you remember the overlapping circles? every country acts in its own self interest. i was asked to go to saudi arabia in a very difficult time in our relationship on counter- terrorism. there had been a bombing on a compound on saudi arabian soil. you can imagine i was a little reticent being a sign with this

important task. what you realize that i was not going to ask them to take this issue seriously. the trick was to understand how to convince them it was important to them and to convince them to act in their own self interest. i used to tell young diplomats that you need to put your elbows on each side and pushed out. the whole point of diplomacy and partnership is finding that space where your self interests aligned and then growing that. >> i don't want to spend much time looking backwards. how successful what do you think the administration you left was in the defining leadership in the way, of

explaining to people that it is in your self-interest. were you successful? >> there were a number of instances where we work. saudi arabia was one of them. yemen has been an inconsistent partner. there was times we were able to convince the government. afghanistan might be the best example. look at all the nations represented, whether they are supported by military assets or economic assistance. that really is an international effort. we need an international partnership and that was the government. >> you talked about afghanistan briefly. someone has to make sure that al qaeda is taken care of. don't you think we would -- do you think that we would be

there if it was not for the attack on 911? >> absolutely not. there was a time that the muslim which had been that we supported and they threw the russians out. we ignored afghanistan. that was a mistake. that turned out to be a bigger mistake than anyone imagined. most if not all of the major terrorist acts we have seen in the western world over the past several years, some way or another can be brought back to that area where afghanistan and pakistan meet. there have been attacks in bali and in east africa. there have been attacks in madrid and london it is not any longer a question of the united states.

she did not mention iraq. there's a good reason she did not mention iraq. when i listed the three groups, i was talking politely but i guess i don't have to do that anymore. when the united states declared its right to attack other countries preemptively and when the united states removed itself from participation of any number of treaties and refused to engage on climate change around the world. then they alienated a number of countries in europe have to the point where our closest allies. the prime minister of spain said that if we are going to get support around the world, we need more power and last rumsfeld.

is it is very unusual for our friends to start picking and choosing officials. they came into the office at a time where the u.s. finding partnerships was at an all-time low. we can be partners, we have to return to partnership. let's not get to the point where we don't remember that the u.s. is unique and have in global interest economically and politically in asia, in the middle east. yes, we will be partnered. at the end of the day, there is one partner, whatever you want to call it, whatever it is, it comes back to us. i hope that we don't forget that as we switch from ramming

everything down everyone's throats to becoming partners. >> what is the best we can hope for in iraq? it 10 years out, where will we be? what is the best that we can hope for? >> a government that can help its people. remember where we started in terms of women's rights under the taliban. it has to be a government that can deliver services, competent, not corrupt, transparent. it has to be a functioning

government internally and externally. that is a tall order. the president articulated our first and most important objective in terms of our interest in afghanistan is to insure that that territory is not used to launch attacks of the united states. when you say tang years out, what should be the goal in terms of what we leave of mind? a country that can govern its own people. >> the country has been at war since 911. do you think that the country will sustain the kind of cost

that the afghanistan that uc would lead to? >> this is a tall order. the current governor of afghanistan -- government of afghanistan, it andy card to look beyond general mccrystal has put the emphasis on the counter insurgency. and did i think it is possible. this takes an investment. we have to become basrah have to be careful not to become the victims of our own success. is easy to match and thus losing the will to complete what we have begun. the importance of it cannot be lost. when you think about losing 3000

americans, the cost is so devastating that we lose our well that the balance of the american people will lose their will. >> it seems to me that you're talking about two different solutions. there is a near-term solution which is to take out al qaeda as best you can, take out the taliban or draw them into the government so they aren't killing people. then there is the functioning of the terrific government that is not corrupt, not dealing drugs and seems almost too serious. hey, crazier things have happened in the world. what is the best that you think we can expect for afghanistan? >> we can have expectations in

the realm of hope or we can have what we would predict. i think that they are different things. having invested thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars and the time that a few more years takes place in afghanistan. . .

the government, actual decision mission -- actual decision making has to be combined with pragmatism and how long the american people will tolerate

american forces in afghanistan, we do not know. but we wanted to be in little longer. polling data would suggest that the american people -- suggest what the american people will tolerate. it will require some big-time leadership from our president, from our congress, to remind people. we have short memories in this society, the 24-hour news media. we have already forgotten about the earthquake in haiti. it is going to require a determined and persistent educational path to remind people of what fred was talking about. -- of which fran was talking about. otherwise, we will leave sooner than we should and we could have provided something that we could be more proud of.

>> i am not sure that i did agree that it is fair to put the attack of 9/11 in the same sentence. haiti is a tragedy. 9/11 is an act of war. are you really concerned that people have forgotten what happened that day, the loss of life that day, everything that has led to that day? or is that just fear speaking? >> no, i do not believe that people have forgotten that day. but here's my concern. to the can -- stick to the extent that we have our -- to the extent that we have convinced ourselves that the

threat is no longer present, that it is not a real threat to our homeland security and our national security, that is not the case. we have had this conversation of. that is a day that i think lives in memory. i believe -- i think my children were sitting in front of the tv. it happened to the people in that building and it happened to all of us as a nation. we also -- we all suffer in that wound. but to the extent that they think that the threat is less because of the passage of time, that does concern me. that is not what our intelligence and national security officials say. we know from the successful destruction we have seen in this country in the last year. all those, in one way or

another, you will find have ties back to this region between afghanistan and pakistan. it was true in the disruptions we saw in the bush's mission when i was there. the seriousness that this region poses -- >> the director of the cia, mr. panetta, where have i heard that name before? >> i have heard of him. [laughter] >> last year, he said, "we have al qaeda on the run." at the risk of sounding both and grateful for my presence here and unduly cynical, ici thoughtf a president who still on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind them. [laughter]

as there been a gagne change in that region, anin pakistan? >> absolutely. that is different than saying that you can denigrate the central leadership and have pockets themselves of affiliate's who are inspired by them to pose a threat. a lot of what you see is that the drone attacks have been incredibly effective integrating their central core leadership. >> is there a downside that we are not considering to these drone attacks? is there a downside to this? >> the upside has been clearly stated. let me share the upside. but i think the downside is the ease, the lack of sacrifice

associated with what is essentially a war-fighting tool. a drone is a war-fighting tool. a congressman tended to take what i regarded of the years as the uses position on every issue. >> will you whisper his name? >> no. [laughter] >> we were talking during the afghanistan debate. he was thinking that maybe we could solve afghanistan with drones and we would not need to have the large increase of forces that general mcchrystal wanted to see and that somehow the drones could do it in afghanistan itself. but the rest from drowns is kind of -- but the risk from jones -- but the risk from drones has

the assumption that it is easy to do. it is just a tool. you have to know who the target is. you do not usually find the target from the air. you have people on the ground. i worry when people make policy when they are choosing the easy to fool. it makes me a little nervous. that is what the downside of the drones are. >> what about the effective the "no american dies?" >> would you feel better if we were losing blood? of course not. >> i hope that is not what people heard. i am talking about when we were in a debate on afghanistan. there was discussion that we could solve the problem in afghanistan with the drones. george will suggested that all of our troops should be of short and we should use drones to

attack the taliban in afghanistan. i suggested that that would not be sufficient. obviously, i am not saying that it is a good thing when americans died. to even do about it is not very funny. what i am saying is that, if we are going to choose to make war in the world and we're going to choose this decision, it should be a solemn decision. it should be a decision where we all understand the consequences. sometimes, when people talk about brown's, they talk about it has -- about brodrones, they talk about it as though they can just use automated machinery and all of the realities go away on the ground, where people are, where decisions are made, were the targets are selected. drones are a very real thing. >> he is very right.

by the way, having been there, it is by no means an easy tool to use when you have to make a decision on when to take the shot. >> it is not an easy decision because it does not kill just one person. civilians will die. >> that is right. yes. they are burdensome and difficult decisions. we are asking very senior government officials to make life-and-death decisions that are not always clear and are not always easy because intelligence is imperfect. >> washington being washington, there will be criticism of that. pakistan is central to the work you did. it is confounding, in many ways,

diplomatically. the government of pakistan, depending on the day of the week, it is reliable or not. there is the intelligence service, which makes me really nervous. but they are kind of with us this week. are we making progress? we cannot win this thing without pakistan, correct? >> i do not think so. we were talking about let's look at the movie rather than the snapshot. if we go back 18 months or two years and think about what was going on in that part of the world, there was a major offensive generated by islamic extremists, pakistani taliban

inside pakistan. there were enormous numbers of attacks inside pakistan. the pakistani military was attacked. if for no other reason, that seems to have gotten their attention. in the last 18 months, in general, the direction has been positive. the civilian government was elected on the premise -- benazir bhutto's husband ran on the idea that they needed to lead against terrorism. that gave political power to the pakistani military that had not existed under musharraf. then the pakistani military had been under attack and they responded. as far as the intelligence service is concerned, i do not think there is anyone view in that intelligence service because it is a complex organization with different people from different time periods.

let's call it two and a third out of three are moving in the right direction. we can see the direction and the progress in the last 18 months if you have pakistan on side. the ministration made the point of saying that, -- the administration made the point of saying that, if we are going to commit these trips, we have to get pakistan as part of the equation. that way, the region is thought of as a whole. when we do leave, it will not just fall back into the old patterns. so things are definitely better than they were. >> let me move to war no. 2. that is iraq. i was talking today with an old friend who is a reporter who was covering iraq since the days

of saigon. -- the days of sosaddam. a lot of blood has been shed. a lot of money has been spent. a lot of the people has been created. i trust her journalism. is that a view you could share? >> iraq has gone through periods of extraordinary violence and brief respites, followed by more extraordinary violence. one of the cornerstones of democracy is a peaceful transfer of power. they're going through their second election.

we do not understand the results of that. part of us want to be there in terms of our frustration in terms of their civilian governance. it has been a proxy battle field for their regional neighbors. there is a shia-cine struggle of the neighbors that vote on inside -- the she-hia-sunni struggle of the neighbors inside iraq. again, i really think the test is can an iraqi government that is democratically elected both competently provide services and protect its people as well as protect its borders from its neighbors? we should not under the estimate the size of the challenge given

to the neighbors are and the proxy struggle that goes on within the neighbors inside iraq. >> take the afghanistan concern you expressed, which is that we will get out before the job is done, and overlay that now on iraq. we have a sense of a plan. we are pulling people out. there is very little willingness to expand much more capital will bear. are we -- capital of thethre. -- capital there. in this room, iraq was more divisive in our own country. those divisions have affected decision making over iraq, whether it was the 2004 election

or the 2008 election. politics have come into play in a way that, in a pure and perfect work, -- in a pure and perfect world, it would not. a president would look at the cost and benefits of staying and act accordingly. but the truth is that he will have pressure from the leaders of the democratic party who supported him and helped him get elected, who went along with him on afghanistan, despite some reservations, and supported a large increase in forces in afghanistan. it is going to be tougher if a judgment is made that a few more months or six months to nine months longer with the 10,000 more troops would make a difference in the transfer of power. it will be a tougher decision. but, again, in complex

situations, you can always look at the glass from both sides. we have to be honest with ourselves. three years ago, we're talking about iraq as another institute. we would be thrilled if things were as good as they are today. it was in the midst of a civil war. hundreds of thousands of people were dying every day. in the past, beirut was a microcosm of the middle east, where all the different players of the middle east came into play. in iraq, there is some of that there today. iran, the persian threat, saudi arabia perhaps supporting sunni arabs, those who would use terrorism to achieve their

directive -- all of this is the unfolding. so far, we can be amused that the guy in leading the elections said that the motion stand and the guy behind in said that there should be a recant. this week, they switched. [laughter] let's hope that, over time, through these different elections and these transfers of power, that it is not an all or nothing gain in that part of the world, where, if you give up power, you lose your livelihood of your lives. i think president obama may well face a difficult decision six months to nine months from now where some problem emergence in iraq that was unexpected. i think he has been careful to say that he will act responsibly leaving then we were

responsible going in. i hope he does not have to make that decision. but he very milk -- but he very well might. >> if that decision is made and the withdrawal is too soon and iraq deteriorates to a degree that it is uncomfortable where people are dying in greater numbers than they are now, that is a bad thing. fundamentally, we need to go back to your portfolio, really, which is what do we need to do to defend, in an appropriately, the homeland? i am not an isolationist in this. my primary concern is that the

world much of lives in is safe. so does a deteriorating iraq make you and me and your children let's say it? >> al qaeda in the arabian peninsula has been believed to have only regional aspirations. what we saw in the attempted christmas bombing is that that, over time, had changed. we had warning signs of it that we missed as a country. that group that had regional aspirations actually launched themselves and were behind the attempted attack. i use that example to say to you that what you have to look back is to was operating this.

what is the ability for terrorist groups to use that territory to plan or launched an attack into the united states? as u.s. and that question, is there a central -- as you look at that question, is there a central government capable of taking care of that territory? if the answer is no, then yes, you have to be worried. that means that it is fertile ground for an attack into the u.s.. >> i want to get to our audience's questions. hold on a second. i was thinking about this the of the day. none of the things that we have been talking about we would have talked about 10 years ago. but 9/11 had not happened. the iraq war had not happened. we had not gone into afghanistan. we're not talking about the

iranians building a nuclear weapon. we were worried about the north koreans. i will give you that. but 10 years seems to be a really long time in days when you talk about the state of the world. 10 years from now, what will we be talking about that we are not even thinking about now? >> there are some people thinking about it, but probably not enough. i know the administration is working on this problem i started out my professional career working on nuclear arms control. the time was the height of the cold war. we have improved the situation massively. we are down to 5000 or 6000 apiece.

what we will face some time, five years or 10 years, i do not know of that is some use of a nuclear weapon somewhere. i do not know where. i am not saying that it is going to necessarily be any major city or cause a complete catastrophe. but the technology is improved. the number of loose nuclear weapons charged -- is still out there. it does not give high priority, despite speeches made by presidents in both administrations. it is done by lower officials and some outsiders. this is a small fein, but has such massive consequences -- this is a small thing, but has such massive consequences. something is going to happen catastrophically in the area of nuclear weapons.

it is not necessarily going to be a terrorist organization. it may be something we have not even thought of. it may be a crazy person. it may be a crazy general in the former soviet states. but something's got to happen in the area of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and materials that have yet to be accounted for, controlled, and dismantled, and put in the maximum protective lockdown situation. >> when we gathered 10 years from now -- >> hopefully, i will be wrong. >> hopefully, yes. unlike other -- when we get there 10 years from now, what will we be talking about? >> this is a different version of what jamie said. i absolutely think that we have a tremendous public debate about iran's very clear intentions to

acquire nuclear weapons. it may not be a terrorist organization. when we talk about iran's nuclear ambitions, it is the single state sponsor of hezbollah. it is military capable and highly organized, more so than al qaeda has been. it is worldwide. the notion of iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon, coupled with it being a state sponsor of terror, should scare everybody. secretary clinton made a speech today to aipac and said that, if iran obtain a nuclear weapon, we are likely to seek a nuclear

arms race in the middle east. i took issue with it. make no mistake about it. in the press, you know that that nuclear arms race is on to date and we are not talking about it. we need to be talking about it. there is a nuclear arms race in progress in the middle east and we need to be honest and we need to talk about it. if we do not talk about it, it will not just be iran with nuclear weapons. you have a potentially unstable region with lots of nuclear weapons which makes jamie's. all the more likely. look at what we know. -- jamie's point all the more likely. look at what we know. we know about iran's facility at koontz. we need to be concerned about the nuclear arms race that is currently going on. >> let me see where our audience

takes us. let me introduce the interview team who has helped us select the questions we will talk about. i would appreciate 8 if you would hold your applause -- if you're going to applaud. [laughter] until we hear them all. these are both question veteran -- veteran question vetter's. don miller is editor in chief of the "santa cruz sentinel." they are standing. [applause]

>> how quickly i figured out they were standing. [laughter] >> they did a good job. >> i have not lost a step, have i? [laughter] >> we had a wonderful event this afternoon. a bunch of students are in town. a handful or so of them are here. how like to ask them to stand. i do not know where they are. please stand up and be recognized. [applause] >> thank you. they are from carmel high, marion ojai, monterey home charter school, -- marina high, monterey home charter school. the lecture series of the

institute's work and all of us are grateful for the sponsorship that allows students from high schools and universities from this part of california to participate. we think the sponsors and we ask you to thank them, too. [applause] >> this is all new to me. here we go. how does the partisanship and the turmoil within the country affect our foreign policy? >> this is a subject that i have been thinking a lot about. i am working on a long-term project on it. i have studied and been a participant going back 15 years or so in watching how the other party behaves when is out of power and watching it switch positions when it is in power.

oppositions have the duty to oppose. they raise questions and ask the hard questions to make sure that policies are thoughtfully thought through. i think, too often, in the current era -- partially due to your old position, cable media, radio, for better or for worse -- people's motivations are attacked. people's patriotisms are attacked. the debates that should be had agreeably are had this agreeably. -- are had disagreeably. they used to hit each other with canes and spittoons. that is true. but the cuban missile crisis

occurred two weeks or three weeks before that a midterm election. it involved not a small problem, but the fate of the entire planet. it was u.s.-soviet nuclea0 thermonuclear war, basically. it was the closest election in history at that time. it was kennedy-nixon in 1960. the country had been divided. now is the chance for the election. imagine, today, if we had a global crisis where the parties had slightly different views and it was three weeks before -- >> d. you think that kennedy and doberman would be in? >> i do not know what they would do. it is frightening to think of the next time we face a world shattering, a world historical decision in the current environment.

after 9/11, the country did come together. >i think all of us have watched americans play out at some level and you go, "shut up." i heard someone the other day criticizing the administration for killing too many terrorists in afghanistan. if we had enough detention policies, we would not kill so many. we could water board them and [unintelligible] [laughter] and i thought, whoa, you are too stupid to be on television. [laughter] [applause] that is a standard that had never been reached before. >> if the stakes are high

enough, people come together. >> i do not know. 9/11 is a good example. it has been since 9/11 when the competition between the three cable networks and the rise of the blogosphere have occurred. vicki for me is very simple. it is for -- the key for me is very simple. it is for people to recognize the legitimacy of the other person's argument, that they are just as interested in protecting the security of our country and promoting america and having us be strong, but they just might have a different way of going about it. it predicated agree on that, starting on the house floor, on the senate, and on cable tv -- witobviously, there would not -- but that is where we have to start. it is a simple thing.

but it would be profound. >> did you ever worry or cringe when you were in government not only about the things that were said about your side, but other things your side said about the of a guy? did you ever think, "man, this is dangerous?" >> in the lead to the 2004 election, jamie was working for senator kerry and i was in the white house. it was clear enemy, for the first time post/9/11, just how political the terrorism -- post- 9/11, just how political the terrorism issue had become. leading up to the 2004 election, bin laden and an american al qaeda member were releasing video tapes.

the threats were very real. we were very concerned about it. of course, there were internal debates about what should be done about it. at one point, there was a decision taken about having tom ridge, the secretary of homeland security, raise the threat alert level. in such a high-powered political averment and a run-up to an election, i worried that it would be misunderstood as to why we were doing that. i also thought that it was incredibly important and the president agreed that, to the extent that wthe teeth on this with a political, that we would not carry it that way. senator kerrey was going to a stop just as tom ridge was raising the alert. we knew that candidate kerrey

was went to p.s. what he thought about it. what we did not want something to be blindsided, but, in a very partisan political environment, in the run-up to an election, have you pulled up through? -- how do you pull that through? but the answer to that is that, two people who work in the clinton administration, i knew that i could get into the phone. even if he did not want to hear what i had to say, he would listen. we laughed about it. senator kerrey was not surprised by it. he may not have agreed. in terms of the good of the nation and the security of the country, we were able, by virtue of a personal relationship, to get past the politics. that did not stop howard dean from casting aspersions and the rnc pushing back.

by chris about that. but what gets you through is that there -- i cringe about that. but what gets you through it is that there are people for that. too often, these important issues get reduced to these silly sound bites that to really do not tell you anything and do not really advance the public debate. i think that is dangerous. it happens on both sides of the aisle. both are equally wrong. i think there has to be a free zone where we can really debate substantive issues and divorce them from some of the top. >> both senate -- both president bush and senator kerry made a very smart comments about what a

reasonable expectation of terror over the long term is. senator kerrey said we need to reduce it to an almost nuisance level. they were both creamed. cable cream to them. -- cable cream died them. and i thought, whow, we cannot have a conversation about the most serious issue. the decisions they take, at some level, they do get influenced by that. the financial independence -- the financial dependence we have on china and our foreign policy, do we exaggerated? >> i think we do exaggerate it.

there's too much and assumptions that, because china owns so much of the american dead -- there's too much an assumption that because china on so much of the american debt, that' that is a problem when you owe a big debt nor a small that, when you owe a big bank, you're in trouble. you do not pay it, they take your house. but if you are a corporation and you owe billions of dollars, they give you more money to make you succeed so that they can get their money back. in a sense, the chinese want america's economy to succeed. they want the dollar to succeed. otherwise this $1 trillion worth of treasury bills that they have

spent so much money on will not be worth as much. where i think they own yard that has an impact is that we want to get them to do things to be a responsible mannemember of the l community, such as supporting the appropriate sanction on iran for violating its restrictions. our talking points get screwed up when they get to this day to less than you are not behaving like a responsible country because you are in debt. that hurts our ability to influence china like that. but in terms of sitting back and having some control over what we do in iraq or afghanistan or our relationship with israel or our partnership an alliance with

south korea and japan or equally with any of the nato countries, no, i do not think that china can deploy that leverage. if we ever want china to be a responsible member of the international community, we will need to develop a better financial footing so that we can harangue them with full force. we need to be able to harangue them. one of the things that people do not talk about is that china is not a responsible member of the international community. they do not actually spend a lot of time caring about anything that is not related with anything within china or their ability to get resources for china. when it comes to the world's operations, things that western countries but dissipate in, in peacekeeping operations, human rights abuses around the world,

they abstain from those issues or go along with the majority after it a decision has been taken. they do not have an affirmative form policy. >> what about the freedom of the internet? [laughter] >> they should just back off on their own folks for a bit. [laughter] >> can diplomacy work with countries that the u.s. considers a terrorist countries? can we diplomatically work our way out of this mess with iran? >> there has been no indication, based on iranian behavior, that that is possible. i was saying this to someone earlier. i traveled with secretary jim baker makes the point. you cannot resolve anything if you do not talk to the people

you disagree with. the problem right now is that iran has not done anything to events a willingness to a evince -- to evince a willingness to deal with us in a reasonable way. the military options are not good. i do not think that the current administration is inclined in that direction and. but let me hasten to add that the primary mission was not inclined in that direction either. israel mayor may not choose to go in that direction. people will ask you what you can expect from that, given what you know and what your understanding

is. that is a delay tactic. you're not going to destroy iran's capability. you will delay their acquisition of a nuclear capability. we do not have much choice other than to critical mission that will continue to put pressure on iran. >> is there one thing that is missing there? what are two things that, if we could only convince the czechs -- [laughter] >> it would change? >> china could be much stronger. they are acting in their own self-interest as opposed to the interest of the international community.

to the extent that engagement and diplomacy sanctions are not working, our allies in china and russia bear some responsibility. >> should the doctrine of preemptive military action remain on the table when it comes to iran? >> pre-emptive military doctrine -- this came into the public discussion in 2002 when it was made of the strategy document of the united states to say openly what has always been true, that countries can act in their own self- defense if they are about to be attacked. this was one of the reasons why iraq diplomacy was so hard.

it was seen as a first test of a new thing. if we did iraq, then we could do iran and then syria. that is the way the rest of the world looked at it because it was hyped as some new plan. it has always been true that the u.s. has been able to act preemptively in some situation if they thought it would be in our national self-defense. the issue was not preemption. it was the other word in the doctrine -- "prevention." there and is knockenot -- iran t going to have a missile with which to attack the united states.

but knowing that iran may soon have a nuclear weapons capable program, do we act before they get to that point? that would be preventive war, to prevent something from happening. for all the reasons that she stated, i think we will end up in a very similar situation to the way things work in the cold war. there was a phrase in the cold war that was called "adequate verification." it was a term invented by the nixon administration. it meant that we could have an agreement with the soviet union, who we know are lying and cheating and stealing rations -- [laughter] >> it is not like they cannot help it or something there were born with. [laughter] >> right.

but we could do this in time to respond. i think that is where we will end up with iran. we will develop some analogous phrase. >> we will let them back of their nuclear weapons. >> we would -- >> know. we would attack -- >> no. we would get tax if they throw the inspectors out. we would detect that and then we would make this decision to use force and prevent iran from ever having this capability. to get into a diplomatic discussion with other countries, if they were about to brandish an actual weapon or put

the final pieces together or throw the inspectors out who currently monitor this material, that would yield a different response. i think that is where this debate is going to go. >> may i respond? >> i feel like a lowly college professor. why wait? why do we not blow them up? >> it worries me that the soviet contract gives me comfort in this context. russia was not a state sponsor of terror. when you add that into the mix, the notion that we will be able to know that they have cheated and be able to take time to make a decision to act or that we will be able to track adequately the material, i do not think that is realistic.

in the context of the potential for not just a nuclear weapon, but for the movement of materials and the use of those nuclear materials and an improvised nuclear device by a terrorist organization, this is asymmetric. that is what worries me. >> i do not disagree with any of that. but the primary threat has already been dismissed, which is to use military force. i am talking about where we are likely to end up. the reason why president bush did not choose to attack iran and the reason why president obama seems disinclined to attack iran is because the attack would not fully achieve the objective of preventing them from ever getting a nuclear weapon and it would have all of these costs. >> and there would be some push back. >> right.

this would be used against israel, against the gulf, against embassies around the world, against americans ourselves, and we would be initiating a major war in the middle east for a gain that has been described as questionable. that is the reason weapon of bush did not do it, and presumably why president obama is reluctant to do it. when we are left with the the real world, there are preferred auctions of preventing an iranian nuclear weapon capability. we do not have good options. >> you may use the military option. you can get to the point where the use of the military option for delaying it is a better alternative than the acceptance of them acquiring a nuclear weapon.

>> but we are not there yet. >> no. that is right. i think we may find ourselves there. certainly, our is really friends may find themselves there. -- our is really -- our isreali friends may find themselves there. >> here is the next question. why are americans so despised around the world? [laughter] >> i don't think that that promise is true. during the clinton administration, a relatively popular present around the world, there was a lot of anger and frustration at the united states. the french foreign minister said that we were the hyper power and that european countries did not like being told what to do when it came to sanctions on iran and libya.

we were criticized for things like be telling the secretary- general of the u.n.. in all candor, president bush took that to a new level. even after president obama had come in and fixed theucñ major differences that existed between the two parties, like climate change and change in the practices with respect to the treatment of prisoners and supporting international control agreements, we did something that nobody had ever heard of before. we unsigned a treaty. i guess they had an eraser or pen and the race did. [laughter] -- and you raised it. [laughter] -- and erased it.

[laughter] >> too often, other countries are willing to put their head in the sand and hope the problem will go away or live in the knowledge that somebody else will take care of it, whether it is the united states or the israelis. this is a good example. you talk to moderately arab countries and you get this funny moment where moderately arab countries basically admitte that they would like the israelis to block the iranian nuclear reactor. -- to blow up the iranian nuclear reactor. in the recent case went israel attacked the hezbollah operations in lebanon because they had attacked israelis in the north, for the first time ever, you had egypt, jordan,

saudi arabia issuing a statement blaming hezbollah for initiating the war. it is rare that you have dishonesty. with all the difficulties that we go through, america is the strongest military power and the world. we have a system that is admired. americans themselves are admired, probably less than it ought to be, if we could fix immigration officers being mean to all of those foreigners. it is hard to come to this country if you're not american canal. it is tough to go through immigration. -- if you're not american now. it is that to go through immigration.

it is not anybody's fault. >> so we are not despised. but we could do things to be more admired than we already are. >> did the administration worry -- not that americans were despised -- that the attitude toward the american government was causing problems that we're serious and needed to be resolved because it was dangerous to us? >> yes. one of the things is that, when you read the question, my first reaction is that there is a difference between this agreements by people around the world with american policy versus americans being despised. i have travelled throughout the persian gulf, including to saudi

arabia many times. i have never had the experience where anyone in any part of the world, including the arab world, hated americans. they may have disagreed with policy. they may have locally been disagreeing with american foreign policy. but they did not despise americans. when condoleezza rice went to become the secretary of state, she and i talked about this issue. we had met with a group of american university presidents who were concerned about the drop in student visas from around the world. we were clamping down and issuing fewer student visas. our allies in canada and great britain and australia were easing restrictions on students and were attracting them.

the university officials said that, once we losezo!t them, a percentage of them we will not get back. teaching the customs and immigration officials at airports how to behave in a way that does not unduly offend people who were visiting this country, i can remember a great story. a man who had gone to harvard and said that his wife would not let him go. i said, i will meet him at boston's logan airport if you send him. he said, that is fine, but my wife will let him go because you will not be there every time. it is by no means perfect. it is better.

it was the group of university presidents who said that, by and large, we have gotten students back to this country. they are not at the level that it was before 9/11. people admired the ingenuity and the capability of this country and they wanted to come here. the important thing was to get past the government-to- government relations around the world and reach out to people and let them come here and let them be comfortable and take advantage of the many blessings we have in this country. we worked very hard. that was one of the things we thought we could do to ease some of that. .

>> a number of dramatic decisions, the moniker of fighting as hard as we should for democratic values around the world. i think the decision to not see the dalai lama before the

president went to china, the decision to downplay human- rights and our relationship with china, the decision to put aside some of the democracy programs in countries like egypt, each one of these decisions had good practical value and good pragmatic rationale but the net effect of all these decisions, it is a shame that democracy promotion, the great idea that the rest of the world should have more and more infrastructure of democracy and ultimately democratic governments, i would say became hyper-partisan the day that president bush give a speech to the state of the union and every republican legislator put purple

ink on their finger and whenever iraq was discussed, they waved the finger to try to beat the democrats in the room feels like because they have legitimate questions about the iraq war, they were not for democracy, as if those two were the same. unfortunately, the results is the democratic party during those years and began to associate promotion of democracy with the iraq war and president bush's doctor in and remember this day when the attempt was made to embarrass them. the democratic party has stepped back from being as much of a promoter of democratic dollars around abroad despite president kennedy, president carter, president clinton paused historical support for democracy.

>> in your area, nobody seems very happy. do you think the president has handled it ok? >> i think the president, it is interesting. when you look at the press coverage with the health care debate, the president has not really spoken about the terrorism threat and the issues facing this country in terms of homeland security since the christmas day attempt. i think that leaves open the ability for partisans to criticize him. there is no question that we are going to be attacked again. we can quibble whether it is enhanced derogation or did interrogation techniques are guantanamo bay or the federal trials, all of those are legitimate public policy debates. regrettably, it denigrates into

a partisan debate. i will say to you that i think it is really important and my concern at the moment is the president must find his voice on this issue. i fear, given the christmas day attempt and his concern that the system did not work as it should have, that is -- that we failed to detect the threat before it manifested itself, he had gotten remarkably quiet on this issue. i did not think that serves him or the country well. i think we need to talk about the issue. we need to be off -- honest about the threat we are facing. part of that is there is no good that comes from not talking about it. let me speak from personal experience. your national security officials, every day they are in office, will strike a balance

between security and privacy and civil liberties. they do would on your behalf. just because there are not talking about it does not mean they did not do it. public officials make better decisions when there is an informed public debate on the issue. you may not ultimately agree with the decisions they make, but i can assure you they will make better decisions by virtue of the public debates. >> that is a great place to end this. thank you, both. thank you for being with us and all of you for being with us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> coming up, house speaker nancy pelosi assigned to health care reconciliation bill. a speech in new hampshire and by minnesota governor tim pawlenty. after that, an update on the senses with robert groves. >> john mccain, who is running for his fifth term, held a -- holds a campaign rally in mesa, arizona. with him is sarah palin who was also his running mate for the 2008 presidential campaign. you concede that tomorrow at 8:05 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the renovation of the pentagon has made it much harder for reporters to walk around because more and more spaces are now behind doors where i cannot

go unless i am escorted. >> sunday, the national security correspondent for cbs news on covering the military and the u.s. and in iraq and afghanistan at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's q and .a. >> the house and senate both approved the reconciliation measure yesterday and the speaker was obligated to sign the bill before sending it on to president obama to be signed into law. this is about 25 minutes. >> good morning. it is with great pride and even more stability that we come

together today to sign this legislation. in doing so, congress will act as others before us did to do something very important for the american people. very significant to their daily lives. others before us brought forth social security, medicare, civil rights, some of the landmark legislation and our country's history. today, we have the opportunity in the house to sign this legislation to enroll this important registration to send to the president of the united states for his signature. we can let reviewed the event of last week which brought us to victory in passing the senate bill but a central to its passage is the passage of this second bill which would make significant improvements on the senate bill. only then will we be able to

pass the bill. a matter of trust between the house and the senate, we were able to pass the senate bill knowing that the senate would pass the house improvements. senator reid is a remarkable -- did a remarkable job keeping everybody together. we were killed yesterday to see a substantial victory for these improvements. -- we were thrilled yesterday to see a substantial victory for these improvements. you have heard me sing the praises of our leadership over and over again and of course, the president of the united states. but the victory that we have is largely attributed to our newest members of congress. we have had generations of working on this legislation. mr. dingell, what an honor it is to serve with you. [applause]

and his father before him introducing ever term in congress. that legacy and that tradition is reinforced with the election of our members to increase our strength and increase the majority to pass this legislation. not only was it about numbers, more important than that, it was about the significance and improvements in the legislation. because of some of the members that are here and colleagues and the freshman class of 2006 and 2008, the legislation we are enrolled here today makes this health care reform more affordable for the middle class. it makes it more accessible to many more people.

it has more equity for the state by removing the nebraska arrangement. and it holds the insurance companies more accountable by improving the reforms that were in the original legislation. it changes because of the work of this class. it makes it more fair to the middle class. it closes the donut for seniors and that is very important. if you are not a senior, and i am becoming more and more one by the minute, donut hole is the disparity and inequity that seniors face in terms of paying for prescription drugs. again, more affordable for the middle-class, more fairness to

the state, more accountability for the insurance companies, better pay in terms of the middle-class closing the donut hole. something that captures why this is so important came to me last night when i was reading some letters. listen to this. my beautiful daughter, 23 years old, died on january 5, 2010. a few weeks ago. she was an insulin-dependent diabetic who was kicked off her father's insurance today she graduated from college. she was not able to find a job that provide insurance or insurance that was affordable.

and i hope there where i could but my income was also limited. she tried to conserve her insulin. she attempted to wean herself off her nighttime insulin dosage resulting in a condition that held her -- from which she slid into a coma and never woke up. she was unable to afford her insulin supply. and this legislation, -- in this legislation, she would be able to stay on her father's insurance policy until she was 26 years old. this makes a tremendous difference in the lives of american people. another important part of this, too of the pillars of job creation or investments in

education and health care. when we did the reconciliation, it was on a dual track. i think the leadership of george miller and members of the labor committee, many of whom are present today, this education peace is in this reconciliation. on any given day, this would be an enormous victory for the american people. lower the cost of student loans, 8 million families affected. and proving the epll grant of -- pell grant. assistance for community colleges and historic $2.50 billion for minority-serving institutions making college more affordable for the middle class and reaching out to make it more accessible for many more people. it is about training our work force and committed the colleges

and reducing the cost of student loans. thank you to george miller and members of the education committee. [applause] >> so many members of the committee, rob andrews, the chair of the subcommittee, i do

not know if he is here, but he has been relentless. that is a white -- that is why so many young people are here. their lives are affected by this legislation not only in terms of staying on their parents policies but being able to afford their education and eliminating a pre-existing condition. being a woman, has been one up until now. it is important to note, and steny hoyer would want me to make this point, that every step of the way in the education piece, we saved $10 billion for the taxpayer. overall, we saved over 1.3 trillion dollars for the taxpayer. and this is about approving affordability and access. more affordability for the middle-class for education and health care. it does so in a way that saves

the taxpayer money. when it comes to our seniors, we protect medicare and make it solvent for nearly a decade longer. we close the donout hole and we have a better situation for preventive care. if you are young, middle-aged, middle class, whatever your situation, this legislation affects you very directly. there is only one reason to do the bill -- fiscal soundness. and that fits the bill. the president said that health care reform is entitlement reform we cannot sustain the current system. he also said that we will measure our success by the progress that is being made by america's working families with this legislation that is relative to their lives.

we hope that they will be able to reach their aspirations, liberated from the weight of health care costs and free from the high cost of education so that they can honor the values of our founders -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i am very honored to sign this legislation which we will then send over to the president of the united states. the wonderful ideas that we had will go from being ideas to legislation to the law of the land to make a difference in the lives of the american people. first, i want to acknowledge, i mentioned that steny hoyer is here. we have members of the leadership.

part of our leadership comes from so many people. they are well done to you and you see them. this day would not be possible without the vision and leadership of the president of the u.s., the inspiration of senator kennedy who has been with us every step of the way including right now but the difference for america's families are made by our class of 2006 and 2008 breeding their tireless energy and deep commitment to the american people to bear on this legislation. steve cohen, carol porter, peter

welch, ron kline, all of these young people back here who helped because all that we want to do to maneuver and win votes in congress is not possible without the outside mobilization of people who understand the impact of the legislation and make their voices known to the members of congress. nothing is more eloquent to a member of congress than the voice of his or her own constituents. many of our colleagues have already gone home to talk to their editorial boards, to see their families, and to meet with their constituents on this legislation. i think the class of 2006 and 2008 who are here in their own right. let's hear it for our newest members. [applause]

>> a couple days ago, i signed the big bill. this is a much smaller bill we are signing now. none of these bills match the number of letters of pages received from constituents asking us to pass it.

[applause] >> this will now go to the president of the added steps to make the feature better for our country. we are making history here with this legislation. thank you all, very much. [applause] [♪ happy birthday ] [applause]

>> can you imagine a more important birth a privilege than to be signing health care for all americans? [applause]

>> this is our gift to the american people. thank you, very much. [applause] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[indistinct chatter] >> we have been joined by mr.

butterfield from north carolina. [applause] >> he was an important part, along with the tremendous leadership of jim clyburn. thank you. >> thank you. >> that is it. >> now we are going to have the cake.

[anddistinct chatter -- indstinct chatter- >> let's hear it for the staff. [applause]

>> coming up next, a speech in the hampshire by minnesota governor tim pawlenty. after that, an update on the senses with robert groves. then, president obama discusses a nuclear treaty -- a new treaty with russia. >> this weekend on c-span2, bill bennett examines america at the end of the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st. he is interviewed by the former managing editor at "time" magazine.

from new york, the national book critics' award ceremony. but for highlights from the virginia festival of the book. condit schedule online at booktv.com >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> whether you are researching former presidents or looking for an event from yesterday, you can search it, watch it, and shared at the new c-span video library with over 160,000 hours of video and 115,000 people. every c-span program since 1987. the c-span library, cables latest gift to america. >> in their -- to minnesota governor was in new hampshire. this is about 45 minutes.

>> i will make this as brief as i can because everybody has heard enough for me this evening. i was asked to introduce our guest speaker, governor temp pawlenty and i was honored. i was with him and his wife a few months ago. we probably spent 45 minutes together. you can tell that the political season has officially started because we have a governor from another state coming to new hampshire at least twice. i he has heard the rumor and unless people me to three times, they have not decided about year so he has made two quick trips and i applaud him for that. the governor very quickly puts people at ease when you meet him. you can get into a regular conversation, nothing heavy, and he makes you feel very comfortable.

it is not the very tough, difficult, straitjacket conversation that you sometimes have apologist -- with politicians. he makes no secret about it. he is testing the presidential waters. during our conversation, it was clear that he was thinking about this because he loves his country and he believes in a blueprint that our founding fathers like velcro and that is very -- our founding fathers played out and that is very refreshing. i am pleased to introduce our special guest from minnesota, governor tim pawlenty. [applause]

>> thank you. i appreciate the key for that kind introduction. i enjoyed our meeting, as well. i can tell the city is in capable hands with your leadership. you shared with me some of the great reforms and advances you are making. i think the future is bright for the city of manchester. let's give the mayor a round of applause for his leadership. [applause] >> to my friend, i had a chance to visit with him, spending a little time with him, we have a leader here whose heart and head is connected and he has great values and a strong set of beliefs and a thoughtful and subtle way to present them. you are a great role model in

the way that you conduct yourself and thank you for being such a beacon for those of us who want to rally around the republican and conservative cause. it is a lot of work to the head of the committee and not a lot of glamour. let's give him a round of applause, as well. [applause] >> i have a special guest with me and that is the first lady of minnesota, mary pawlenty. [no audio] [applause] >> , mop, honey. [applause] say hello. >> i need to learn the political weight. i will say a quick thank you to everybody. to a person, everybody we have met on our visits to new hampshire has been warm and kind and will command and we appreciate it so much. i recognize that many of you do this because it brings you jury and it is a way to connect with

friends. more importantly, what you are doing is not just for new hampshire but for this country in such an important time. thank you for being here tonight. [applause] i am sure with your spouse or significant other, they play a role with keeping you on track and within the guard rails of life. marye place that will for may. i was in the minnesota legislature for 10 years. we made some great progress in a very liberal state. i came home one day after giving thought to running for governor as i was winding up my legislative career. i have decided i was not going to run. i came into the house in minnesota and said i have been doing this for 10 years. i have taken it as far as i can go for our state. i think it is time to turn the page and move on to the next thing in our lives. minnesota is going to have to be ready for the next set of leaders.

she came toward me with a determined look on her face and literally grabbed me by the lapels on my jacket and looked into my eyes and said you cannot quit now. we have taken it this far. the state needs to put up the state's conservatives. you cannot quit. i thought, i am rocky balboa. this is adrienne. i was inspired by her comments. i thought, ok. it was a turning point in my decision making. i said i am going to stay in the fight and we're going to continue to try to make a difference. against all odds, an uphill battle, jesse ventura was looking like he was going to

run, it would've been a three- way run, it is a tough state, against all odds, i won in 2002. about six months into it, my schedule at home became an issue because of young kids. pierre was conflict about scheduling and dedication to the home front and we had an argument. i said don't you remember that inspiring speech that you gave me and you told me to do this and it was your encouragement? there was an awkward pause in the discussion and she said, yet, but i never thought you would win. [laughter] >> true story. there are a lot of people as we look back at 2006 and 2008 election results who had written off republicans and conservatives in places like minnesota, the northeast, other

parts across the country, they said the conservatives time has passed. the sun was setting on the conservative movement. the commentators saying that conservatives were bewildered, aimless, confused, they're like barack obama without a teleprompter. [mixed response] it has been about seven months since the infamous wall street bailout. it has been 12 months since the ridiculous stimulus package but it has been about nine months since the house passed a very misguided and dangerous cap and trade proposal. it has been about four days since the united states congress passed one of the worst pieces of legislation in the modern history of the country in the form of this overreaching health care bill that the past four

days ago. the good news is this -- help is on the way. and about eight months, conservatives all over this country, republicans all of this country, are going to get elected and take back this congress and correct the mistakes this administration has been making. [applause] >> i want to talk to you tonight about a different perspective. i want to talk to you tonight about america. not america the piece of geography, this beautiful place that is our country from coast to coast, from sea to sea, but i want to talk to you about america the set of ideals. america the place that was founded upon certain principles that our founding fathers thought were important, not as a matter of pop psychology, not as a matter of emotion or impulse of the moment, but on time-

tested principles, based on the history of the human experience and the state and the common sense that they had. they put these glorious thoughts into the documents that became the founding documents for our nation and the address the principles of limited government, individual responsibility, free markets, the right to life and service to others in charity and kindest and entrepreneurial spirit and the innovativeness that comes with freedom when people can think and create and design and innovate and invent and have an economy that provides the jobs and the private sector activity that we need to have all across this country. when i talk to people about this challenge that we face economically and otherwise, there are a lot of components that go into it. we live in the most free and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

it has been a beacon of hope for citizens throughout time and for people across the globe. our current leadership of this country, the so-called progressive, they use that term is it they are forward leaning. they imply that they are progressive and they are looking into the future. what they are really doing is trying to address the 21st century challenges of america with the solutions from eastern europe from a century ago. they do not work. [applause] our federal government, as we are gathered here tonight in manchester, new hampshire, our federal government owns or controls two large car companies, two of the largest companies in the world. they own or control the nation's largest insurance company.

they own or control two of the entities that right now over 80% of all of the mortgages in the united states of america, they own or control the entire student loan industry in our country. they own or control wide parts of the entire banking industry. four days ago, they have now seized a substantial portion and have taken control of the entire health care delivery system in our nation. if they have their way, they will soon be taking control over the energy sector with a misguided cap and trade bill. i hope they do not pass it but they're trying to do that. they are trying to get their fingers further into control, even into k-12 education and take away more of the local control that we appreciate. of course, the list goes on and on. i thought what could it possibly do for an encore to that?

the other day, i went to look at their platform for the democrat party for the nation. i could not understand any of it. i did not speak any french. it did not dawn on may. there have a country where the attitude of the governing leadership of the nation is a federal government over reach to the point that they're taking over every day another bit of our freedom, another bit of our liberty, and other bit of our entrepreneurial spirit, another bit of our individual responsibility, and other discouragement toward our faith and values and for those people in this room and for patriots all across this country, it is time to send the same message they sent in the special elections in new jersey, the election in virginia lester, the same message the was sent in the

recent massachusetts senate rate and the message is this -- not get off. stop what you are doing and stop having the government over reach. we have had enough. it is time for those of us in this room and others across the nation to push back into this country back. [applause] after all of the top of the 2008 elections about hope and change, what we have now are state- sponsored companies that are too big to fail. we have a federal government that is too big to succeed. we have the government debt that is too big to pay off and we have leaders at the federal level who are too small to do anything about it. this cannot stand. we now have a situation where wall street gets billed out, the

port understandably get a handout, and all of you get your wallet out. the american people have figured out that formula where big business, big unions, and big government are now working in ways that are not in the best interest of average, hard- working americans and their families. that is why you see this anger. that is why you see this passion. that is why you see this accountability coming not just from the established party but from everyday citizens on the internet, at the tea parties, all across this country saying enough. we have had enough. i and delighted to be here with you tonight and send the message that hope is on the way and there is a better way. a lot of attention gets paid to the fact that massachusetts is a very liberal state. it is. remember, i come from minnesota. massachusetts went for ronald reagan twice.

minnesota never went for ronald reagan. i am not proud of that. there was one year where ronald reagan won 49 out of 50 states. there was one state he did not win. guess which one it was? minnesota. some of you may be old enough to remember eugene mccarthy from minnesota. some of you may remember schubert humphrey from minnesota. some of you may remember walter mondale for minnesota. some of you may remember paul wellstone. some of you will remember the current united states senator from minnesota, al franken. [jeers] >> when people talk about the challenges in the northeast or in massachusetts or the

challenges of the conservative opportunity in the great lakes with the upper midwest are places like that, i know a little bit about that. i ran as a conservative two times in a state and one. a. nand won. we have taken the spending curve of a budget that went up 21% on average every two years. we have brought that down to about zero. for the first time in the state history, we actually cut spending. [applause] this next one may not seem like a big deal to those in the granite state. for 30 years, governors of both parties in minnesota have said can be at least get the state out of the top 10 states with

taxes. you would not think that would be too much to ask the 30 year'' worth of governors, nobody ever did it. just a couple years ago, when moved out of the top-10 after cutting taxes and holding the line. we are already down to number 11 or 12. we're heading in the right direction. we are moving from synergy pay for teachers to performance pay. and we're demanding accountability for results, not just input. [applause] we are fixing what is a broken health care system but we are doing that by using market forces and putting individuals and their families in charge of health care. we are making sure that when the word goes out across the state and across the country that there needs to be changed, we

can point to minnesota and as frank sinatra said, if we can do it here, we can do it anywhere. i want to just leave you with a few principles that i am ground again that i hope you are grounded in. people say that they are a key party conservative or a ronald reagan conservative or a common- sense conservative. those are good words. but i hope we start the discussion with this frame of reference -- we should be constitutional conservatives first. [applause] >> i was talking to somebody earlier at a table who spent a good time -- deale of their time teaching young people historical perspective about the constitution and have the constitution teach the lessons of today's date -- today's debate from the eyes and ears of the founders as reflected in those documents.

that is a powerful experience. these principles are just one generation away from being discounted or diminished or forgotten. those of such respect -- those of us who respect the principles have to make sure they are taught and passed on to the next generation. from that, common sense flows. from my standpoint, a lot of that comes from our families. we learned earlier about shirley. i grew up in a meat packing town. her parents had a rendering plant. in my home town, we had the world's largest stockyards and world's largest meatpacking plant. my dad was a truck driver for much of his life but my mother was a homemaker for much of her life. she died when i was 16. i was the only one in my family that could go to college. my brothers and sisters did things like worked on oil

refineries and worked in the produce department of the grocer's door for 40 years. one of my sisters is a special education aid in public schools. another sister worked as an administrative system -- and mr. assistant for 40 years. i share that because we are all rooted in the same experience and of bringing and values we are taught in our families and communities and schools. you learned some things along the way. here are a few that i have learned that i think applied really well to the debates going on in this nation. the first one is this. we cannot spend more than we have. i remember my mother sitting at the kitchen table. for some people, this is a metaphor. this was my reality. my mother would sit at that table with the family checkbook and that almost to the point of tears wondering about how we are going to pay the bills and manage cash flow so that we can

get the bills paid on time. she would call to gather my dad and others in our family and say this is what we have. this is what we can afford. there are some things that we can do and there are some things that we cannot do. one thing that they know is we were not going to go into debt. there were not going to be irresponsible about that. we now have a federal government that is so far in debt that it has put this nation so at risk and put this nation at such peril but they not only endanger our economic security and prosperity would it has gotten so bad that there are now putting at risk our national security over these issues. let me give you a couple of numbers. the united states federal government takes in $2.20 trillion in funds and revenue from all sources for all purposes. last year, they spent 3.7 trillion dollar. the overshot it by $1.60 trillion.

you might say that is bad. it is. some might say give them a pass because it was a bad year. if you add up all the years they would need a pass, not just the $1.70 billion -- $1.70 trillion the overspent, the debt is now going to the $14 trillion. that is with the annual deficit is. here is the real number. if you look at all of the unfunded liabilities of the u.s. federal government, entitlements, pensions, everything they owe, you can count all the stuff to keep off the books, the unfunded liabilities of the u.s. federal government are at least $70 trillion. if they were a bank, and they were applying their own rules about excess leverage and reckless finances, they would have to shut themselves down. there is no way that you can make those numbers work. this is no longer a matter about

being conservative or liberal or independent or green or something else or neither. the trajectory we are now on is a matter of junior high mathematics. a junior high student can look at these numbers and tell you they did not work. our nation, our beloved united states of america, which goes around the world with a tin cup in hand and asks places like communist china, asks places like middle eastern sovereign walled funds -- sovereign welath alth funds. we are not a beggar nation. we had secretary of state hillary clinton in china pleading with the chinese to buy our debt because if they did not, we cannot pay our bills. hank paulson's recent book expressed a concern that there was a report that vladimir putin

went from russia to china to try to orchestrate a coordinated effort for both of them to pull down their positions in the bonds that they purchased to try to destabilize the american economy. that is the point that we have sunk to where we have individuals and organizations and enemies who did not have our best interests at heart using our addiction to get to destabilize this country. that has to change. we need to rise up and say enough. another principle of one to share with you quickly is this. people spend money differently and some of it is their money. when we talk about the solutions, whether it is education or health care or any of these other issues, we have to be about the business of making sure that people have the

financial incentives to use the system widely. -- wisely. the health-care debate, the system is broken. it needs to be reformed but it needs to be performed with consumers in the driver's seat. if i said to you tonight, on your way home from this dinner, please stop at a great minnesota company, best buy, or target, and by any television set that you want. to not worry about the price. you can have the biggest one you want or any features you want and just send the bill to us at the governor's residence. how many of you would show up at your home tonight with a 12 inch black-and-white? none of the wood. we need to give people could information about pricing quality. we need to get people good information about the decisions that will