voted against it when it came to the floor, including a remarkable array of people who were co-sponsors but they had fought for it for three or four or five years. some said what was the purpose of that? as far as i can discern, it was to stick it to the president. that's where we are in washington now. our baby teeth are that if we get 14 out of 18 votes. so 60% wasn't high enough for the senate. we've got to get 80%. and we have six members of -- six senators and six congresspeople, three republicans and three democrats from each body. but if we can get 14 votes, then senator reid has agreed to bring up our recommendations for an up or down vote. and if it passes in the senate, then the house has agreed to vote on it, too. but we've got to get 80%.

and we've got people at every extreme you can imagine. so we have some teeth and we're trying to build the trust and confidence and the sense of urgency that will make people agree that we have to act on that now. >> senator simpson wanted to jump in. >> i would just say that those seven, though, have now come to us and said we're ready to help. and -- >> of course they have. >> very helpful to us. >> but if we had 12 governors, i guarantee you we would get to an answer tomorrow. because you all are used to making these decisions. you know the importance of them, and you wouldn't put it off. >> well, thank you. maybe baby teeth and baby steps here. as i hear it from people of utah, the biggest concern is this growing debt.

and just the lack of sustainability. we just feel like we're going towards a precipus that there's no retreat from and we're going to go over the edge. i know the phrase that seem to have been coined in politics is fuzzy math. and it appears, as we've just pierced this $13 trillion debt here this past few weeks, made national news, but we get different numbers from different branches of government. the executive branch says one thing, the congressional branch says something else. is there any ability for us to have a frank and brutal and honest discussion on what the actual debt is and the ongoing liabilities? is it 13 trillion with an ongoing liability of 50 trillion? can we get everybody on the same page and have reality triumph over politics to take off the rose colored glasses and really get everybody on the

same pages? these are in fact the real numbers and real obligations, so that we can in fact address it. >> well, we knew that was the problem from the beginning, so we with social security we used only the act wurry. gentlemen, i believe has been there about 30 years, steve. people don't like to read that report. and it's all there. and then there are two trustees that are yet to be appointed hung up in the senate confirmation process. these trustees were to report in june, it's a bipartisan group, they tell absolutely these hard figures. those two people haven't been appointed yet. but we use only the actuari of the health care system. we're not out to use any other thing. and people are irritated by that because that's where the meat is and that's where the authority is and that's where the honesty is, is the act wary. and then with regard to the

rest of ut it we use the congressional budget office and not the office of management and budget. so we stick, but youk -- >> we've made it the two of us before we agreed to do this, because you're exactly right. there are a zillion different ways to look at numbers in washington. but artsdz metic is something i can do, and the key is the numbers guide. you know, i just sit here and watch them. we absolutely, we agreed we were going to use cbo numbers, we told them we weren't going to use the administration numbers under any circumstances, and we are going to use only the act wary numbers as related to social security, medicare, and medicaid. >> governor stanford. >> let me just say up front that again, i echo the sentiments of a variety of colleagues who have praised both of you guys. i remember when i was in

congress, i was always particularly impressed when your chief of staff, the way you would return a call that day which i think is just can incredibly impressive. and i have long admired your work. that having been said, tell me what's wrong with the skept 86's viewpoint? it leads to some throvel what governor switeser was getting at. which is you know, we've seen a loot of commissions come and go through washington. you know, you have a prescription that's built on the presumption that the economy will get better by 2012. if that does not materialize, and i think that there are very reasonable grounds under which it might tot materialize, then what happens to the recommendations if the economy is still weak and you haven't seen it take off, lift off in the economy over the next 18 months? two, is it not impossible? if you look at the 50-year

moving average, debt to -- revenue to gdp has been about 20%, very consistently post world war ii, that's been the moving average, to bump it up to 21%, isn't that going to be awfully tough given that average? and, frankly, losing home deduct ibility on one's house, you can call it a tax extender, tax whatever, but a lot of people would see it as a tax increase and fight against it. and then three, again going back to governor switser's comments. you know, a commission alone without the heat of the president and the bully pull pit of the president i think is going to matter very, very little. so you have a president who at this point is not out in front of this i think we're running out of time. there's an interesting book, i think it was rine hart and ro golf, professor from the university of maryland and from harvard who wrote a book "this time it's different" which

chronicles the last years of history and once you get to 90% of debt to gdp, really bad things happen to one's economy. and we're close to that number. aren't we too late given the fact that the president isn't engaged and we're still at the commission level? >> alan said he couldn't quite hear. >> i have a hearing aid, but i would left it in the hotel. and somehow, the reverb ration, i can hear all that here but i don't quite get the corner. so it was a tough question and therefore i'll give it toers kin. >> we finish each other's sentences, we have dinner together the two of us all the time. we are partners completely. all good questions governor sanford, there are lots of skeptics. some commissions have worked, some haven't. al served on one that worked very well on the iraq study commission where i think now 59 of the recommendations have

been adopted. as i said, i did personally negotiate the first balanced budget in our generation so i know it can be done. and if i could remind you that when we set out to do that, there wasn't news organization in the country that believed it was possible and we got it done. and we did it by building up trust and confidence and a sense of urgency. >> secondly, on the debt to gdp ratios, when i left washington in owe, the debt to gdp ratio was, this is the public debt, that's where you get confused, governor, because some people talk about the public debt, some people talk about the gross debt, and then some people talk about all the unfunded libletteds. the public debt now is about 9.6 trillion. the gross debt is about 13 trillion as you just said, and if you count all the unfunded liabilities, it's about 52

trillion. so it gist you a pretty wide spread. but when we left the public debt was about 35% of gdp. today it's 64% of gdp. the average since 1957 is 45% of gdp. and it kind of, to understand what the gross debt is just add 30% to all those numbers i just gave you. there are lots of scollarly work. in fact, we had the people who wrote the article governor sanford spoke to come to speak to us, professor rinehart. and when debt to gdp gets to 90% you can believe you're going to start to lose about 1% of gdp is going to fall tauf wayside so it really does have a real negative impact called reverse leverage. all of us in the business world

have dealt with it. but it's a real problem. i do think if we -- i think we have a small chance to be successful. and again, the reason we have a small chance is i think we have built up confidence in each other and we do have these baby teeth that will allow us to get this to the congress and get an up or down vote if we can get a recommendation to come out of the commission. >> governor bald atchi. >> just a lot of ground to cover. but let me also echo along with what governor beene has said. it's been refreshing. it's been sobering. and we don't hear it enough. and we all ought to be in all quarters of the country talking on a regular basis. we were there in 94 and we were there to balance the budget for the first time in a generation. and i want to compliment you

and the administration and being able to do that because it seems, though, during that 94 period with the shutdown and everything that it was really bad, until they started writing stories in the 18030s when members of congress started to shoot each other. it wasn't a as bad as that but it was pretty bad. but at the same time, i seems like it's gotten a lot worse. it seems like it's gotten harder than it was back then. and you two are kind of just the only two voices out in this whole area where it seems to be so negative. and it's kind of following along with what governor switser said. unless you folks are prepared to take a full court press and get out there on a more public stage and use all the opportunities you can and then more so and the president embarking on grabbing this and just show casing it that much, i don't know really how your recommendations are going to be

able to go very far. >> we were -- we hoped we might be able to get to legislative ludge in our report, which would be the master stroke if we could do that. but that would be an important goal. i think that we have that we would do some legislative language as we submit the report. but it is -- we don't have, we feel if we went around the united states and had hearings now, right now, to people, would see a bit of discord in the commission that would not be helpful. the thry working groups report to the full commission at the end of each month. the working groups meet in private and they have to because they talk about all the flash words that you've just heard. and then, of course there was a

request that we come out with our report in october instead of november. therefore, every politician running could cherry pick the report and go home and say do you know what these nuts are up to? that would be the result of that. so we can't do -- well, we stick with the december 1st. but someone mentioned how did we really get here. we were trained all of us for the last 60 years to bring home the bacon. and when we went home to our districts, we had a staff person or two or three and when the guy got up and said we need a new dam down there on henry fork, great, write that down will you harriett or harry? we'll get that for you. and we need a new airport terminal, we need this. and your job was just to go home and get it and then run, and then worship at the great god of reelection. and that's how we got here.

but now, the pig is dead. and there's no more bacon to bring home. and it is, you just -- it's there and it's shocking. >> governor doyle. >> thank you. i'm interested in a couple of your sort of visions of where this is headed into the future. there isn't a big spender among any governor here any momplet maybe there were originally. and we may call each other names. but given every budget that we've been through. so what we're going to confront i see, many of us won't be in office. but the economy is going to rebound, we hope sooner than later, and the amount of unmet need, then the need that we've cut is real. so senator simpson mentioned the dam and the terminal. well, there are some dams and terminals that with do need to

get built that we have been defering because of the situation we've been in. demands noticing in higher education that we've deferred because of the situation. i think the governors in the next couple of years, one of the great pressures that they're going to have, and this will be, i'm interested in ow you see it playing out over time, is that these resources are going to be a bit little bit better and the demands that have been deferred over the last four years are getting so intense that the claims on that money, the little bit of money, the little bit of increase that's coming in is going to be enormous. the people you've said, well, all of the nos that we've said, there are going to be a few that are very, very important that we've said no to not because they were bad ideas but because we didn't have money. so as you see the economy

rebound and we can argue an economist i guess will know and only time will tell how quickly it rebounds. but the demands we have also i think we could -- i could and i assume most governors here could give you a long list of unmet things of things, very legitimate needs, that we have had to defer. so it's going to be -- it is the economic crisis that has people cutting and the rebound as you all know from your experience is going to have people moving towards trying to meet some of these needs. i guess what i'm interested in, a little bit of what's been asked already but not just where your recommendation goes but how over time, over a 5-, 10, 15, 20, 25 year period of time if the country agreed on a certain course that we should go which i would assume would be a balance of the new investments that we would have

to make, but the can you tell us that have to be made. but how do you enforce that over a 10 or 15 or 20 year period of time that is going to happen? so your recommendations are in many ways in this economic climate pretty easy to at least on a state level, we have agreed on every cut anybody could come up with because we have to. but it's going to be a lot harder with those in the next few years. so i'm interested in your thoughts. i recognize you say your chances for success are slim even in getting this adopted. but what is your vision about if we have a pathway we should be on and we agreed on? it's one that isn't going to happen in one or two years. it's going to happen over decades long period of time. and what's the mechanism to see that that would occur? >> i think you are partially right. the part that i think you ought

to be concerned about is i don't think you can anticipate, no matter how much the economy improves, any additional help from the federal government. they just simply do not have the resources. if you look at the ten-year forecast, and it gets worse as you go out, not better, you're looking of deficits of at least $700 billion every year. so those of you who have balanced your budgets by using the federal stimulus dollars which run out this year and you're going to be left with a darned big hole to fill. i know in north carolina we have a $3.5 gl hole there plus we have taxes running off. and that's going to place a huge responsibility on us. i think about what governor purdu has had to do in order to make us more efficient and more effective and make the tough choices he has had to make.

they're no different than the ones at the university. i have cut last year administrative costs by 23%. i do have 30% fewer employees today in administration than i had 5 years ago. i did fire 900 people last year all on the administrative side of the ledger. i did increase the workforce. we froze the salaries, we put in furloughs. we're going to have to make use governors and we as mrs.s of other areas, we're going to have to continue to make really tough choices if we are going to have resources left over to invest in education and economic. but i don't think we can depend on additional resources from the federal government to bail us out again. >> i think one thing, there's so many people out there who come to the town meetings and so on and they'll get up and there will be great applause,

and i'll till you what you need to do, congressman or governor. not you guys. you have to balance the budget. we don't out there. but they'll get up and say i'll tell you what you ought to do. you get rid of all earmarks, get rid of all foreign aid to anybody, and get rid of all waste fraud and abuse and that will get us there. that will get you 5% of the whole. so when you say get rid of air force one and cut pensions and just tell them to quick playing around, they're just showing off because if you did those three things all of it, eerks, foreign aid, waste fraud and abuse will get us 5% out of this hole. and yet, when you go out in the land, there's so much heavy ludge and cheers from the crowd , if half the people there with gray hair and 65 pitches about the government are on medicare.

so should with say, well then, you mean you're out of the touch here. we're going to cut that off? but dave over there, what was it a year ago dave, you said to the state of wyoming you go back into your own agencies and you cut 15%. wasn't that it? and we're not going to do an across the board. you're going to figure it out. they all know where the fat is. you know, people achieve, not only the first thing they say is when i came here i had a staff of 10, but now i have 30. that means you've succeeded. it's a great thing. well, i don't want to say anything more. >> i'll just add to that. you all have made a lot of the tough decisions that may haven't made at the federal government. let me just give you one easy example that's difficult to do. it's been, i don't know how long but it's been a long time since we've had a pay raise as civil servants in north carolina. and governor has had no choice.

she's got to balance the budget. in washington, they've had pay raises of 2%, 3.9% and 3.5% over the last three years, and president obama has proposition for an increase of 1.4% next january. no way. now, how much did we save if we freeze federal civilian pay at 2010 levels? we save about 2 billion a year. is that going to get us to the promised land? no. but those are the kinds of decisions that you've already made that we have to make as recommendations in this budget. >> i saw four hands. if i could ask my colleagues to be as expeditious as possible. we're a little beyond our allot time. >> thank you, sir. gentlemen, thank you for your service. governors have the responsibility constitutionally to balance their budget. they cannot borrow money in most cases.

the federal government has to have the ability during times of emergency to be able to take care of national issues. but at the same time, is there any structural change that can be made that would -- other than a constitutional amendment, which would bear or pul congress, and these are good people. we send them there. they're solid individuals. but is there a way to structurally change the makeup to make congress accountable for the promises which they make but the next generation of congressmen have to pay for? at some stage of the game there has to be some accountability for what you promise that you're going to deliver. is there anything in the recommendations other than constitutional changes that would allow that to occur? >> alan is a legislature. but that's the whole problem we

have with something like social security. talk about something that's a third rail. you know, we promised more than we can deliver. the same thing with health care. you know, we did a great job of accessing of taking up access this last time, but boy we didn't do very much on the cost side. i can tell you that. and you can see by the forecast i gave you what a significant issue that is. but on health care, i mean, on social security, we're going to run through this, quote, trust fund by 2039 and the trust fund will be gone, all the interest on the trust fund will be gone, and by law the payments to social security recipients have to drop that day by 20% in order for the revenues to match the outlays. and pretty soon they'll have to drop by 24%.

so what you're going to get from social security is going to go down if we do nothing. so what we have to do is figure out a way that we can fix it, which we believe we can, so that those payments drop in a much more gradual manner, or that we get additional revenues to maintain that level of benefit. but it's going to go down because they promised more than they can deliver. and you can find that in er single area of the federal budget. >> let me just add one thing. there is, and this is not about partisanship. i have no idea what's going to happen on election day but it's going to be disruptive. appropriators are resigning. both parties, people who are on the appropriations committee, that's a whole new game to watch appropriators begin to step aside because they're the money guys. they're the guys that have been stepping up and sholing it out. and that's an interesting thing

to watch. i have no idea what's going to happen. i don't cherish any result over another. but it's going to be a big wakeup call around the whole united states. and i have no idea where it's going but thank heaven we have a month to work through the wreckage and see what happened and then watch for a lame duck session where people who have just been saving stuff in their back pocket for years and resigned after 20 years, and said here's this baby i never could get there and i'm working it. but the other one with regard to social security, there's a phrase called scheduled benefit and pable benefits. schedule benefits in 2013 will not be made. pable benefits will be made. there will be enough to make pable benefits and they will be substantially 20 to 25% different than scheduled benefits. and that's the way it is if you

do nothing. so when you hear people say we're going to do zeal with that, each year you wait, this is just a bolder rolling. >> governor. >> well, i join my colleagues in saying thank you for your service and leadership and for joining us today. i have to share was, there's isn't a person here that doesn't want you to succeed. behind all that is a concern i'm sure by all of us, does that mean that it's going to result in more demands on the states? in other words, more unfunded mandates, more rolling downhill, the concern of most governors here are we goible to be able to do health care reform or are we being asked to pick up a tab that we otherwise wouldn't be sk to be picked up? so with that in mind, we want you to succeed very much. what can we do to help you be successful? how can we partner but or that

your efforts will not result in the kind of skepticism that you've heard here but real reform and real change for all of us? >> governor, you're exactly right. one of the ways we balanced the budget in 1997 was that dirty word devlution. and we did devolve a lot of services without the appropriate funding down to the state, and that helped fix up the federal budget. it caused you a lot of headaches. i don't think you're going to see a lot of devlution coming from us because stakes are all broke, all in the same situation the federal government is. so devlution is in my opinion not the answer. how you can help us is we don't have the resources. we're a deficit reduction committee so we're not spending hardly any money. but so we don't have the resources to do one of these national campaigns. and we've got to get the word out.

so our hope is to meet with people like you all, we're meeting with the national chamber, anybody who will let us come meet with them. and then we hope that you will spread the word that we've got to take action, and take action now. and defering it to some later period of time is just irresponsible. >> i think one of the things that we've already been hammered with is how much are you guys making? that's a wonderful treat. because i get a coach fair out of coddy, wyoming, and i get get in first class because i can't work my emashe nated frame in there and i've got a new knee. so i'm paying a spread between the coach and first class. don't feel sorry. and then we get a whole per deem for one night, government rate and we pay that and we pay everything else from our own pocket. and people chip on us, how much you make sng you guys are making a ton out there. that's always a good one. and then our budget for the

whole thing is $500,000. and with that, we've hired bruce reed, a very able guy, and a final staff. we have young college students, we have borrowed from agencies of the government. we can't borrow from congressional staff. the house budget committee has 75 people and a budget of 10 million. we have, what, 18 staff and a budget of 500 grand. but if we had any more, we would in in peril. we have to look like we're in rags and stagger through the village with a tin cup. and that's what we're doing beautifully, although we wear good clothing. . h

>> i think that would be a helpful piece of information for you to have to include in your report, the trimming of the bureaucracy and the red tape that people, like the governors, have to go through if to do any kind of change in their states. i have a medicaid waiver that has a and 2. five years in the process of being authorized. -- 2.5 years of being

authorized. i know it is the leadership of this organization. we have some core solutions do things that would really help the bankrupt states be more efficient. >> thank you. that is what we came for is your ideas. to talk about something really controversial -- let's talk about medicaid. i mean, medicaid is an enormous cost. from the numbers i gave you earlier, it is a cost that will grow and grow and grow. you all are paying a big portion of that. i personally think that we have overpromise. we have promised more than we can deliver. i think the taxpayers can afford to make sure that everybody has a darn good chevrolet, but nobody should get a cadillac at the taxpayers' expense. that is a very controversial opinion, but it is also based on

reality of what we can actually afford to do. and so we are looking for ideas on the medicaid side that can help us bring down the cost of medicaid so that we can actually give people what we can actually afford. >> and don't forget, the new health care bill is on the table. we did not take this on if the president had said, what we just accomplished there is off the table. and it he did not challenge. he said it is on table. here is something that is on the table, i think. in the year 2014 under the spill, and they are sorting through the stack, the states can throw their medicaid back to the federal government. and some states, if i am not mistaken district of columbia said we want to accelerate that

, throw it back right now and went to court. to be sure that bergmann would go back. if that is the truth, -- to be sure that that would go back. i am not certain, but i think there is some trigger mechanism in this new bill that enables estates to track or portions thereof to the fed's which makes the problem greater from the standpoint of what we all are pressuriortraying. >> governor reeder has yielded his time so we can get back on schedule. as we wrap up this discussion, i wonder as an association if we might follow up on a points that the governors made. first of all, think about specific recommendations we would have based on our own experience in managing in difficult times. we talked a lot about that at our roundtable yesterday and conveyed it those ideas as to our guests and the commission.

to the extent there would be helpful in informing their double ratiodeliberations. later in the year, when the commission gets to the point of recommendation, 14 of the 18 votes, a very diverse group of people from different walks of life, perhaps nga would care to endorse the process and urge the congress to support the recommendations of this bipartisan commission as an important step to get our fiscal house in order. i do not know how you would feel about that, but i think we have expressed a lot of support for the work they are doing into the need to move towards some fiscal stability in the country. but if there is interest in that, we could draft a letter and circulated during the coming months and move forward. why don't we do that? well, this is been a great

discussion with two great americans who have stepped forward to undertake a very difficult task. i know all the governors are grateful to you for doing that and wish you well on your deliberations, and we want to be here to help. we are all in this together as we serve to improve the lives of the people of our states and make sure that future generations can bear a fiscal burden that is not a precedent. thank you so much for being with us today. it is great to have you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> it is time to move to the reports of our committees and recommended policy positions. all the governors have a packet of recommended policy statements, color-coded by committee at your place, and we will proceed to adopt them. they were all sent to the governors or racially on the 25th of june, and the standing committees have reviewed them along with all of our staff. first, -- there were all sent some governors are regionally on originally in june. >> i believe my good friend from

montana would have a report. >> i move we go enbloc. >> by golly, you are using a lot of latin phrases today. he moves we adopt all the recommendations from all committees. is there second? discussion? all in favor of the motion say aye. ayes have it. we approved them all. i want to pause for a moment to thank our gracious host and his team of for their wonderful hospitality. governor patrick and dianne, dave o'brien, kimmitt whitaker, the entire massachusetts host committee has been outstanding. we have had a great time. thank you all so much. [applause] also want to thank the nga team,

called a policy directors and their staff have done an outstanding job. we have had a great and a meeting, but throughout the course of the year they do a wonderful job for all the committees. many of you may not know susan. i know she is here, but she is our planner does the logistics for our meetings. she has done so for quite a few years and we want to thank her for her continued work on behalf of nga. susan. [applause] as we move to a time of transition of the association, i want to thank all of my colleagues for your participation, hard work, focus on important issues. we live and a very diverse country and the membership of the national governors' association reflects the diversity. we come from different areas of america, a different points of view, we reflect the priorities of the people we serve. sometimes in challenging fiscal

and policy in varmints those differences become evident, but the diversity -- those differences become evident, but the diversity has been a strength for more than a century. we will continue to work to achieve consensus and find common ground and move forward on behalf of the people we serve in the best interests of the american people. so i want to thank you, especially during this challenging year as we focus on health care reform and other priorities, and although it has been challenging it was less so because of the opportunity to work with an outstanding gentleman from west virginia. it will be a privilege and honor to present him to you and a few moments. in order to do that, let me call on governor bebe to report for the nominating committee. >> it is my privilege to recommend a governor mitch daniels of indiana on the executive committee together with governor deval patrick,

haley barbour of mississippi, chris christie, jim douglas of vermont, chris gregoire of nga vice chair. and for chair, governor mansion of west virginia. >> further nominations? >> all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. before calling joe up here, i want to give governor herbert a moment to talk about next year's annual meeting in salt lake city. yes, i know most of us are rotating out, but emeriti are always welcome. >> thank you, jim. again, it has been a great meeting and we thank governor patrick for the opportunity to be in boston.

we have been able to accomplish a lot. this is the best summer meeting i have ever been to. it is the only summer meeting i've ever been to, but it was great to be here. talking about important things and i think we have an impact on national politics by what we do as governors. we have a very elaborate video prepared to extol the virtues and the beauty of utah. but because of the flight yesterday, caused by jan brewer, causing rain to come up on the protesters, it is not functioning right now. -- because of the rain yesterday. being a fiscally conservative state we are, and in light of what we have heard today, you have to use your imagination. utah has hosted the nga before, but it has been a long time ago. in fact, so long ago i would mention it was the year that chuck yeager flew faster than the speed of sound.

television was in its infancy and "meet the press" made its television debut. jackie robinson broke the color barrier in baseball and there were only 48 states in the union. it is also a year that was a near and dear to my heart because it was the year i was born. the year was 1947, which was the last time we had the opportunity to hosts the national governor'' association. it is safe to say that things have changed significantly since that day. we had a few hundred thousand people in utah, and now it is one of the fastest-growing states in america. we have just under 3 million. so things have changed, but we have learned a lot of things. our hospitality in the west is still as great as ever it has been. we had an opportunity to host the world with the 2002 winter olympics and we are looking for to welcoming the national governors' association next july 15 thru july 17. we hope everybody will take advantage of that opportunity.

utah is a state of a very diverse beauty. we have seasonal activities that everybody knows about our skiing, and what we would say is some of the greatest snow on earth. we also have beautiful red rock country with outdoor recreation, about biking, hiking, jeep safaris. we have five national parks. we have some very outstanding beauty. in fact, right now we have an increase in tourism in you talk to our national parks in spite of the downturn -- and tourism in utah to our national parks. there are more international visitors then we have americans. it is being discovered and we have a lot of beauty there that is being appreciate it. one of the last things i would mention is i would invite everybody to come ever dissipate

is there is a lot of outdoor recreational activities -- to come and participate and there is a lot of outdoor recreational activities. the skiing is something that everyone appreciates. but golf is also a mainstay. i have to present to governor mansion and governor douglas a ski cap and representation of our ski season and the greatest snow on earth. and you taught is also one of the states were you can go skiing in the afternoon -- utah is one of the states for you can go skiing in the morning and golf in the afternoon. you can actually go skiing in the morning, called in the afternoon, and water ski in the early evening -- and gold if in the afternoon. we look forward to hosting july 15 thru july 17, the 2011 national governors' association. we have some staff here. everybody is here that state to

the bitter end here. they get a ski cap and a divot. we will see you next july. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, gary, thanks oso much. we appreciate your stepping up to the plate to host the association next year. as we saw the camaraderie between senator simpson and senator bowls earlier. i enjoyed that working with an outstanding vice chairman. he is a great governor of his state and a good personal friend and he is going to make a fine leader for the nga. arkansas new chairman, governor governor joenew chair, mansion. >> thank you.

it has been my pleasure to serve as the vice-chairman the last year. to my good friend jim douglas from vermont. he is a man of enormous integrity and honesty, characteristics that run deep in new england. he also has another new england trait of being frugal. not cheap but frugal. he is the only state that does not have the balanced budget amendment but operates as if he does and i think that speaks volumes. he is tight with the state's money and generous in his heart and i think all of you have found him to be a tremendous leader, a great friend, and an easy conversation this. jim has a way about him that i think is refreshing. he has maintained a focus on helping states to change the health care delivery system to both increase the quality of care as well as to make the entire system more cost- effective. and i think he has led by example and what they have been

able to do and vermont. we are appreciative of that. throughout the national health care debate, democrat, republican governors have struggled to find common ground. the discussions we had were often contentious. i do not know of any other time -- i have been here six years now -- and that would have strained as as much as any. but we still stayed together. this is the best hope we have that america has of a bipartisan effort to cure the most difficult problems we have in america. his debates, however, recognize the different views of all the governors. jim was able for all of us to express our viewpoint. he understood the bipartisan nature of the organization which is the cornerstone of our organization when we were founded over 100 years ago. and it is easy for each of us to stay in our partisan comfort zone. and we are getting a lot of encouragement from the national, down to the state tickets. it i more difficult to reach

across the aisle and say you can support a provision, statement or policy offered by the ever party. however, that is exactly what jim did. we all met in a very collegial exchange. as states moved into the implementation stage of health care reform, his leadership has continued under the guidance of the nga. he has convened two major summits. these segments and teams have been able to draw frameworks for a new, more cost-effective health care system in their states. challenges remain. however, the work jim has begun will continue for the next years. as jim completes his year as an he leaves office after eight years of being

governor. he has been a public servant for 30 years. he was elected to the state legislature the same year he graduated from middlebury college. jim, all i can say is that we thank you. we are you as our friend and we wish you godspeed and well in what ever you endeavor. we know you will continue to bring people together as you have with us. god bless. [applause] he said heown way,

has never had to use the gavel was that a friendly group. as we close, let me say our , i want to reiterate what all of us -- the spirit of extending hospitality the duvall has done in their beautiful city of boston. each of us felt extremely welcome. it has been a wonderful experience to be back up in the boston area's. thank you again and all of your staff. i know. i have seen all the volunteers and the hard work it goes into these meetings. they went beyond the call and it shows. thank you. [applause] so, we close out the meeting, we are calling to action -- this would be one of america's newest challenges. two of the biggest questions we face are how and when did we get to economic recovery?

how we increase the standard of living for all of our citizens? these are not easy questions, but making sure that more of our citizens have an education beyond high school has to be part of the answer. both for economic recovery in the short term and a better standard of living in the long term. we need more high-quality graduates with college certificates and degrees, many more that we are on track to have over the next decade. some of the statistics that i am going to share with you is alarming. if you look at the economic literature, it is clear that a good 75% of productivity change in the u.s. economy, which is a source of increase of real wages and income, is due to the education and training of our workforce. we also have to have real and lasting limits on what we can spend. that means we are going to have to have some changes in how we provide and pay for higher education. this is difficult, because

everybody has become comfortable in what we have been doing for far too long. higher education is one of the areas where states have a lot of responsibility and work governors must play a leadership role. when i thought about my initiative, i thought about as a governor, what and how we have the most input in education? primary and secondary education as a lot of parks constituents believe we have total control. we have a very little control. in higher education, we do have. we a. most of our governing boards. we have a tremendous impact on the funding that goes into our colleges. so i felt that was an area where we as governors could play our role. this is why my initiative is called "complete to compete." it will focus on improving the performance of higher education systems all over the country.

the name of the initiative says it plainly -- if we want to compete economically, we are going to have to have more students completing college and quality certificates and degrees. and we have to do this with more limited resources, without reductions in the quality of our graduates. we cannot afford to wait until the economy in budgets and prove to embrace the college completion agenda. by 2018, almost 2/3 of the jobs in this country will require some kind of higher skill sets. a generation ago, only about 1/4 of our jobs require that level of education. or college completion rates are not what they need to be. we went from first in the world to number 12 in the world and college graduation. at the same time, we spend more money on higher education and we need to get more out of the higher education dollars we spend. when you are spending more in the results are being less, you

have got to change. i think we heard two fine presentations from are senator simpson and senator erskine bowles that lays out the stark reality of what we are dealing with. our current college completion rates will be 3 billion degrees short of what the work force will demand by 2018. we will be 8 million degrees short of leading the world in college attainment at the time. if we do not improve college and completion rates, our children will be less educated than we are. this would be the first time in history that has happened in the united states of america. we will not only be less competitive in the economy but less secure as well. complete to compete will focus on two basic priorities -- improving how we measure performance in higher education. our colleges and universities measure a lot but not enough of it is about how well students are doing in moving toward certificates and degrees,

especially are lower income and minority students and working adults, nontraditional students better metrics will help us make better decisions about how to spend our limited dollars state- by-state, especially when it comes to the increasing generation -- graduation rates for those students most at risk of not completing college. nga has developed a set of the charts that i will ask all of you to consider adopting and reported publicly. the document in front of you outlined the metrics. my state of west virginia is already collecting the data to report on these metrics and we will publicly release them soon. these metrics account for students transferring in and out of institutions and both full and part-time students as well as other factors so that we have a consistent way of talking honestly about performance at the state and campus levels. collecting more accurate data is an important starting point to help us figure out what we need to do to improve college

completion rates. we will also look at how states can most effectively evaluate their activity of their higher education systems. increasing the number of high quality certificates and degrees for the dollars we invest. number two, developing and adopting state policies that promote college completion and efficiencies. if we expect better performance from our colleges and universities, then we need to reward through our policies. for example, we need stronger incentives for institutions and students to focus on getting through college, not just getting to college. most of your states are like mine. basically we pay and reimbursed based on fte, full-time equivalent. we do nothing based on the outcome, how many have you gotten through? we are changing the format. we are going to recommend it to you wall all way that you can do that in your state. it includes funding campuses on the basis of completion as well as enrollment.

we will create a plan that makes graduation from low-income and minorities and adult students a top priority. there will be more rewards and incentives based on that which we think will have better outcomes. it also includes a transforming remedial education so that it costs less and produces better results and creating ways for students with a lot of credits but no degree to come back and finish their degrees. we could not figure out why in the world so many people are taking college courses in different state institutions but basically, when they want to transfer as they do not all transfer. they are made to take that over and spend that dollar over and over. we think we can help in that arena, also. we will work with governors and their staffs as well as higher education and business leaders to create these metrics. we will develop a series of best practices and actions governors can take to achieve increased college completion. convene a national summit of

governors, higher educational leaders and key individuals to raise awareness of the need to improve college completion and existing dollars without sacrificing quality. i do not think people today believe that without spending more money you will not get better results. i believe we can prove that by spending more money we have gotten far worse results. so we have to change our thinking. across the nation, there are a number of states that have implemented policies and practices designed to increase completion with limited resources and without taking shortcuts on quality. weekend and we will learn from each one of you in the best practices -- we can and we will learn from each one of you. it will take all of us working together, pulling together. we still face a big fiscal challenges and we will have one of the biggest of freshman classes of governors coming in in the nation's history in january. as i said earlier, we cannot afford to wait. states must lead the way on this

agenda. our colleges and universities educate a majority of american students and our economies depend on having more high- quality graduates. as the international marketplace becomes more competitive, or path for it is to improve completion rates for our colleges, universities, and post secondary institutions. the future jobs of our citizens demanded. i look forward to working with each and every one of you in this challenging time we have. and to the millions of americans who are trying to make life better for themselves and their children through college education, it is the american dream that we aspire to. we have to make sure we fulfil it now. thank you, and i look forward to working with you. god bless. [applause] >> as we conclude our business

now, we will adopt the governors only luncheon. before he departs, we would like you to attend if your schedules allow. we will convene at immediately, if you will. thank you.

[inaudible]

>> the west virginia governor is leaving the podium, wrapping up the three day meeting in boston of the national governors' association. the nga final session focused on the federal budget deficit with former senator alan simpson of wyoming and former clinton white house chief of staff erskine bowles. they talk about the risks and challenges facing the nation. we are going to show that again today. you can see it at 4:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. coming up on "newsmakers", representative darrell issa talks about the challenge to arizonas immigration law. then benjamin netanyahu talks

about his desire to have peace talks with the palestinians. today, on c-span, republican national chairman michael steele's speech to nevada republicans. he spoke on friday night while campaigning for sharon engle, running against senate majority here really. you can see that today it's 6:00 27:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. -- 6:30 p.m. eastern. >> -- all as a public service, created by america's cable companies. >> the justice department this past week filed a suit over immigration law in arizona. joining us is the ranking republican on the oversight and government reform committee.

two reporters are here to help us. >> the administration has filed lawsuits challenging arizona's immigration law, a law that is supposed to go into effect july 29. you called it disgraceful and you said it shows contempt for the people of arizona. i was wondering if you could tell us why you disagree with this law. guest: i think when we looked at it as a failure of for decades, failure of the 1986 amnesty to secure the borders on an interior basis. when arizona decided to take advantage of existing law that allows them to sift through people apprehended and then offer to turn them over to law

enforcement on a federal level, that should have been greeted with a welcoming, thank you very much, that is why this program exists. that is why for more than 12 years, orange county, california, has had a program in their jails to try to not re- release criminals who are illegal immigrants as well. guest: you have taken the administration to task over the law. he sent a letter with republican colleagues. it is clear on capitol hill that there needs to be republican cooperation on this law, on national immigration legislation. where do think republicans are? we have not seen republicans rushed to democrats to craft a compromise in this congress or the congress before. what good did these letters do if there is no work on capitol hill for this decade-long failure as you put it? guest: it is longer than a decade.

basically, positions are well mapped out. we have only one red line, which is we will not do another round of amnesty. it did not work in 1986 and it incentivize mostly the friends and relatives and people from the same communities that were granted amnesty the first time to come in large numbers from mexico. this was on top of half a million, mostly family reunification emigrants and we accepted, many of whom were family reunification for people who were granted amnesty. if that is a clear position of the republicans, after that, everything else is in play. a full desk worker program that would allow whatever number of people -- a full guest worker program that would allow whatever number of people that would be gainfully employed without displacing american jobs. a transition for people already here so that they could be converted to a guest worker or exit the country in a fair way. all of that is in play. at the same time, both

republicans and democrats, congress and the president, have enacted laws like e-verify only to have them not enforced. guest: to follow up on that, could you characterize discussions you have with democrats? it does not seem like republicans have been rushing to the table to craft a compromise. guest: nothing could be further from the truth. the problem is is a minority of democrats that are willing to say, i will do immigration reform without a pathway to citizenship, which is the democratic way of saying amnesty. on the republican side, we get hammered. we get nasty letters if we talk about a solution that is not simply deport them. so, yes, there needs to be fair reasoning that both are unacceptable. straight deportation of 12 million people overnight is unlikely and probably almost impossible to do. but e-verify, causing people

not to be able to get new jobs if they are illegal in the country could be implemented. it could reduce the number of people here and allow us to begin to see how many jobs could be offered to guest workers. guest: their advocates that say as long as congress continues of dragging its feet, however, something like e-verify does not get done and something like finding out who is here illegally, getting them to register, getting them to pay back taxes and to pay thousand dollars fines or wherever the threshold is, that does not get done, either. there is a defacto amnesty going on as long as congress does not do anything. guest: there is no question there are millions of americans, native born, board of people illegally in this country. you are creating a generation of american citizens who are children of illegals.

there is no question that is going on. going back to e-verify, a city in my district has tried to mandate and players to do it. arizona is saying that if you want a job in arizona, every arizona company has to verify you are legally in the country. here is a federal company -- program designed before entered congress that, in fact, arizona says we want everyone to do it and the administration says, not so fast. what do you mean? why in the world should american jobs be offered to people illegally in the country when congress more than a decade ago passed a law that allowed for employers to know that somebody is illegally in the country and not hire them or continue to employ them? guest: to you consider allowing people to pay back taxes, requiring them to become proficient in english, some of

the other things turn out there -- paying a fine -- do you consider that to the amnesty? he mentioned a transition for people already here. i am trying to clarify. guest: that is a transition into a guest worker program that does not have a permanent citizenship or pathway to citizenship in it. that is the republican position 97%. understand that when somebody says pay back taxes, on top of being illegal, you are a tax cheat. that is similar to what happened with all capone. he says, i will pay my taxes. i did not know i had to. excuse me. if somebody is in that this country working around taxes, many illegals are working around taxes with an employer who is paying cash under the table. i have a tax cheat who is an employer. i have an illegal coup is working all around it for all cash and taking all of the cash.

and you are telling me that you -- we should allow them to remain here. that is illogical. what i have said from the time president bush says there are some jobs americans will not do, i said that i have no problem with quotas of even millions of the guest workers if there are jobs americans will not do. once they know those jobs are available and american citizens and permanent residents get first dibs that those jobs. that is the way it is everywhere else in the world. the only reason it is not that way in america is we really do not know when you are putting 50 people on a roofing job, you do not know whether they are illegal or not. so that $22 per our job is going to whoever happens to apply, even if they do not have the right to be in the country. guest: what you say should be done with the people who are here illegally, the estimated 11 million or 12 million, including a few million children? there are people who espoused the idea of doing a round of

what was done in the eisenhower administration, and it was an operation that was unfortunately named "operation wetback." are you supporting that operation? guest: when you look at the arizona law and the administration pushing back and taking people apprehended for some other violation of the law and saying, if we catch you doing something wrong, we will scrutinize and deport you. that would seem to be as great starting point. if you have people on lawfully in the country -- they do not drive drunk or drive without insurance. they do not drive with expired plates. and they did not commit other crimes or join gangs. would that not be dramatically improved for the people of those minority neighborhoods who, today, often are living in a gay neighborhood backed by people illegally in the country? s tha-- live in a gang

neighborhood backed by people illegally in the country? guest: you indicated this was a failure of the federal government. would you encourage more states to enact laws like this? there's been a failure and a republican and democrat administrations and congress to do something nationally. is this is something the states will have to take in control for the foreseeable future? guest: i think the states should work cooperatively with the federal government. in other words, no sanctuary cities the way we have in california. that is something that make whitman has been pushing. we have to end the outright support of illegal activity by some of our cities in california. did not help people break the law. -- do not help people break the law. it is a primary federal responsibility. for years, i have said the fact that we have people illegally in this country sitting in our jails and california is reprehensible. they should be transferred to

federal custody, serve out their time and federal prisons, and be deported. it should not even be a state responsibility. yet, in california, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars very year are spent a and un reimbursed by the federal government for incarcerating people. guest: congressman, that is the crux of the federal lawsuit put forth by the justice department that the federal government has the responsibility and the authority over this type of issue, and that the constitution says that where the federal government is dominant and where there exists already federal regulation that a state cannot preempt that. guest: people quote the constitution tend to be selective when they quote it. the administration is being selective. the supremacy clause has been well understood to be a state cannot be contrary to one of the two tests.

they cannot be contrary to the federal government. the state of arizona is supportive of the federal government. they are aiding the federal government in doing their job. every day, for interstate car theft, drug dealing and all kinds of other areas, the federal government relies on state help and support and cooperation and they get it. when you want it, you say, supremacy -- we are working together. when you do not want it, you claim it is exclusively ours. the federal government has the right and responsibility. if they do not meet that responsibility fully and the state attempts to assist them in meeting their responsibility, remember, arizona is not incarcerating people for being illegally in the country. they are offering them up to the federal government to take their responsibility. it is giving them, if you well on a silver platter, the jobs already done. it is not sitting at the border.

they are not going down to the border and apprehending people as they run over the border. they are enforcing it at the worksite. when the ever handed something for us -- somebody for some other crime. there is no question that is supportive of a federal law. there are a number of laws that were passed to support exactly that. the administration cannot have it both they cannot have these programs where they're supposed to take criminals and pass them over to the federal government if they are illegally in the country and they sn say, we will come after you. it is unacceptable and a misuse of the supremacy clause. i'm convinced the supreme court will rule that way, they cannot stop a state within its rights from asserting its sovereignty in support of federer law as long as there is some state nexus, which clearly there is. host: there are some law forced the people who believe that if you're able to weed out some of the 12 million people better

here, that have not committed crimes. there was a violation is crossing the border without permission and working or living here. they believe if you can weed out those people, they can better use of law enforcement resources to target people who are committing crimes, people who want to do harm to this country. so why not get the kind of enforcement you want -- e-verify -- more ice in the interior, cracking down on employers or workplaces -- why not get that by negotiating something with a party in power for a comprehensive immigration bill? guest: all of you are saying is why not give amnesty in order to get a promise of enforcement. we did that in 1986. we did not get it. it is clear that what we are willing to do is give a guest worker program for millions of people without prejudice toward whether they have been in this country previous week in return for enforcement. but that is the guest worker

program. it is a program where people come out of the dark. the register. they send their extended families home -- they register. they work here. they go home to mexico or guatemala once you're in an orderly fashion. that is what my farmers in california have been begging for for years. they want to organize a guest worker program so that they can pay them above the table fairly. there is no question there are jobs available and there are workers available, mostly from mexico, that can be paired up. republican support that pairing, but they want it done under the law. there is no question that democrats want another wave of new democratic voters. this has been part of their plan. law enforcement says there would like to work on something else. they deserve a program, but they do not deserve and out on enforcing existing law. guest: if i could get into the politics of this. proposition 187, which you did

not vote for, correct? it drove hispanics away from the republican party. they were driven away in 2008 when barack obama had a ticket for president. could you talk about the politics of this? republicans have been supportive of the arizona law and hispanics have been overwhelmingly against it. could you talk about the politics of that and how that will play out come november? guest: one of the most famous quotes of ronald reagan is that latinos are republicans. they just do not know it yet. i think that drove the 1986 amnesty by ronald reagan. it drove a decision to do the right thing, but to get this conflict between the parties and a group of people who came here for jobs and resolve it. it did not work. it did not work because there is no end to how many new

immigrants, pouor the democratic party would like to have a filling the rights to displays of voters who are coming to the republican party over time. that is the politics of it. in the case of 187, it was a frustration by the people of california, like arizona -- two to one -- that we had to do something. this was ridiculous. they were right. 187 was conceptually right. do i think it's going to schools and trying to find the children, most of them illegal immigrants or legally born americans, was a good tactic? no. but there is no question that worksite enforcement and people coming for handout at the welfare office should have, and by the way are supposed to be prohibited from receiving those services. i think parts of 187 were right.

the people of california were then and are now, including many legal citizens, latino citizens, whether from guatemala or mexico or other places, they are frustrated, too. they seeing their ability to move up and achieve the american dream stifled by an endless amount of people willing to work under the table for less without any control. everybody needs a system of laws. republicans are perfectly willing to have a guest worker program, but it has to be under the law and cannot include automatic amnesty. we have half a million people who are being reunited, mostly mexican and south americans, with people who are already here every year. we have half a million new emigrants that fit the category that people are talking about in granting amnesty for. it is pretty easy to say, are we going to make that 1 million or 400,000? we can have that debate about

how many people we allowed to immigrate, but it should not be clogged with people who want a job temporarily. i think that is a very good point. you did not talk about the racial profiling that is so often asked about. i want to share something with you. in my district, there are few others around the country, there are two checkpoints on interstate 5 and 15. every day, hundreds of cars pass and border patrol agents look in people's eyes and wave them past or stop them with no crime asserted except that they are possibly illegally in the country. if you want to have a case for racial profiling, it is trying to figure out how of border patrol agent decides to stop somebody without probable cause simply because they might be illegally in the country, knowing that a red-haired russian would be hard to find if they were illegally in the

country. they are mostly looking for brown faces and mexicans. they do that every day. arizona is not doing that. they are picking people up for other crimes in the ordinary course and then they are saying, is this person legally in the country or not? if president obama wants to do with racial profiling, he can come to my district and look at that and determined, no matter how trained at somebody is, they can look into the eyes of somebody driving by and decide -- by the way, i do not think those border checkpoints are constitutional. i do not think they ever have been. they were ruled constitutional back in the 1930's because we were sparsely populated. so, you know, i would love to have president obama come and talk about racial profiling but talk about how the border patrol does business 70 miles inside america. do not talk about arizona who has ever handed somebody for some other reason and says, let me see your i.d. and whether you're in the country legally. host: we have five minutes left.

guest: michael still, the head of your party -- guest: the head of the republican national committee. not the head o mf my party. guest: your republican. is this is somebody did should remain as the top executive of the rnc? guest: michael steele is supposed to reflect republican policies. if he does that, he should remain. if he wants to be a political leader on his own, there are plenty of seats open in november. i suggest he run for one of them. i feel strongly that he is not my leader. he does not make policy for me. the fact is that the national republican congressional committee is made up of elected republican leaders, 178 or so of us. we elect our own leaders and we figure out what our policies will be going into november.

and we are figuring out how to get jobs going in america, get the government out of owning corporations and distorting markets. that is what we focus on. we are focused on jobs, the business of the people from a congressional standpoint. so, i am sorry that michael steele has become the news because he is a bubbling up of the state national committee met and he is supposed to execute on behalf of their decisions and their platforms. he does not represent me. i do not side with the statements he has made. at the same time, i hope he realizes that he should be a consensus explainer for the republican party across america, which i think would be very helpful. i think haley barbour did a superb job of it when he was the chairman, because he was a chairman realizing he spoke on behalf of consensus. he did not make the policy. guest: it is not your position he should step down? you think he should stay as chairman?

guest: i think he's to make a decision, are they going to speak on behalf of consensus of republicans, what we established as policy? if so, that is great. if he is not willing to do it, he should resign. he has to decide which he is going to be, the national committee as far as i know has never said anything about afghanistan being obama's war at all. i suspect you could find lots of those. that is the important thing. he is not supposed to be, nor am i surprised to be a single spokesperson for the party. i think on behalf of my committee and the men and women who work with me, it is a limited role, but i was elected to do with and i am going to do it. i am not going to cross the line into policies outside of established policies for my party. i think that is foolhardy because we are having people, independents come to republicans in c.s. as the party of smaller

government and fear execution -- and see us as the party of smaller government and fair execution. host: i want to go back to the racial profiling question. are you saying that you did not think racial profiling will occur when the arizona police or local officials or law enforcement are making their arrests, that there will not be racial profiling? guest: what i would say is that, to the extent they are only picking up people that are already committed other crimes, why would there be profiling? they are picking up the same people they always pick up. the difference is -- guest: isn't there wide latitude in a lot in terms of what they can be picked up for it? i realized that the amendment is saying that no racial profiling should occur, but we are talking about human beings. how do we assure a minority

community that has a history and to go back in their history from their parents, not just latinos, but african-americans were racial profiling has occurred and where they have had local law enforcement target minority communities? sometimes unfairly. how you reassure them this will not occur with this law? guest: since the only penalty can be applied if you are illegally in the country, if somebody would pick you up for jaywalking and you are not illegally in the country, there is no secondary penalty. if there is a pattern of sexual anywhere, then the, itabuse justice department looks at that pattern, comes in with a heavy hammer for that determination. never before have we chalices something because it might lead to something. -- have we challenge to

something because it might lead to something. there is in no question that discrimination it goes on, continues around our country in minority communities, including black and hispanic. we need to have real enforcement, but for the justice department to ignore real problems around the country and spend time going after a state to simply says, we are going to self-help, consistent with existing federal programs, is pretty absurd. if president clinton saw no problem with e-verify, why is it then when we want to mandated for everybody, it is racial profiling? where is president clinton saying, i signed into law. president bush allowed it to be expanded. this congress has not tried to limit or reduce it. just the opposite. they tended to say e-verify is a good thing, but it is only good unless it is used. host: thank you for being on

"newsmakers". we appreciate it. let me turn to our to reporters here -- our two reporters here to do a brief wrap up. the first question was about whether or not republicans are willing to come to the table to craft some sort of bipartisan compromise on a national immigration reform bill. what did you hear? . .

guest: you could bring john mccain and kennedy together, and even though he was not at all the meetings when president bush was doing some closed-door negotiations on immigration, john mccain was still supportive. now we have no one. even lindsey graham has walked away from it. that is not to say that democrats are not resisting as well, but you have many more democrats working on it than republicans. >>, if the bill were to come up, what are your sources say about when it might? >> this is an election year, so we are only four months away from an election expected to be extremely difficult for democrats. the willingness from speaker

nancy pelosi, harry reid, steny hoyer to get the bill together and get a compromise -- i don't see the willingness from democratic leaders. even in the senate for the said it would go first. it does not seem like it will happen. >> what about a lame duck session? >> you have to get through the election first, so i don't think anyone is putting their eggs in that basket. there's talk about a piecemeal approach. some parts with support that could give a legal status to young children, those still students, and also agricultural jobs, legal status for more than 70% to work in that segment. >> it is open to that?

>> we did not get to ask him. his constituents are begging for an agricultural program. there is one that exists. it is not used to level it is. up to 70% of the people working in the field of u.s. agriculture are not documented the must say statistics. >> it is unlikely emigration will be done in a lame-duck session, my sources said. the expiring bush tax cuts which house leadership has said they must act on -- it is not clear if they will do that in the next three weeks. the never recess, then must campaign. that has to be done. immigration does not look hopeful during a lame-duck session, but it is possible.

>> you asked if other states should be encouraged to go forward with similar loss to arizona's. what have you heard? >> there has been reporting in the getting there are states that will go that way. this has taken both sides of the issues -- in 1994 he voted against a crackdown in california. there does seem to be some willingness for other states to do similar laws. >> what did you hear from him specifically? >> republicans have made it clear this year behind closed doors to reporters that they expect the latino vote will trend back toward republicans, even in some small sense.

he seems to indicate, he was a little when she washy -- wishy washy. many would argue they are already in trouble with this segment of the population. president obama gave a speech. it helps his position, and does not help republicans. >> thank you. >> tomorrow, the commission on wartime contracting in iraq and afghanistan. hear from defense department officials about u.s. involvement in iraq, and a look at their report on the problems at cs with the transition. that is live at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> the senate returns next week to the pile the board approved by the house before the break. that includes the financial regulatory overhaul and renewal of jobless benefits. also, additional spending for the wars in iraq and afghanistan during fiscal year 2010. the bill also contains additional disaster spending, with other domestic spending proposals. the senate judiciary committee could vote on tuesday on the nomination of elena kagan to the supreme court. while on the agenda in the panel member may request a one-week delay. that would move the nomination forward to the senate for final vote. coverage on monday on c-span2. the house agenda includes a measure to expand tleele-working

for federal employees. >> for a snapshot of washington, this c-span congressional directory, a reference guide to every member. all at your fingertips. order online at c- span.org/store. >> now israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu on his desire to begin peace talks with palestinians. he spoke of the council on foreign relations in new york. it is one hour. >> i am richard, and i would like to welcome each of you to

the council on foreign relations, but especially want to welcome prime minister benjamin netanyahu and the entire is really television. i am well aware of the hazards of single not some and not others, but would be remiss if i did not mention the presence here of mrs. netanyahu, the prime minister's wife. my old friend, the national security adviser, ron, the prime minister's senior adviser, israel's most able and intelligent embassador to the u.s., the permanent representative of israel to the u.n., and the council's general here in new york city. faugh not to know who comes from a family long at the center of his country's intellectual and political life. his career has spanned his ambassador to ship to the u.n.,

minister of foreign affairs and finance, and is now serving as prime minister for the second time. in his first stint as prime minister he signed agreements and as finance and prime minister he had a great deal to do with the introduction of significant economic reforms, those that have helped israel to grow and whether the recent financial turbulence considerably better than most other countries. as you all know, the prime minister met president obama on tuesday in the washington. both sides went to great lengths. i take it as positive because history shows that a strong and cooperative relationship between the u.s. and israel is very much in the interest of both countries. today's meeting could hardly come at a more opportune moment. there have been serious questions raised about the nature and quality of the u.s. /israeli position to.

there is a critical question of negotiating peace between israel, palestinians, syria, and love and on, and broader questions including relationships to other countries including jordan, turkey, among others. there are also questions about what to do about iran's ongoing uranium enrichment, and they're getting a threshold of being able to produce nuclear weapons. these and other questions are central to our work here. no fewer than 10 council and foreign relations scullers focus on one or another aspect of the middle east. we have an award-winning website where we have a crisis guide providing background on the contemporary middle east. we look forward to discussing all these issues today.

today's meeting is on the record. it will be in three parts. it will begin with remarks by the prime minister, after which it will ask him several questions, and then the will be an opportunity for members to ask questions. i will do my best to throw in questions from council members and others listening from around the country. i request all of you to make sure your cell phones and other electronics are turned off. let me again welcome the prime minister benjamin netanyahu to the council of foreign relations. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you richard, and to you all for giving me the opportunity to spend time and discuss the urgent problems of the day. i have a robust delegation with me here today, two embassadors, another couple, and my own delegation from israel. today we had a very good day in washington. i said in the oval office that the reports of the demise of the u.s./israel special relationship are not only premature, but wrong. they are wrong not simply because of the unbreakable bond between our two countries -- the bond is anchored in shared by

use, democracy chief among them , and chief interests. it transcends the differences of opinion our two governments may have from time to time. for the past year most of those differences have focused on how to best move the peace process forward, but not about the goal of moving them forward. we sometimes disagree on how to best the chief of the renewal of the peace process, but share a fervent desire to do so as speedily as possible. so, i think there's a much greater meeting of minds between president obama and me on how to move forward at this time, how to make the transition from passivity talks into direct talks, and to ensure those direct talks are as substantial

as possible, and as soon as possible. i think the latest not get us any better. talking about talking, making predictionpreconditions about go talks, has cost is about a year. i don't think it should cost as any more time. both sides have disagreements, and we have grievances was to. the palestinians called a public square in honor of terrorists -- i could say until they renamed it the one given to the talks. that could cost a lot of time. the right thing to do is to move directly into peace talks asap. it is the only way this will be resolved.

it needs a resolution. the substance of my vision for peace is a solution of two states for two peoples in which a demilitarized palestinian state recognizes the jewish state of israel -- a vision encourage it in two principles, security and legitimacy. security sounds obvious, and has been around a long time as an issue. the nature of the challenge of security has changed. when the talks began, there were two things that were not present and have since loomed large. the first, the rise of iran and its proxies, and the rise of missiles and a chance of warfare. we are prepared to vacate

territories for the sake of peace. we have done that just now twice, once in lebanon -- and those areas were taken over quickly by the proxy's of iran which poured missiles into them, later to be fired on us. the second time, we visited every last inch of gaza -- quickly taken over by the proxy's of iran reports rockets and missiles and to them, fired at us. 12,000 rockets and missiles in total in an area smaller than new jersey. think about that. that is a real problem. now if we're going to have a third talk we must address the question of how to present this from occurring a third time. strike one, strike two, third strike you are out. in the case of israel and is a

probable strategic threat because our cities, airfields', military installations are targeted. we must have a real solution, not one on paper, but a solution on the ground that prevents the mass smuggling of rockets, missiles, and weaponry into the areas that we will vacate. this is a significant john's. i spent a lot of time talking to president obama about it seriously. i think he understands the full seriousness of the challenge. both of us are committed i think to find a realistic, concrete solution. security is number one. suddenly, the question of legitimacy -- it means we recognize the palestinian state, the nation's state of the

palestinian people, and they recognize israel as the nation state of the jewish people. there is an implication about their recognition of us. they prepare their people and themselves, the leadership, for the idea that the conflict is actually over. that the palestinian state is not a stepping stone to continue the conflict by other means, but an end to the conflict. and and and to the claims of conflict. for example, the two most hot issues revolve around palestinian refugees. israel does absorb and has absorbed jewish refugees from the 1948 war and other parts of the world. the palestinians accept palestinian refugees to the palestinian state. there are no demands of israel's

arab citizens. their rights are fully guaranteed as individual rights for civic equality in israel. there are no demands for another, separate state in the galilee, or autonomous regions. this issue is resolved here and now. the late egyptian president said when he came to jerusalem, the more were, no more bloodshed, and we expect president abbas to say is no more conflict, clams, demands. israelis are prepared to go very long way, and i am prepared to lead them -- a long way to make peace, but this must be a real peace, secure, and and and to comfort. these other two principal goals, pillars of peace i put forward

in my speech previously. we also moved many hundreds of checkpointshundredsearth ramps to a facilitate movement. there is an economic miracle and the palestinian areas. there would have come to naught if we had not changed policies. you cannot have a robust economic and commercial griffey cannot move goods and people. we facilitated them and change it overnight. not as a substitute for political peace, but as a facilitator. the economic piece i have spoken about that has come to pass is a very good supporter of political peace. the third thing that we did is to do something unprecedented, by using secretary of state

hillary clinton's words -- i decided unlike any previous government, to freeze the construction and the new settlements for a 10- settlementsperiod to encourage palestinians to enter into peace talks. so far, seven months have passed and have not come in. they should have come in yesterday, 12 months ago, seven months ago, but we should not waste any time. while we did this, palestinians against the goldstone report and icc, tried to prevent our entry into the oecd. despite these and other political pressures, it was still accepted into the club. we still need to get into the g-

20. it is a great tribute to the israeli economy. there are continued problems of incitement. i don't think we should linger on this, don't think that they should linger on us. we should seize the moment, and it is a challenging and important moment when we have the ability to negotiate peace -- we don't know where the pieces in the middle east will move in the coming years. we do not know that. there is a great challenge in iran, from iran, movement in turkey. there is stability in egypt today. i think we should use this moment to advance peace. i am prepared to do with. there is risk in doing in. that is what leaders do -- they take risks.

i corrected some deficiencies in the israeli economy -- i took some risks. i was smart enough to do it young enough because you lose some political capital, but i came back. there have only been two to return to govern is ripping the in the third. and you get to be at my advanced age you did not come back. it is not that pleasant, anyway. you return to do something. i am prepared to do something. i'm prepared to take risks. i will not take risks with our security, but i'm willing to take political risks. so does president abbas -- he must be prepared to take these risks, and another president obama is willing to assist us. credibility is important. it is an asset, but we have to get on with it.

we should just stop all the delays, preconditions. start now, next week, it in two weeks. get the talks going. only if we start them can we complete them. i think people talk about a bottom up preface we talked about the economy, and a top- down political process. in my view the top down political part of the question can only be handled from the very top. it can only be done by the leaders themselves. you cannot just have leaders show up for the ribbon cutting ceremonies. it will not happen by forming dozens of committees and polling countless meetings. -- and holding countless meetings. i can tell you all the decisions i have made on changing things

inside israel. i have always had to participate, and to cut through. you just have to get on with it, grapple with the issues directly. there is no other way. this is what is required now. i know there is a lot of skepticism. after 17 years, since the beginning of the oslo process, skepticism is certainly warranted, but remember the moment when saddat came to jerusalem. only a few years earlier egypt and israel had fought a terrible war. people dismissed saddat -- you should read the mountains of skeptical print written about

both men. i intend to confound the critics and skeptics. i need a partner. you cannot go on a trapeze, hold out your hand, and not have a partner on the other side. so, mrs. one great challenge we face today -- this is great challenge. i feel that we are up to it, and the moment has arrived. the making of an israeli/palestinian peace that our people yearn for, pray for, that could bring untold benefits. you already see part of that in the west bank. you can posits many things that can happen in the region. israel is a fount of creativity, probably the most innovative -- i don't think there is a more innovative society or economy on

earth. we can unleash those forces. we have internally, it can do it in the region, and bring a different life and reality to our children, the palestinian to burn, and other peoples of the region who choose to partake in this vision of peace with us. there is another challenge. it is a great one. i have been talking about it for many years. 14 years ago when i came to the united states shortly after i was first elected prime minister. i was given the honor of addressing the joint session of the u.s. congress. i said then the greatest danger facing the world was the threat of iran developing nuclear weapons. i can tell you quite a few eyebrows were raised at the time.

far fewer are raised today. there is no a broader, and even deeper understanding of the potential dangers of nuclear- armed iran. you hear it in europe, and in just about every private conversation i or my staff have with arab leaders and officials. almost every single one. there's just about no exception. all of these leaders understand that iran is not merely a threat to israel -- they understand is the world's greatest sponsored terror gets the world's most dangerous weapons, it is a threat to the region and to the entire world.

the problem in historical circumstances this transiting understanding into action. the problem in the many catastrophic tons of history was that there was no understanding. that is a privilege to correct action. -- in times a vista. they're still the gap was to have the understanding between what needs to be done and what is to begin. i talked about the latest round of resolutions against the iran by the u.n., as well as the recent congressional sanctions signed by president obama last week. the united nations sanctions are in part because they send a message to that regime that the international committee led by president obama stands firmly against their nuclear program.

these sanctions are part of because they have more bite, and the sooner implemented, and more rigorously enforced, the more by they will have. i hope other countries in europe and elsewhere will follow the tough sanctions, particularly those that target the energy section of iran upon which the regime is vitally dependent. but we cannot be sure that these sanctions will have the necessary to effect of stopping iran's degree program. i appreciate president obama's statement that he is determined to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, and that all options are open. i think to fully translate understanding into actions, we

must address the question of whether the world can live with a nuclear iran. for many, a nuclear-armed iran would certainly be a danger, but perhaps not a new one. after all, the soviets had nuclear weapons. they were contained. also, it is argued, a nuclear- armed iran cause of the conteoue content. but the soviet union was far different from today's iran. the soviet union had ambitions, but in international affairs they acted with supreme rationality.

a time there were faced between ideology and a survival, they chose survival. in berlin, cuba, and elsewhere. to the best of my knowledge, there were not many soviet suicide bombers. the iranian regime is different. they are driven by a militant ideology based on an entirely different set of values, a value system that might seem entirely irrational to us, but is pervasive and very powerful among those competing for leadership among the islamic militants. look at what happened nearly a decade ago and another part of this militant world. the taliban allowed al qaeda operating on its soil to

dispatch terrorists to bomb new york and to bomb washington. what were they thinking? did they think the greatest power in the world would simply ignore mass destruction in its cities? and did they think the u.s. would ignore an attack on its financial center, on its military headquarters? on its capital city? were they that stupid? or were they not driven by cold reason, but by a fiery fanaticism that overcomes normal logic? iran sends children into minefields, denies the holocaust cannot openly calls for the destruction of israel, and hours hezbollah with rockets and

has overtaken half of lebanon. iran empowers hamas with rockets. they have sent saboteurs and terror squads into egypt. they send tentacles into yemen and threaten saudi arabia directly. this is what they do today. when they do not have nuclear weapons, think of what they will do tomorrow when they do have them. it is very hard for modern men and women to come to terms with the role of rationality in human affairs. we tend to think that people in states are driven solely by interest, by a calculation of

cost and benefit. we must recognize those to glorify death, and dispatch wards of suicide bombers are not given by grievances which can be addressed or by a despair that can be alleviated. we must recognize their wide- eyed, true believers, even mad believers in the road. they are fanatics to subscribe to a twisted creed and are willing to pay any price for its realization. they are driven by fervent hope that they will succeed at any price. shakespeare advises us to see the method in the madness -- facing today's militants in the middle east, we should be well-

advised to see the madness and the method, to recognize that not everyone is constrained by the calculus of cost and benefit that has been associated with nuclear weapons, to recognize some people, organizations, regimes, might act in ways no one has acted since the advent of the era of nuclear peace that has followed nagasaki and hiroshima. we must not allow the world's most dangerous regimes to possess the world's most dangerous weapons. this is the single, greatest challenge of our time. we must not fail to address it. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you. i would like to begin where you did with the u.s./israeli relationship. i got a lot of e-mail before this, particularly concerning the gaza-bound flotilla. many addressed the idea that israel could be more of a liability than an asset to the u.s. had you address this, especially those who have come of age since 1967 and view israel as more of a victor and a victim the? >> those are several questions. politicians simply choose one of the things they want to answer, but i can address all of them if you wish. first of all, it is better to be a victory than a victim. if you are a victim -- this was the condition of the jewish

people for a dozen years -- we were the perfect victim. when you have a natural state in this time of history, and you have to defend yourself -- and you perhaps allow the 1% of damage done by another democracy, britain when it tried to respond to racketeers on its city, you are held to an impossible standard -- one that i call a triple-standard. there is one standard for the dictatorships, one standard for the democracies, and still a third standard for the democracy called israel. all i can say is we can put forward the truth of our case. we're the only country threatened with annihilation, which has been rocketed by thousands, and suicide bombers, and attacked by various other means.

we seek genuine peace. we are willing to make concessions for peace that no victor in any war has done, and our ready to make those far- reaching concessions to them. the only way to test that is to get into those negotiations. so, that is the first part. also, concerning strategic utilities. the most unstable part of though world begins west of india and stops somewhere in north africa. there is a land mass there that is highly unstable that has radical regimes bent on acquiring nuclear weapons,

atomic bombs, and they are failed states, failed pre-date states. within that, i would argue that there are several sources of stability note in the heart of the middle east, israel is the source of the greatest stability. i know this flies in the face of people. the only way i can prove that is a way that i will not. imagine what would happen if we were not there. imagine what would happen to some of our neighbors, large and small. israel stops the brunt of an attack directed at some of our arab neighbors, and directed at others be on the middle east. if there were not for israel, a

lot of that area would have been swept away by radical forces long ago. i would argue that we provide an important strategic service. that is understood it in the ways that i cannot elaborate by the daily, sometimes hourly showering. between our intelligence operations, a security which is enormously valuable -- i think i can safely say it is important to the u.s., and for other countries. we also share important assets

with non-western countries. the service that israel does in the middle east is below the swirl, and much appreciative by governments acting to stabilize the middle east, chief among them, the u.s. this was reflected with my conversation with president obama, both publicly and in private discourse. if you ask smaller questions i will be shorter answers. [laughter] >> let me turn to the so-called peace process. as you noted, the moratorium on settlement construction runs out in three months. what would persuade you and your government to extend it is our

seize the settlement issue was supposed to be a final status issue from the start. along with security and borders, refugees, water, these are the principal issues that need to be discussed. i did something quite unprecedented. i did this temporary freeze as an inducement to enter talks. now seven months into this 10- month moratorium, the palestinians have not yet come in. i have already argued that we must extend that. i think the right thing to do is just get into the talks. we will resolve it by actually having the talks and not by constantly pulling and turned to engage in this one upmanship that has been directed at israel. we have shown good faith. no other government has done that.

during the years of oslo there was never any precondition placed on talks. on the first day when i formed my government i phoned a certain president to sit down and we had the casket of preconditions on the first they kept growing. i think this is just wrong. no one will deliver an agreement or settlement to the palestinians from the outside. if they are waiting that, it is a big mistake. the have to come in and negotiate this. we will have our positions, they will have theirs, and at the end of the day is only when you sit down and-all the issues together and show the palestinian people and those of israel -- here is an agreement to end the conflict

and secure security -- will be painful for both sides. they will have to tell the people is over. >> you said that barack obama "was ready to assist." would you like his role and that of american people to be? what would you like us to do and not to do? >> every goshen wnegotiation we have had has involved the u.s. -- camp david talks between egypt and israel, the oslo accords, the talk i held a, the hebron agreement, peace with

jordan. it always involves u.s. support. the united states is a great mediator. there are practical problems we will need help with, not only from the u.s., but from the international committee. one example is water. water has one advantage, unlike land. you can make more water. you can desalinate water, but it is expensive. we will need it. if we make peace we will need water even more. as our gdp per capita gross, the water consumption grows. you probably need original approach. it is a problem that will afflict the region. you will certainly need international help there. some countries can help with refugees, some with water.

the u.s. can help with everything, including political mediation when certain hardships will rise. but the u.s. can help with one other thing -- it can help address some of our most pressing security problems. some of them can be addressed by advanced technology and the american willingness and cooperation in this matter is there, and vitally important for the achievement of success. >> two more questions, then i will open it up. imagine you and president abbas have negotiation for the west bank that succeeds. how would you think about doing at once with the challenge of both gaza and hamas? >> this is a big problem. it could hinder negotiations.

we could say we will not proceed until we solve the cause a problem, which publisheprobablya long time. or we can recognize that we have hostile element -- it is an irani and beachhead the this opposed to peace, to recognition of israel. its sponsors terrorists. we'll have to think about it, see how to work together to make the transformation. i think it will be unrealistic for us to assume that it is not there, or say unless we resolve that we will not move board. either position is wrong. we should move towards a

negotiated peace, and take the proper precautions against what can flow from gaza. >> i would also provide some opportunity somegazafor gazans t in? >> if they could, believe me they would. it does not really give them any option. but they shoot them down on the sidewalk. that is how the government. it does not really allow any freedom. if there were a change. if the palestinian people of gaza could choose, i have no doubt they would choose a route of moderation and peace and prosperity, which use the beginning in the west bank, but they're not really given a choice. how we help them have that

choice is a good subject for discussion. >> you gave me a natural segue into iran. you are particular about living with the costs of a nuclear- armed iran. how it could become a backdrop to a more aggressive policy around the region. what about the use of military force and the cost of that? do you worry about retaliation? about what hamas might do? about its setting that prospects for political change, for democratic change in iran? >> we hope it is possible to stop iran's progress by this u.s.-led effort. the statement the president has made that all options are on the table is probably the most

effective pressure to direct at iran. it is ultimately what they look at. they have in the past. they have backed off when they thought the u.s. would act in a more forceful way. he know what happened ill-timed the iranian program was held back for briefly -- it was when they had that concern. i would not change the statement made by the president. i think it would be a mistake. >> please wait for a microphone. please identify yourself, and limit yourself to one concise question. resist any temptation to give a speech. >> that you only leave to the speaker. >> mr. prime minister, i would

like to change the subject a little bit. the last couple of years, israel's economic activity has been rather extraordinary compared to that of the rest of the western world. much of it is possible to attribute your stint as finance minister. what is the next phase in terms of the israeli strategy, in terms of tax, privatization, high tech? how do you maintain this high rate of growth the? >> the most important thing to understand -- the global economy is something i'm sure you all understand -- competition never ends. it never ends. if you run a company you cannot say i have achieved such and such achievement, market share,

and can rest of my laurels. and stop improving my product and services. the same is true of economies, national economies that compete globally. have you grow if you are $35,000 per capita economy? it used to be a $20,000 per capita become a. it is not the highest in the world, but getting there. well, if you're starting out and have about $800 per capita, you can grow only by putting in roads, electricity, communications. you will grow no matter what you do.

but if you are a $30,000 or $40,000 economy, you will grow more slowly. how the you grow at 4% or 5% consistently? how b do that if you are $30,000 per capita economy? i maintain there are only two ways. one is you have got to add value to your product and services. the best way to do that is by technology. israel has a lot of technology. we have to do certain things to make sure our technological edge is maintained. we have a very innovative society.

there is a second the thing. it is not obvious. -- there is a second thing. if you're lucky enough to have an advanced economy with a messed up bureaucracy, you have a growth opportunity. as you remove the bureaucratic hurdles you would get extra growth for a time. this like taking [unintelligible] and while removing it, you grow. so, while we are addressing the high-tech part of our economy, we are also addressing the low- tech part of our economy. i'm fighting a battle for the lowest of low tech called the land. planning, zoining, construction permits. israel is number one in the

world and penetration of personal computers into homes. i'm happy to report we are number on140 in property registration, 120 and the time it takes to get a building permit. it is virtually impossible to build anything in my country. if we change that, we get an extra bounce of growth just for doing these corrections. i call them your credit. there is a lot of political capital you have to fight. let me describe how difficult it is. 93% of the land and one of the world's smallest countries is controlled by government monopolies called the israel lands authority. i cannot provide more land in

order to have more construction, unless we free this up. so i had a bill to reduce that number by a very small amount, but significant. i was challenged from the right that i was giving land to the saudi arabian sheiks. bush challenged by the left that i was giving land to my fat cat friends -- i don't have any, by the way. [laughter] the voting came on as land reform bill. we started having the reading. and i have a very comfortable majority. it disappeared. many of the recruit ministers were not there, nor the labor ministers. i stopped the boat, went down to my office, and issued a statement. i said we're going to have another vote in 10 days. any minister or deputy minister does not come will be fired on

the spot. in 10 days we have another vote. it passed with wondrous majorities. [laughter] these are advantages. the advantage you have in developed countries is that you can reform, if you have the political will and vision, and willing to spill political blood -- your own, you can pass these reforms and get extra years of growth. it is technology and basic, structure or forms that produce the advantage for any country. this is what i hope to see in the coming decade. after that, the world may change complete. >> lots of hands. bob?