this is 40 minutes. the executive vice president of the center for american progress a think taeurpbg in washington which has been ledded by john -- head bed by john podesta. there is a paper you put out this week, the power of the president, recommendations to advance progressive change. it is being picked up in a lot of columns. it is essentially a message to the president to assert yourself. what are you saying? guest: so much of the conversation since the election has been predictions that sort of the government is going to come to a halt because we have a divided government and differences of view about so many issues that are going to be debated in the congress and there is a lot of discussion that somehow legislative progress is going to be differ to make -- difficult to make. i hope those predictions may not

prove to be accurate in talking about the congress. but our point was to say that government is not just about legislation. the president has enormous authority and responsibility to be able to operate as a chief executive of the federal government and we want to emphasize the ways he can help get things done, things that the public really needs and wants given the concerns they have with the economy and with american security. host: what specific enumerated or traditional actual powers does he have? what tools does he have? guest: the united states congress gives him the responsibility as the executive to administer all of the agencies of the federal government, and every single one of those agencies from the department of commerce and small

business administration, to the department of defense, have significant responsibilities. and in executing those authorities there are choices to be made every day and they can influence the way things get done. nobody can deny that president bush often faced a divided congress, yet he was able to, in the exercise of his executive authority, put a real stamp on the country and the way that he governed. and president obama has the same opportunity. host: let me ask about the call for partisanship. the front page of "u.s.a. today" search for civility grows in washington. you have been here a while. what is your view on civility and partisanship? guest: i would guess we have a call for nonpartisanship or at least perhaps bipartisan ship. an effort to -- i think the

public is really frustrated with it conversation. this was an election that people said let's -- we like the agenda of the republicans and we dislike the agenda of the president. they were expressing their deep frustration that there was fighting, there was bickering and rather than change the tone in washington nothing had cake -- nothing had changed. i think the responsibility now to control the house is going to put an onus on the house leadership to be able to not simply say here are the things we don't like but here are some things we do and create a real opportunity for the beginning of a dialogue and the president will likely be looking for places where he can make progress and find common ground. host: for instance, because the economy is foremost on most everyone's mind, let's look at the suggestions you have put forward for presidential action

on the economy. we put them on graphics for people but they include launching a new consumer tppb financial protection bureau which is part of the dodd frank legislation, accelerate implementation of small business jobs act, promote automatic mediation to avoid foreclosure. will you talk about how he can do those things and why they are important? guest: in each case those are places where the congress has either recently passed or has for a long time put authority on the books in the area of housing that the president has to begin -- has to implement. the housing legislation has been in the works for a long time. so, what we are suggesting is the statutes don't answer all the questions about how you move forwa forward. there are major priorities in for the economy in figuring out how we can get lending to

businesses so they can start to hire people. and what i think the public is saying is we want to see progress. so, if, for example, if the small business bill, those are authorities special extra access to credit for the next two years. it will take a very concerted effort to lift that up and draw the attention of businesses about the new opportunities they have in both under tax law and lending opportunities to get them taking advantage of the programs before the authorities expire. much of the president and white house senior staff time and attention the last two years was focused on the congress, but they have this great opportunity now to turn their attention to helping to implement these laws and make sure we get the full benefit. similarly, as the new cfpd is being put in place, consumer financial protection bureau, the president could spend a lot of -- or the administration could

spend a lot of time thinking how you stand up an operation, but he needs to talk at the same time about what that operation will do so the public sees that it is not just bureaucracy, it is change that effects their lives. host: before we go to calls looking through newspaper for an article i found it. this is from the "baltimore sun" today. from the tribune's washington bure bureau. dems plan counterattack. activists push white house and plot on strategy frustrated by president obama's weakness in battling republicans many leaders have become independently plotting their political recovery including whether to build a network of outside fund-raising and campaign organizations to compete with those formed this year by republicans. george soros quoted in this i'm used to fighting losing battles but i don't like losing without a fight. he saeid in a comment confirmed by his staff as a private call

and private conversations at the meeting of democracy alliance an organization of democrats that ovides funding to liberal groups. is there frustration with this white house? guest: i think there is, first of all, recognition that this white house got a lot done during the first two years on very big and important issues that have troubled the country and helped to bring us down. the recovery act, getting us away from the brink of financial collapse, healthcare reform long sought, and the dodd frank act are major accomplishments and there are other small ones. first, people recognize this was about as hard a job as you could have at the beginning of an administration with a new team and they got an amazing amount down. do people wish there had been more had do people wish there was the capacity now to demonstrate that we are not going to be spending all our time and energy in conflict with

people in the congress but we are going to work to show what we can get done? of course. but that is not necessarily a critique. that is a work plan for moving the country forward. host: there is a paragraph many diseffected democrats say the station needs to be more aggressive advocating positions to rally the party space and differentiate it from republicans. that sounds to be the opposite of what you just described. guest: one reason this report was written is there is this inevitable date in the papers and among pundits about whether the president should rally his base or going to the center, should he be challenging the republicans or working with them. our sense is that that kind of debate is somewhat wasted energy. the real question is how do we get things done. the president needs to show his capacity to run the country, to le lead, and he does that through leadership on the hill as one of

many tools. there are many others. running the government and using its capacity to make lives better for people is what we are saying he should spend his time on. host: we want to go to phone calls e-mails and twitters. we are discussing center for american progress report the power of the president recommendations to advance progressive change it is available on their website and ours. it has been picked up by a number of progressives and liberal columnists. in the nation we have the headline use your executive authority, president obama and a similar theme this morning in eugene robinson's piece in the opinion page of the "washington post" the decider in chief. reference being this report and encouraging the president writing progressives are right when they complain the white house must do a better job of making the case for its policies but the challenge goes well beyond communications. judging by wait they snubbed obama's invitations to break

bread together republicans seem eager for gridlock. that may be the g.o.p.'s story line but obama can write a narrative of his own. he is the decider now. that is the reference to george w. bush's memoir on the market now. let's go to phone calls. we begin with a call from levitt town, pennsylvania, catherine, who is a democrat. caller: good morning. i just feel so sad because no matter what obama tries to put forth, the republicans have made a statement, they made a statement that they only want him in for one term. so, no matter what he does or tries to do, they are going to block it. and actually when they go to congress they are to take care of all the people. guest: thank you so much. i find remarks that focus on the

next election days after the last one to also be sad. i do think that is not what the election result message was to the congress. but i also am not convinced t t that, and the whole point of the report is that those tactics to try to make sure that nothing gets done is not going to be what the public is lacking for. and -- looking for and i think that we are going to see a great deal of pressure on both parties to show that they have the capacity to help solve problems, not simply the ability to try to get in the way of the president's attempts to do so. host: anne, a republican from tennessee. caller: i don't know when they decided that progressive was a better for social securityist, communists. george soros sits up there like a big evil octopus funding groups and if obama tries to

push the country further in social inch he won't get two votes the next election. but that woman talking about the government needs to take care of us, that is a pa text state -- pathetic statement about where america is today. there was a spectacle in atlanta this summer they were fighting like dogs over a bone to get subsidized housing. american people are not enslaving themselves to this government and the last election spoke to that. we do not want to be taken care of. the people out here work and look around and see people on food stamps spending, wasting taxpayer dollars and most of them are making a mess out of their homes and kids are being fed by the boys and girls club, churches. the schools are even sending back packs home. why are we giving them food stamps? they are not feeding their kids. it is disgusting what they have turned the american people into with these socialist, communist

programs that people like this lady sitting here -- host: i will stop because you made your point. how about a response? guest: i think that the notion is that -- i think that the government exists to meet needs that people across the country have in common and can't meet on their own. but we need to do a better job of giving people confidence, like anne, that when the government does the things that only it can do, it does them well. an important part of it report and another report we leased the same day called the $400 billion opportunity, which was about how we can make sure the government spends less through the things that it buys through its procurement powers, make sure it gets a better deal for the taxpayer on the things it has to do. the president has a great deal of ability to focus on running the government like a business,

running the government so it gets a better rate of return and gets more done with less. and those sorts of things i hope will give people more confidence that on those things like defense, transportation, roads, utilities, that are so important as well as social safety net, we add values to the lives of everyone. host: back to the morocco papers, is -- morning papers is it headlines like this in the "washington post" obama democrats can't agree on plan for tax cuts, that encourages you to suggest that the president find a way forward other than legislation? guest: we are going to have to agree or at least get enough people to pass some kind of legislation. the president is clear and i don't think anyone in the republican party or democratic party want to see right now tax cuts for the middle class expire. so, some way when this is done there will be tax cuts, i hope, continued for the vast majority of americans who right now are

having a real struggle in the economy. i hope that it will not include tax cuts for the very wealthy but that will get worked out. our point is that that is only a small part of what the country needs to do right now. and we don't need to become so consumed with that debate that we forget about all of the other responsibilities of the executive branch. that is what we want to make sure is lifted up. host: next is park hill, oklahoma, good morning to our caller gary who is an independent. caller: good morning. once again, you are like fine wine. we are probably both about the same age but i have craters in my face. two quick comments and one in-depth question. first off, to everyone, including those in other countries who have lost a son,

child, husband in our war against these baby killing people, i'm a vietnam veteran and every time someone i read in the paper one of you kids have died fighting these people my heart goes out to you and i want to acknowledge and thank you for your sacrifice, not just to my country but to other citizens of the world who have gone into iraq and afghanistan with our kids. i sincerely mean that. two, i would like to address progress seufrs in a quick statement. i have always equated it with regulatory nazi inch and public -- naziism and public health terrorism by our own people and one of the post disgusting things is how they used law and order country and turned our people who normally have been to serve and protect and turned them into a bunch of [inaudible]

people extorting income out of taxpayers to support a bunch of college kids in the government and in special interests groups with college kids who won't go out and make money and provide jobs. host: gary, your question, please. you have lots of strong opinions but how about a question. caller: concerning immigration, i live right in indian country and this is another example of what happens when you have people who are in charge of things making statements concerning their support for illegals when in reality, say like you are working, the real working poor class blacks and whites and indians, their voices are not heard at all. if you ought to hear how the indians here in indian country scream because of all the mexicans who are allowed across the border -- host: we understand your

question. we will stop there. do you have a response for him? guest: i actually wanted to mention for a moment your comment about afghanistan. and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. i think this is a place where there is actually some in the topic we are here it to talk about today that speaks to that. the way that the administration manages through the ongoing obligations commitments that we have in those two countries is a place where i think the president has some choices that could work to help prevent more loss of life for american soldiers. we are suggesting we need to focus more of our attention on the diplomatic powers and a economic ability to strengthen the governance and local economies in those countries so we can make them self-sustain and move out. so much attention is on military strategy and not the other tools we have to help strengthen those countries so we can bring our

soldiers home. host: for that viewer even though you apologized because you are a vietnam vet someone took over to your language. jack hutton says how can you let a caller continue who uses the term camel jockey. you neat to call hate out. moving on to loganville, georgia. in is scott republican on the air. caller: i thought one of the problems the democrats had in the last session they wrote these huge bills, 4,000-page bills and leave so much of the law to be defined by the executive branch and bureaucr s bureaucrats. the congress ought to define what the law is and not leave it up to unelected people to write law. the question is, what business

does the government have inviting bankers and executives from general motors down to the white house and telling them how to run their business? that is not part of the government's job. guest: thank you. i think that the particular, if you are referring to yesterday's discussion about general motors, the federal government did make a significant investment in general motors and i think that the discussion the last two days has been to celebrate the fact that the company has been able to bring itself back to keep a lot of people employed in the areas not only in their own industry, their own company but many other parts of the industry who are suppliers and others. and they are now being able to seek private capital and move on without government support. that was the discussion there. it is inevitable that when you run a country that the 535

members of congress are not going to reach agreement on every detailed aspect. it is inherent in our constitution that broad -- this authority is granted to the president. but he does it within the broader consent of the public and their approval. i actually think what the publish has been saying to the president lately is we would like to see things get done rather than the kind of constant debate and bickering. we spent too much of the last two years with a spotlight shined on the united states congress and less on getting problems solved on the big problems that people are facing in their lives. host: we will go back to a for instance on how your suggestion of executive authority might work. a head lane democrats struggling to make any headway. on wednesday they wrote the senate majority leader announced he would push forward with the annual military policy bill that includes repeal of the policy

that prohibits openly gay and lesbian people from serving. it was a direct challenge to john mccain of arizona who indicated he will try to block the measure as long as it contains the don't ask provision.

trained qualified soldiers and the president has the authority to not allow any person who alleges son is gay to treated as credible evidence. of the "don't ask, don't tell policy. he can use that to mitigate the effects. host: karen, a democrat. caller: i have two questions any comment. how can congress justify not

passing the bill to take away tax breaks from company that take jobs away from overseas. thearen't they addressing manipulating the currency and why isn't that in the forefront? that would create millions of jobs in the united states. i would like to say to the republican party, i am tired of you saying no to everything. guest: thank you, karen. let me pick up on your point about the economic climate the president faces. one recommendation in our report is the president's take up an unrelenting focus over the next two years on the the united states' competitiveness. it is one of a wide array of policies that i would argue are important. it includes how we enforce our

trade laws and how we -- what kind of higher education and training programs we have. make sure our workforce is ready to compete. it is important what kind of support we give to new technology so they can be the jobs of tomorrow. we suggest that concern is for most of the minds of many americans as they face an uncertain future for jobs and an uncertain future for their children. this is one place where we think the president could spend a good deal of his time. hopefully this will be a place where you could find the business community and the labor committee and republicans and democrats who would follow him in making a fight to help make the united states better able to sell their products around the world. host: we heard this morning in the social media and talk radio

and other places terms for the construct of government. people have used the term socialism. somebody even said nazism. "we live in a mix of socialism and capitalism." guest: i think we live in a capital society that has some common goods and needs and purposes that are served by government. this is a democratic government. it is not socialist government. there are enormous differences in how we govern ourselves. which is had a tremendous example of the government's being in the hands of the public, not in the hands of the state. enormous contrast to the way that china runs their country and their economy. we are a market economy. " we learned over the last few years is that you need a level

playing field and you need market to have ground rules that are fair so that everyone can compete and we can get to the best economic outcomes. when we let market distortions prevent that, you are not making free markets. you are making for the kind of distortions that led us to the financial crisis we just had. i think some of those labels are part of the larger problem that we are quick to put names and not talk about the underlying issues. host: we have 10 more minutes left with sarah wartell. the new paper suggest the president use some of his powers to advance progressive causes during the next two years. bowie, maryland.

caller: good morning. a couple of things i would like to touch on. sarah mentioned the constitution. i think is interesting, especially going on where how our country is run. it is not a democracy. it is run by the people who are in power right now. the changes from time to time. is more of like an oligarchy, but that is neither here nor there. we're talking about progressivism. we have to mention the health care bill, which is one of the things that was pushed through by this administration. i think people are kind of missing the point. it is not so much health care as health insurance reform. going back to the constitution, i would like to know if you could tell me where in the constitution it says that is okay for the government to force its people to have to purchase

the service when it is something they don't necessarily want or need. how is that right? the second thing is, if we're going to talk about the constitution, people's rights are being violated at airports on a daily basis. who is overseeing the tsa when it comes to what could beat a sexual assault? if i go to the airport with my family, i don't want to be treated like a criminal and forced to go through the full body scanner like janet napolitano said -- it is irresponsible of people to not take -- utilize the new technology. if i do not do that and it seems to stand up for my rights, i am violated and i am humiliated. i don't think -- i do not understand how we can consider ourselves progressive if we are referring to people as criminals before any kind -- i

do not know what the word is. there is no trial. there is no anything for people. they are just automatically criminals. maybe you could expand on that. guest: i wanted to start with your discussion of the word "progressive." we have progressive in our roots. it is an attempt to evoke a long history and a sense of tradition that goes back to the founders. it is about trying to find solutions to problems. it is not a theological in that it will -- in that it is a conservative or liberal. looking at research and trying to figure out what will work and making a change to make these things happen. the health care legislation was an attempt to deal with the fact that so many people found their children could not get health

care in their early years. many people could not afford it. not every solution is perfect. we need to make policy better. one of the things in the scanning question we have to ask is whether this new technology is going to be helpful. if it is helpful, there are less intrusive -- is there a less intrusive way to accomplish the same goal as so security? it is about how do we do works? that is the tradition that progressivism is designed to evoke host. host: emma has a different view in this tweet. guest: i think that there's a great deal of frustration right now because of all the time and

attention spent watching congress were the major pieces of legislation. the media has shown a spotlight on other voices of individual businesses that were seeking different outcomes in the legislation. the president came to washington saying he wanted to see things done differently. there was a lot of attention given to in fact people trying to use their clout to get things done. with the election just showed us is that the people in charge are the people who go to the ballot every week and every two years. i think we will see over the next two years both parties with a great deal of responsibility to see if they can contribute. i'm being hopeful. the earlier caller talked about

focusing i making sure this is a one-term president. i don't think the message that voters are trying to send. it will take a couple of months for this to make its way through the system. host: i want to go back to a policy specific, one of your suggestions is to improve the performance of the federal government. that harkens back to images of al gore and his reinventing government campaign. what do think this government has the power to do to improve the performance? guest: one example we give in the report is the federal procurement process. the government buys goods and services worth billions of dollars every year to help the troops and the military, help provide a support to our installations and our diplomats around the world, to do things

like provide benefits to people and their social security and medicare programs. we think they do not purchased goods and services as effectively as they could. private-sector has learned a lot about how to make sure to get real robust competition that drives down prices in the procurement process. the federal government could adopt some of those same processes. host: chris from florida, republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to educate the viewers about one of your principal financiers, and that will be mr. george soros. in 1998, an article he wrote -- "the sergeant of states must be

subordinated to international law and international institutions. the greatest opposition to this id is coming from the united states. the united states will have to lose its role as an undisputed dominant force. we will be downsized. at the same time, we will have a better working system and opponents will be better downsize then we will." george soros has been implicated -- many people know he was instrumental in bringing down the british pound in 1991 when he bet against it to the tune of some $10 billion. $10 billion. many, many people saw their savings virtually wiped out.

mr. soros is all about economic collapse, engineering economic collapse and a game plan. he has a game plan and it starts with organizations like yours. guest: mr. soros is more than capable of defending his own record. i will not take that on now. what is important for you to understand is that mr. soros is widely reported mistakenly to play a role in our organization. he is one of many, many hundreds of people who have made -- many thousands of people who have given us financial support. it is i think the ideas that we are talking about here have nothing to do with whatever views he may have held in 1998. we're a separate organization. host: does he served on your board?

guest: no. host: we have a tweet. guest: there is -- that is the case where his goals to close it are in dispute in the congress. there has been a great deal of debate about that. i also think there are difficulties in finding other places to send the prisoners. a resistance to having some of them on u.s. soil. the need to figure out what the resolution is for having some of the remaining prisoners faced accountability for their prior action. so it has proven to be a difficult and sticky wicket. that is a good example of a case where there are a wide array of existing statutes. he needs to figure out how he

can't use those -- how the president can use those to make sure the american citizens are protected from real threats and also to preserve our stake in the world. host: last call, george, a democrat. caller: i would like to make a statement. unnoticed there are three important people who have done something that all american citizens pay attention to. the young man who discussed the middle of honor. he had to make a decision. like many of us who served in the service, we take the same oath as the president and congress. he made a decision and it was the right decision. george bush had to make a decision.

we put that on tv. he did the right thing. president obama, he, and john mccain made decisions to make it happen for the united states. this is the spirit. i think the congress should take up. they should look at the examples that all three important people and that live up to their oath. i would like to know what can we do as americans to remind them of this? if we do not do this, we will fall apart. guest: george, i could not agree with you more. in each of those cases that you reference, you had people who were doing not what was in their immediate or short-term interest, even their immediate political interests, but figuring out what was good for the larger institutions or the country and the community in which they lived and worked and

served. what the voters were saying to us is they put like to see more of that spirit on the part of their elected officials. maybe there's a possibility of bringing people together to make change and progress. host: the report again and we talked about the pickup is getting from call lists. it is called "the power of th >> on "newsmakers, james cliburn, current house majority whip and talks about how democrats view their role in the 112th congress as the move into the minority and how the plan to work with republicans.

>> i did not campaign with him. when i saw that attitude, i was extremely heartened -- remember, some of them barely won, but a lot of our people dearly lost did we did the calculations. two hundred 50,000 votes in total. -- 250,000 votes in total. it comes to less than to hundred 50,000 votes the we lost the house by. just like a lot of people barely won, a lot of people barely lost and a lot of people are still a field. i guarantee you that if we can speed up this recovery from 25 miles an hour to 55 m.p.h., and we keep going in the private sector as we have been going, we will have the wind at our backs to years from now and i will tell you that a lot of these

people will be back. >> rematch city is will we are looking for? >> it absolutely. >> we will see a lot of these narrowly defeated democrats run again? >> they will be out there running again. >> "newsmakers" with james cliburn sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> of this year's video documentary competition is in full swing. make a 5 to 8 minute video. your documentary should include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. i applaud your video before the deadline of january 20 for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prices. competition is open to middle and high school students from grades 6 through 12.

>> earlier today, the house ethics committee announced that they would postpone the upcoming hearing for california democrat maxine waters. they have learned of the evidence in the case and are looking at materials before moving forward. this week, the ethics committee recommended that new york democrat and former ways and means chairman charlie rangel be censured for his conduct. he was found guilty of 11 at the sturgis. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter about the story. >> on the phone with us -- the "daily news" has been following this case for the lt two years. the headline on that is "shame on charlie." was it fair to s that he was

notified by the new ethics committee? guest: i think it is fair to say that. when he left to go back to his office and he had returned from the final plea where he finally did offer an apology to the committee, he came back to his office and is usually charli's -- excuse me, mr. rangel. i slipped into calling him charlie. he is very forthcoming with the people he has known for a lon time. he mentioned we will see what happens with censure. i do not think he ever thought it would come to that. he appeared downcast and he threw on the doors to his office and disappeared behind the doors. his anxious staff was waiting for him.

he shoutedut as usual like the old charlie, you know, ok, again, let's go, like, what else is here and was on my plate. i still think he did not think it would come to center. then he went back to the committee and there was -- come to a censure. then he went back to the committee and there was the verdict. th he disappeared. and roger p. is in his apartment here or cut -- i'm not sure if he is i his apartment here or back at home. host: he won 80% of the vote in his district. >> yakima 80% the real election -- yeah, 80%. the real election was the

primary. that was a little bit closer. was something like 60%. -- charlie's margin was somethg like 60%. back home, he is an art -- an icon. if he chooses to stay in the house, the puzzle in new york right now is -- i do not think that whatever the opinion of turley around the country, he still has strong backing back home -- of charlie around the country, he still has strong backing at home. what remains to be seen is whether he will submit to this. as i uerstand it in talking to some of the house s is that he has

to be march by the sergeant of arms into the well of the house and speaker pelosi has to file formal since charges against him. and then she has to use at some point in whatever she says, she would have to use the word "in flint," this punishment is being inflicted upon you -- use the inflict,"this punishment is being inflicted upon you. it is unclear whether he will stay. host: business as usual, more or less, after a process like this.

guest: pretty much. all of his seniority and his clout is gone. he lost the chairmanship of the ways and means committee. dow was a blow. the feeling on the part of the people -- that was a blow. the feeling on the part of the people around him is that it would short circuit whatever was happening with the committee, that he lost his chairmanship. that was really a big deal in this process. when it came to a censure, i think it came as a shock. host: last question for you. do you know anything about his finances? he walked out of a previous hearing having to spend $2 million on legal defenses so far. few know -- having to pay back taxes, do you know what his

financial situation is? guest: the actual amount he will have to pay back i think is still up in the air. as we understand it, there are taxes concerning the villa, the beach front property had in the dominican republic. i think echoes back 10 years. and i believe he has paid five years. -- that goes back 10 years. and i believe he has paid fi years. as far as charlie's personal worth, it is not much compared to some members. he is not what would be nsidered in some circles a rich man. host: thank you for giving us a local sense of this story.

>> like all men of great gifts, and when they give up power, even though they may give that up in principle, -- >> in the final volume of his award winning trilogy on theodore roosevelt come fed and morris looks at the final years of roosevelt's life on c-span's "q&a." >> live this weekend, and join sebastian younker, salman rushdie, meaghan mccain and others as booktv heads to the 27th annual miami book fair international. join in with your calls, e- mail's and tweets. >> this saturday, tune in as american history tv offers a

daylong symposium on the civil war from the national archives with historians giving a new perspective on domestic international and tax. coverage starts saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv, telling the americans for a every weekend only on c-span3. >> next, secretary of state hillary clinton announces the release of the national religious freedom report. joining her is michael poster. this annual report focuses on the legal status of religious freedom as well as public attitudes from 198 countries from the world. this is 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. it is my pleasure to join you today for the release of the state department's annual report on international

religious freedom. every year, we prepare a review. we do this because we believe that of religious freedom is both a fundamental right and an essential element to a stable and peaceful thriving society. this is not only the american view, it is the view of people around the world. because we believe in religious freedom and because we are committed to the right of all people everywhere to live according to their beliefs

without government interference and with government protection, we are troubled with what we see happening in many places. religious freedom is under threat from authoritarian regimes that use their own citizens. it is under threat from violence -- violent extremist group. it is under threat from the harm caused by intolerance and mistrust which can lead minority religious groups -- leave minority religious groups vulnerable. during the past year, al qaeda issued calls for further violence against religious minorities in the middle east. holy sites in pakistan have been attacked. so was a catholic church in

baghdad just a few weeks ago. we receive reports from china of government harassment of tibetan buddhists, house church christians and whicker muslims. several european countries place harsh restrictions on religious expression. these infringements on religious freedom strained the bonds of democratic societies. in this report, we hope to give governments, ngos and people run the world diamond -- valuable information of religious freedom. as well as a call to action for all of us to work together more effectively. our office of international religious freedoms are around the globe have worked for months to compile the supports.

i want to thank everyone who offered the information and analysis who shared their stories with us one country that is not included in this report is the united states, and that is because the department of justice monitors religious freedom in the united states and issues reports throughout the year. as many of you know, we were willing to issue a report on ourselves as well. we are keeping true to that position. these reports are publicly available for review by everyone. obviously, we, like every country, must be vigilant to

protect the rights of religious minorities and people of no faith so that they can live together openly and peacefully. with this report, we do not intend to act as a judge of other countries or hold ourselves out as a purpose -- a perfect example. we care about religious freedom and we have worked hard to enforce religious freedom. we want to see religious freedom available universally. we want to advocate for the brave men and women who, around the world, persist in the face of hostility and violence. this report reflects a broad understanding of religious freedom, one that begins with private beliefs and communal religious expression. it does not end there. religious freedom also includes the right to raise once children

in one state, to share one's fate peacefully with others, to publish a religious material without censorship, to change one's religion without coercion and to practice a religion at all. and it includes the right of faith communities to come together in social service and public engagement in the broader society. we have seen the valuable contributions made by religious communities in the global fight against poverty, disease, and injustice. here in our own country, religious people, people of faith, have played a key role in many of our most important reform movements from the abolition of slavery to the modern-day campaigns against human trafficking and forced labor. when the work of these communities is constrained or block, we all lose out, regardless of our particular beliefs.

some people propose that to protect religious freedom, we must ban speech that is critical or offensive about religion. we do not agree. the defamation of religious resolution adopted by the united nations human rights council again mish year, and now pending before the general assembly, reflects the other view. the united states joins in all nations coming together to condemn hateful speech, but we do not support the banning of that speech. indeed, freedom of speech and freedom of religion emanate from the same fundamental belief that communities and individuals are enriched and strengthened by a diversity of ideas, and attempts to stifle them or drive them underground, even when it is in the name and with the intention of protecting society, have the opposite effect.

societies in which freedom of religion and speech for as are more resilience, more stable, more peaceful, and more productive. we have seen this throughout history. and as this report reflects, we see it in the world today. with this report as our guide, the united states will continue to advance religious freedom around the world as a core element of u.s. diplomacy. 'president s speak cairo in june of last year signaled a significant increase in our engagement with muslim majority countries and with religious communities around the world. compared to previous years, many of the chapters in this year's report provide much greater detail about what the united states government is doing to engage a spaced groups and address the issues that affect them. our embassies will continue to support interfaith dialogue and work with religious groups across a full range of issues.

and we will continue to speak out against the curtailing of religious liberty wherever and whenever it occurs. i would now like to welcome michael posner, our assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor to a leveraged further on the short and to answer your questions. michael. >> thank you madame secretary for your remarks and for your commitment to religious freedom and human rights. as secretary clinton has said, religious minorities in many societies face serious restrictions on their ability to practice their faith to congregate with others freely. they face discrimination, intimidation, and even violence. this report tells their story. it relies on a universal

standard that contains a universal declaration of human rights. these are human rights issues. it provides a base line for understanding religious freedom of around the world. the details improvements that we have seen over the past year as well as government failings. in iran, government respect continues to deteriorate. in burma, the government continues its tight control in the activities of buddhist clergy. the release last sunday was a positive step but there are more than 2100 political prisoners in burma, including other religious figures. in pakistan, against the backdrop of violence, the number

of severity of reported cases increased. in may, extremist attacks on two congregations killed at least 86 people. elsewhere, government respect robert bosch declined. many groups face fines or other restrictions. the government continues to harass and detain members of unapproved religious groups. several hundred groups are in jail under very harsh conditions. in china, as the secretary noted, we continue to see restrictions on populations and tibetan buddhist communities and other restrictions on religious freedom, including authorized

house churches. there are some positive steps. president obama, in his trip to indonesia, noted that intolerance in that country is inspiring. the government has set up a national interfaced council and we have participated earlier this year in bilateral religious dialogue. in cereal, there has been tolerance towards christians and jews. in spain, the government has appointed special prosecutors to focus on hate crimes. in brazil, the commission against religious intolerance work to combat racism. the government in rio created an

office to combat religious intolerance. this morning, a man appeared before the relations committee we are encouraging this for religious freedom. i am happy to take your questions. >> the report is a separate exercise. we will be designating countries of particular concern in the next couple of days. >> if i could follow up on that, the u.s. commission met for more than a year now.

i think that the it -- the list was not finalized until the final report? why is vietnam being kept off? >> the commission is an independent body. we will make a judgment in the next several months of the countries to be designated. we discussed vietnam in the report. there was concerns. i will be going to vietnam in december and these issues will be priority. >> year after year, you have reported and we have seen other countries say that the united nations and other places, where

you go from here even sanctions do not work. what is the next that? as i said in my opening comment , these reports are a baseline, a factual base line that is, that gives us information we need. that is both to our diplomats and other governments to address those issues. we do raise these issues. i raise them in all of my troubles. it is the combination of diplomatic pressure, public attention and what happens within society that makes a difference. one thing that is very striking to me by all these reports is

the extent to which those activists and religious leaders in this case appreciate the fact that the situation is publicly identified. there is a recognition on the part of those that these reports give them strength and a sense of solidarity. >> one thing -- you make a list of the muslim countries that are concerned. there are women that are under attack and they have no freedom because the woman is just producing children and nothing else. >> we have raised these issues everywhere, including the countries that you described. as you know, for this administration, the treatment of women and girls is an extremely

important human-rights issue. we raised this constantly and it is part of the effort to be publicly identifying our support for their inclusion in every aspect of society. >> it has been pointed out that a lot of countries are familiar suspects that come up again and again. you are also taking note of countries that put a harsh restrictions on religions. are you concerned about things urqa?the ban of the birth o >> i cannot speak about before. i can say that i am discussing these issues constantly with our european allies. let's take the vote in switzerland. the government did not support that initiative. it was a public initiative. 50% of the population voted two

that. the government of switzerland is now doing what it can to overturn that and to create a legal and public process that will basically restored the ability of the muslim community to do that. it is the same thing with the burqa band. president obama spoke about this. we've gone to court in united states to enforce the right of muslim women. that is a position we are taking. >> to follow up, is this a growing problem in europe? >> there is certainly a growing sensitivity in tension in europe and i think that we are urging our european friends to do is to

take every measure to try and alleviate that tension. these are tensions between communities and it is for the government to be proactive as it can in each of these situations to reduce the level of tension. >> since 2003, the christian community has been the target of a great deal of violence in one town, they were blown to smithereens. how do you deal with that? how do you deal with people that want to emigrate? >> we have expressed great concern about the situation of the christian community in iraq and the bombing last month of the our lady of salvation

catholic church were more than 50 people were killed as an example of a portent of violence that you described. we have contended that violence in its strongest terms. we have repeatedly spoken to government leaders in iraq and president maliki has helped to rebuild the church. we will continue to be vigilant. this will be a challenge for all the people of iraq >> what about the community? i mean, they -- on that

community in particular. i think we're looking at the whole picture. and obviously, as iraq creates a government, we're hoping that there can be a restoration of a better relationship and a more stable situation. a huge number of the christian population have left the country, and so we are very mindful of the continuing tensions. and obviously, one aspect of that is to try to restore people who've lost homes and whose lives have been disturbed. >> has anybody from the administration reached out to france, especially the french president sarkozy, about the headgear ban on muslims and sikhs on their turbans? >> i can't speak to the question of whether anybody's talked to president sarkozy. i can say that i've talked to

my counterparts in the french government repeatedly about this. we have a difference of view. but i think our view is that for all of our allies, we're encouraging government actions to reduce, alleviate tensions, and to allow people to express their religious faith, including by the wearing of the burqa. >> yes. you mentioned that you are concerned about the increased violence and discrimination against coptic and christian people in egypt. and you have stated several times about this criticism or worrying about their situation. but the egyptian government has ignored several times your statement about religious freedom, about freedom of human rights. what tools do you have to encourage the egyptian government in taking into consideration the upcoming parliament election and increase of this violence against coptic? and we have witnessed two days ago another violent accident in

(inaudible). thank you. >> i've been to egypt twice in the last year, most recently last month in october. i've raised these issues with senior government officials. i was in egypt first in january several weeks after the nag hammadi killings. we urged, and the government did initiate an investigation. there are now three people on trial. that's a step in the right direction. but i my conversations and i had a number of conversations with religious leaders, both christian and muslim, last month the level of violence may not be increasing, but there's a great tension. there's a great sense that this sectarian tension is actually increasing. we'll continue to raise it.

i raised it publicly there; i'll continue to raise it. these are concerns of ours, and they're certainly concerns to many, many people in egypt. >> this will not affect any u.s. aid to egypt or any tools that you may use regarding to the ignorance of the egyptian government to these issues? >> one of the things that president obama has talked about a principled engagement. we have a strong bilateral relationship with the government of egypt, we have many, many security and other interests which are very important. they've been a partner in the middle east peace process. but these human rights issues are also front and center, and so we will continue to raise these issues, we'll continue to press them, and the sectarian tensions are an important piece of what we're discussing with them. >> yes, michel. >> a report that we got under the u.s. actions in countries of particular concern you stated burma, china, north

korea, iran, saudi arabia, sudan, and other countries. what do you consider, these countries? >> what do we consider them? >> do you consider them as cpc or -- >> well, right now, there are eight countries designated as countries of particular concern. those eight countries are burma, china, eritrea, iran, north korea, saudi arabia, sudan, and uzbekistan. as i said earlier, we are now reviewing that process separate from this report. this report states the facts. now, we're going to have an internal process where we

evaluate these, and in the next couple of months, we will designate countries going forward that are on this list. >> so do you expect this to get begin this year or -- >> i can't speak to that. we haven't had the discussions, so we'll as soon as we have the list, we'll let you see them. >> thank you. >> this report, again, listed north korea as the worst countries. and so have you discussed or you have any plans to discuss with the north koreans their human right conditions? >> as you know, our relations

with north korea are strained, to say the least, and the we raise publicly and in whatever ways we can a whole range of human rights concerns. the human rights situation in north korea is desperate, and so on every measure, it is a country that's a consistent violator of human rights. we will continue to raise those issues publicly in whatever ways we can, try to encourage other governments to do the same. >> follow-up -- >> so you think the future six- party talks should address north korea's human rights conditions?

>> i'm sorry? >> the future six-party talks on north korea should address the human rights issue? >> we have a special representative here in the state department, bob king, whose job is to pursue the human rights issues with respect to north korea. and i think he's probably the person you ought to be talking to because he leads that effort. >> so what makes saudi arabia a cpc country? and concerning the special relationship that you have with the saudis, how do you raise these issues? >> well, we have had a range of concerns with saudi arabia in terms of restrictions on religious freedom. they've been on the list since 2004. the government bans any public religious observance outside of islam. even private religious observance is sometimes interfered with. we are concerned continue to be concerned about educational materials. the government has made commitments to reform the textbooks and other educational materials. it has done some of that. but there still continue to be in the saudi textbooks references very negative, stereotypic references to christians, jews, and others, which we regard as offensive. so we have these are real concerns. we obviously have a range of other interests as well with the saudis, but this is part of human rights policy. we will continue to raise these concerns in particular with the saudis as until these issues are addressed. >> thank you. >> yeah, in laos, it seems that

most of the interference and persecution is going on in the countryside, according to your report. is the central government just failing to regulate the behavior of officials out in the rural areas? >> now, i don't think i have much to add to what's in the report. i will say that we have with the government of laos signed an agreement which allows a u.s.- based ngo to provide training on religious freedom, both to government officials and religious leaders. it's often the case laos perhaps and elsewhere that what the central government is doing is not completely in harmony with what goes on at a local level. so much, i guess, to the credit of the government of laos, they have been open to this kind of a training program and involvement by an ngo, and it's certainly something we're going to continue to work on.

>> okay. >> there's time for a few more questions. go ahead. >> yes, you spoke just a minute ago of the principled engagement the administration is after with egypt. i was wondering if you could speak a little bit more about indonesia, given the fact that the president was just there. >> well, i think again, i highlighted it as a kind of an interesting example of a large muslim country, but a pluralistic country where traditionally, different religions, different religious faiths, have coexisted. we applaud the fact that the government has set up a national interfaith council. as i say, we also, in january, undertook a bilateral dialogue where religious leaders, students, others came together from our two countries. so one of the things -- again, i was in indonesia earlier this year, and one of the things that's quite encouraging -- as the president said, this is not a clean bill of health. there are obviously still a range of issues still to be addressed there.

but there is a sense with the indonesian government that they're engaged in these issues from the president on down, and there is, i think, a potential for us -- and we're eager to do it -- to work with them not only with respect to indonesia but with respect to with the region more broadly. >> it's about pakistan. the report says the government took some steps, but not enough. and you said, i quote, "but serious problems remain. " can you explain this a little bit? >> you're talking about in indonesia or -- >> pakistan. >> on pakistan. we -- there is, as you know, a widespread pattern of violent attacks from extremist groups. i mentioned the one, the bombing in may, but there have been attacks against christians, against the ahmadis. there's still discriminatory laws on the books, blasphemy laws, anti-ahmadi laws. we are raising these issues with the government of pakistan. the government is taking steps.

it's a very tense situation now and there are tensions within the society. so it's a mixed picture, honestly. we give the government credit for steps it's taken, but also recognize that more needs to be done and it's part of our diplomacy with them. >> are you -- did your reporting mention about this -- and now again you've mentioned about the blaming the extremists. but what about what you say specific laws that discriminate against members of religious minorities in pakistan? that is under governmental control. >> right. and as i said just a moment ago, we are mindful of those laws, we're concerned about those laws, we raise our concerns directly with the government of pakistan. one of the things this report does is identify in pakistan and elsewhere government actions where -- that contribute to the

problem. and where we see that, we're going to raise it. pakistan is not alone in that. >> just a quick follow-up. >> sure. >> in earlier answers, you mentioned that (inaudible) you raised these issues. what exactly level it goes and is it just a meeting and then nothing happens, or you expect some results? and when can we hear about those results? >> i don't think a meeting ever gets results. there has to be a consistent message delivered by different people and it has to be accompanied by follow-up. that's what we're trying to do in each of these situations. we talked about egypt. i've been there twice. i'm going to go back there. there are other government officials raising our concerns. same think in pakistan, the same thing in other countries i'm describing. in some places, we have more

leverage than others. it's, frankly, difficult for us to exactly be the ones to promote a human rights agenda in north korea because our relationship is so strained. but we will continue to raise these issues publicly and privately, and we regard this -- again, the notion of principled engagement is this is part of what we do as a government. we're going to do it in a consistent way, in a sustained way. multiple officials are going to raise it and we will keep pushing until we get the results that we're aiming for. the goal here is to allow people to practice their religion freely. this is a human rights issue and we regard it as one of great importance. >> just a quick one. the secretary said today that we want to see religious freedom around the world. she also said that she wants to see people of all faiths or with no faith can live together. and pakistan is a -- is your friend country. you've been giving billions pumping in. why cannot you have a clause of human rights and religious freedom? >> well, i think what i've said

-- and it has come up in several different contexts, with egypt, with saudi arabia, with pakistan -- we apply a universal standard to every country, friends and countries that we have difficult relationships with. that doesn't mean we don't have security interests or economic interests or other diplomatic interests. but we will raise these issues as we see them. we'll call them as we see them. we'll write these reports straight out based on a universal standard. and we will continue to press governments to promote and respect religious freedom, the right of people to practice their religion freely without constraint. >> last two questions. we'll go in the back and then (inaudible). go ahead. >> recently, a u.k. congressional delegation visited north korea and they published a report that they found a little bit of improvement in the religious situation of north korea, including the new seminary in --

protestant seminary. how is -- do you have any comment on that? and is there any reason or examples why you put north korea in the cpc list, one of the eight countries? >> yeah. again, i'm going to take that question about the report. i have not seen that report. the designation of north korea was made two years ago. we're reviewing it now. but from our perspective across the board, human rights are not respected, violated, in north korea. and i'd be interested to see the report. i'm glad to give you a reaction. but we certainly see a very draconian government there that doesn't respect religious rites or human rights generally. >> last question. >> is there any way that these minorities all over the world that face discrimination can take a legal act against their government regarding that they

are discriminated against, either an act, legal act in the un or any other international bodies? thank you. >> i don't know about a legal act. we certainly are trying to encourage a greater international attention to these issues at the un and elsewhere. our decision to join the human rights council last year was predicated on a belief that we could, by being engaged, raise these and other issues. so that's what we're trying to do. we're trying to -- we, in september, for example, took the lead in a resolution on freedom of association. part of that relates to religious communities. it's important that these religious communities, minority communities, don't feel isolated. and part of what we're also trying to do with this report and this effort is to make sure that religious groups that are

feeling beleaguered and isolated understand that we're paying attention and we're helping them. thank you very much. >> thank you. [no audio] >> this is c-span, public affairs program courtesy of america's cable companies. next, president obama and nato officials opened a two meeting. after that, senator elect michael lee and congressman mike pence at the federalist society. >> president obama is among dozens of heads of state attending a two de conference. nato agreed to his plans for a new expanded missile defense

system that will cover all nato cover countries. the president's office says that saturday's session will focus on a strategy for afghanistan. a top official says that nato will begin reducing troops in afghanistan beginning in july and will end its combat role in 2014 or earlier.

[inaudible] >> discussions at the two-day nato summit in lisbon, portugal, focused on partnership building with russia, on a missile defense program for europe. next remarks from general press mustn't at the net (ceremonies mustn't at the net (ceremonies -- general rasmussen at the nato opening ceremonies. it is a little over 10 minutes.

>> the meeting is opened. excellences, ladies and gentlemen. today and tomorrow we will take decisions which will from the future of our alliance. these decisions will reaffirm the shared commitment by all our countries to the freedom and security of our citizens. this commitment is the bedrock of our alliance and it is upheld every day by the more than 100,000 men and women who served in nato operations from

afghanistan to close above, and from the horn of africa to the mediterranean sea. i think it is appropriate that we began our summit with a tribute to them. the bravery of the soldiers, sailors, air force personnel, and civilians gave strength and meaning to our alliance. every day, without question, that themselves in harm's way so that others can live safely. we owe a debt of gratitude to them. we are privileged to be joined this afternoon by representatives of the armed

services of the 28 allied nations. nations. >> i welcome you all to this council meeting, and i would like to express to and through you to all the other servicemen and women in nato-led

operations our profound gratitude. we honor in particular those who have given their lives on behalf of our alliance. their sacrifice marks a profound loss to their families and their loved ones and to their countries. we extend our deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of our fallen military and civilians, and we mourn the loss together with some. -- with them. we also honor those who have been injured in the course of our common effort. may i now ask you to join me in silence to pay homage to all those who have fallen or

have been injured in the service of our alliance. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you.

[applause] >> excellences, ladies and gentlemen, the nato allies represent a unique and essential community of nations, committed to shared values, individual liberty, democracy, and human rights, bound together by

solidarity, united in the determination to stand together and defe one another against threats to our security. threats to our security. the basic tenets have made nato the most successful alliance in history, and this summit will conserve that success. here in lisbon, we shall define the course of the alliances to take in the coming 10 years, a decade in which nato will become more effective, more engaged in the world, and more efficient than ever before. we will develop modern capabilities to defend against modern threat. we will reach out to partners

around lopez. we will make a fresh start in our relations with russia, with the aim of building a strategic partnership, and we will streamline the alliance to make it more efficient by cutting the fat so that our taxpayers get maximum security for the money they invest in defense. for these reasons, this will be one of the most important summits in nato history. prime minister, let me thank you for hosting us here in lisbon. now the floor is yours. now the floor is yours. >> mr. secretary general, heads of state and governments, portugal is brown to be one of

the founding members of nato. we participate actively in alliance activities and operations since its founding 61 years ago. we have for four decades a nato command close to lisbon, and it is along this line of permanent commitment with nato that we are organizing this summit, the first summit and the heads of state level and government held in our country. i have always considered nato as an essential institution for democratic peace. this is its heritage. 60 years of peace, freedom, and stability, a heritage built on strategic coherence, sound

commitment, military capacity, but above all, built on the common values we share common values of peace, freedom, and security. the lisbon summit will be a decisive landmark in at nato's evolution. we will reiterate its founding principle, and i'm quite sure of that fact of the alliance united 3 values of democracy and freedom. we will update collective decision, taking into account the new risk we face. we will strengthen our capacity to intervene intervention and crisis management which may jeopardize our own security, and we will underline nato's role in cooperative safety by acting in a polar world which is ours and

in partnership with other organizations and nations to promote stability and global security. the strategic concept we will approve in lisbon defines in a clear and decisive form the principles. it is our vision for the next decade, a vision and enhancing multilateralism and partnerships. a vision protecting our citizens against threats and their security, such as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, cyber attacks, and against organized-crime related with drug trafficking and human trafficking. the strategic conference will not direct the form of metal structures. every turn -- form which --

takes advantage of available resources. heads of states and governments , allow me to say some words about the meetings held on afghanistan and with the russian federation. i'm quite certain that tomorrow we will give a clear sign of support to the transition afghanistan, based on a strategic partnership guaranteeing the security and stability in the country in the long run. portugal will continue engaged in this objective and will strengthen its contribution for the training mission of the afghan forces, allowing the country to fully assume sovereignty. finally, it is with particular satisfaction that we welcome in lisbon the summit for the nato-

russia council. we are certain that tomorrow's meeting will mark a new phase in the strategic relationship between nato and russia. as you know, portugal has given its contribution to strengthen the nato-russia partnership, because we consider that it is vital for the security and stability of the zero atlantic zone -- euro-atlantic zone. our agenda is very demanding, which is the only way to achieve historic results. i'm quite certain this will be a summit which will be a landmark in nato's history. i want to reiterate on behalf of my country the pleasure is to welcome all of you. thank you very much.

thank you, secretary general. >> thank you very much indeed, prime minister. let me express our gratitude again to the portuguese authorities for receiving us so warmly here in lisbon. my now ask the media to leave room so that we can begin our meeting. >> next, a review of the war in afghanistan. then, center elect michael lee and congressman mike pins at the federalist society. after that, circuit appeals judge dennis jenkins talks about national security. tomorrow, deputy editor of the deadly cholera discusses republican governors and the future of the republican party. jane hamsher examines tensions

between the white house and the progressive movement, and sandra eskin talks about the food safety bill and the changes it makes to current policy washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> like all men of great gifts, even though they may give up power for principled reasons, they begin to hanker for the moment they give it up. >> edmund morris examines the final years of roosevelts live. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. now, the state of the afghanistan war. we will hear from former ambassador ronald and max boot of the council on foreign relations. they evaluate progress being made in afghanistan and talk about this week's nato military conference in lisbon.

this event was held at the army navy club in washington d.c.. because of technical issues, we join this a couple of minutes in. >> i was in afghanistan in september. i did another assessment for general petraeus. i had done many for him in iraq in 2007 and 2008. after he parachuted into afghanistan somewhat unexpectedly, he asked me to come over and take a look and give him some feedback, which i did for two and a half weeks, and winter just about all the contested areas, so our troops, local government officials, a lot of time with the afghan national army and police and a fair amount of time with the people themselves to understand what is really happening. a judgment is that i am very encouraged.

we are beginning to turn the momentum around to our favor in afghanistan. we still have a tough fight on our hands, make no mistake about that. i am convinced that if the momentum continues, and my judgment tells me it will, by next spring, we will have a definable progress that will be set evident to anyone. most of my feedback is some what anecdotal, but i trust it because i had similar feedback early on in the surge in iraq. i was there in february when the troops when and and came back a few months later. i began to see very similar preliminary signs that the surge was working. what are the signs? first of all, the erosion of the will of the enemy and the breakdown of some of their morale. had we get that information?

first of all we listen to their radio traffic every day and listen to their cell phone traffic. we get a volume of information on what is their attitude, behavior, what they think about what is happening. their morale is being eroded by the prosecution of now comprehensive combat operations against it. the second thing, this was a focus area for me. every task force commander that's up to have evidence of taliban that were willing to reintegrate. that means to cross over. every single one of them. some had just a handful and others had as much as 200300. that is a very significant factor. general petraeus has put in place a program with president karzai as approval that will

employ and pay people to compaq and reintegrate. the name of that program is afghan local police. in iraq, the program grew to 110,000 and was decisive in the war. in afghanistan, we do not know what that number will grow to, but it will be in the thousands, to be sure. it will have a profound impact on the speed at which we cannot achieve stability and security. the additional 30,000, added to what we already had there,

largely from the u.s., coupled with the afghan national force, it is decisive because it can operate comprehensively against the operational framework of the enemy at the same time in all the contested areas. we have never been able to do that. we always had to be selective. that is the reality of it. this is a decisive force, and is now beginning to have some impact on this enemy. the second thing is, the people are fed up with or, much as they were in iraq. this is nine years now, and they are fed up with itnd very susceptible to supporting our efforts, once we are able to put people on the ground and stayed there and continue to support them and be willing to sacrifice ourselves to do that. the third thing is betrays himself.

he has touched every aspect of the command, geopolitical, tactical operation. he has run an attitude that we can win this thing. it is doable. it is hard, but it is not hopeless that we can win. those are the terms that he uses, and he has the entire command on the same page. no reflection of stand crystal, a great general officer who we have tremendous respect for, but let's be frank, petraeus is a one-of-a-kind and is having some profound impact on this war. 2014 net is now being discussed in lisbon and was announced by government officials of the united states as a reasonable target date for us to move toward, and beginning transition probably next year and move towards that as some sort of objective state, i think that is

reasonable. i came to that conclusion myself and tell that to general petraeus when i was there in september. but sanctuary is in pakistan. if we do not like the 2014 transition complete in terms of our objective, their support for the insurgency that is raging inside afghanistan. though some insurers are aided and abetted by the government of pakistan and by the military in pakistan. that is the harsh reality of it. the pakistan does not pull the plug on most sanctuaries' or we do not take them down ourselves, it is hard to imagine us meeting a satisfactory 2014 date. i think once we start making some progress here, definable progress, i think pakistan recognize the tables are turning on them in the sense that the taliban is not going to stay in control or regain control of

afghanistan. the united states is not precipitously leaving them and also taliban in charge. afghanistan has always been a strategic bunker for them, and have been hedging their strategic objectives here simply because of the harsh reality that they have never been convinced of the u.s. commitment. i think that commitment is there. it is obvious it is gone to stay and it will turn the tables in afghanistan, and i believe our diplomats will have some leverage to turn the tables with pakistan as well. i want to stop right there in introduce my colleague to my here.ea this is ambassador ronald newman. it was formerly a deputy assistant secretary. he served three times as

ambassador to algeria and finally to the islamic republic of afghanistan from july 20052007. before that he was a career member of the foreign service serving in baghdad from 2004 with a coalition provincial authority and then as the principal interlocutory where he was coordinating political action. that was another 16-month tour that he did there. an amazing man of experience in this part of the world. he is the author of "the other war, winning and losing in afghanistan." he received distinguish towards as well as individual awards in 1993 and 1990.

he also served as an army infantry officer in vietnam and holds a bronze star, which she is wearing on his tie clasp. i was proud to see him with that. in baghdad he was awarded the army outstanding civil service medal. -- civilian service medal. he currently is the president of the american academy of diplomacy. >> thank you very much. aware that because it reminds me on a bad day in bureaucracy that things can be worse. -- i wear that because it reminds me. when i look at the title of today's call, progress or regress, i was reminded of chairman mao's favors -- famous comment about the revolution.

he said it is too early to tell. as we evaluate what is going on in afghanistan, it is important to have a little check on our desire for instant results in our 24-hour media culture, were we want instant answers all the time. i left afghanistan in 2007 and always back last may. i also retain contacts with a lot of afghans and a lot of americans on the ground, so i'm not up-to-date as general keane but may bring it some different perspective, particularly of afghan views of where we are. i would say that i agree that there is progress. i think it is extremely important that we be careful

not to exaggerate the progress, because as all of us know, war is an interactive enterprise. there are -- too much depicting of war as atraight continuation of a plan or progress. i have basically three. someone to make, and i will try to follow the excellent example of general keane in keeping too much time. one is yes, there is progress, but understand how much ambiguity exists about it. be very careful about haste, and understand the consequences of our own actions. i agree that there is no question we are making progress on the ground with our military. that is very clear. it is also important to remember

that that progress will not actually mean much until afghan security forces can take the place of the forces that are employed so they can go elsewhere. the marines are doing quite well in parts of helmand. the jury is out on some other places. that is good news. it is also irrelevant if you cannot get enough afghan forces to allow them to redeploy, or we end up with too many forces onto small piece of ground. i think personally the jury is still out on afghan security force development. i believe that the afghan army has made great progress. there is a lot to work with there. we also have to be cognizant of the need not to overuse that force. we have not yet begun successfully to institute the

red green amber cycle of redeployment of units for rest. we are managing to do it for companies. we are not yet able to actually rotate units. we know what happens to our units have to keep them in battle too long. we have had a real problem of maintaining the force. we have to putting up trainers. i think we will see some more commitments out of nato. we have to maintain the imbedded element, which is really the new peace that is tremendously important. just understand those things are not done yet. security from taliban means security -- it means freedom to travel. you have to look at that from an afghan perspective, not a military perspective. the ability to live and work securely.

afghans will not feel secure until they are secured by afghan forces, because they know the foreigners believe. so yes, progress, but a lot of ambiguity. second, we really have to guard against haste. we are under enormous political pressure from our own government, from circumstances, and from shakiness from nato to move quickly. pressure can be a good thing, but it can also be a dangerous thing. we are still employing some of the very warlords that we condemn in other cases. some of the reason we do that is because we are in a hurry. but that may be a good thing, but haste is potentially dangerous. it can lead us to overstretch forces. it could lead us to demand progress which can work our own reporting internally. we think we are pretty good at a boarding that, but we have had experiences of that before.

people become vested in the programs that there are responsible for administering. so haste is something we have to guard against. then we have to think very hard constantly about the consequences of our own actions. we are very good reflecting on the consequences of afghan actions like president karzai's recent press statement. but we have had a lot of trouble dealing with a consequence of some of our own actions. we do have the forces we need and where putting a lot of money into it. i would have given my right arm back in 2005 when are recommended a $600 million economic supplemental and after a long bureaucratic struggle about 43. that is part of the story of under resources and part of the past. but this deadline of july 2011 has done us enormous harm. it has led the afghans and

pakistan is in others to believe we are out of there pretty quickly, too quickly. i personally think it has led president karzai and others to believe that he has to construct and afghan forces of militia commanders that will fight if we fail allen into fast. i suspect he believes we are still going to fast. the one place where i might differ is that i don't think our will is yet certain. i think we are moving in a very correct decision as we change the narrative from 2011 to 2014. one should not believe we are going to get instant credibility for that change. the big inflection. is going to be in this december review ourselves. if we come out of their review

with a spat of white house press leaks of political pressure for withdrawal faster than commanders think is sensible, then the tech away of afghans in pakistanis and others is that we are looking for an excuse to leave too quickly. it is very important that we understand that how we play the next year or so on the tempo of transition, on the reality of the conditions on the ground, where there really are turning over because of conditions or whether it is under pressure to find the conditions. that is going to have an enormous amount to do with our credibility. our credibility as a direct reciprocal impact on afghan actions. we want them to build a better government. in many cases -- we have to get

back to one page and not to. i don't think he went to underestimate the difficulty of getting on to that single page, because we have radiated a lot of conflicting messages in the past. balon, yes, there is progress. we should judge it. we should not try to judge things for which we do not yet have enough time and faxed to judge. as we move forward, we have to constantly go dig very, very deep. i think the afghan local police program may work, but i think there will be a lot of temptation to have become politicized, to have it become a force of local commanders, it will be hugely important that we look really hard, not just at the security we are providing, but what we are creating

politically. right now there is a considerable -- considerable divergence between one afghan see and what we are reporting in some areas. that is not a bad thing, but we just have to keep digging and looking and being realistic with ourselves. so we are cautiously optimistic. diplomats are the ones who always see the glass as half empty and they worry about whether it is gone to great. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. our next distinguished colleague is a native of pakistan, director of the south asian center and also a political and strategic analyst and rides for leading newspapers. he speaks on current topics before civic groups at think tanks and on radio and television. his latest book is "crossed swords." he is also the author of "fatah,

the most dangerous place." he worked as a newscaster and producer for pakistan television and covered the 1971 war with india on the western front. he worked for the world health organization and "the new york times." he has headed three separate divisions at the international monetary fund. he was a director of the international atomic energy agency in vienna. u.s. the managing editor of finance and development and on the editorial advisory board of the world bank research observer. we are delighted to have you here. >> thank you, general. it is always wonderful to be here, although sometimes i prefer to be in the audience so

i can ask questions, particularly with a panel like this around me. i agree with a lot of things that are being said. i'm going to try and give a perspective on how this war is seen from inside pakistan. there is obviously a reality that the afghanistan war cannot be delinked from the war inside pakistan. there is an afghan-taliban century -- sanctuary inside fatah. there was a backlash among the local population which gave rise to the birth of the pakistan taliban. not only did it do that, it allowed them to link up with al

qaeda. they have taken the war inside pakistan to the palestine 3 pakistan are -- taking it to the pakistan army. they are very much part of a religious war inside pakistan between the radical elements and the more traditional majority of pakistan which believes in sufi islam. what to do about the afghan refugees whose camps inside pakistan form the official --

c.m.e. in this case can get rotation much more easily than across the border, whereas it is much harder for the coalition forces to be able to do that. and yet the focus has been when we talk about the war and pakistan on what pakistan can do and what it has done to help with the fight. who is fighting the insurgency inside pakistan? it is primarily the army. that may be the wrong way of doing it, because history dictates, as we are now learning even afghanistan, the ones you have community-based police, you can isolate the military from local population and win their confidence and respect and be able to provide

good government administration and the local level, and build on that to the next level further up. what happened in afghanistan was that we began at top. didn't we are finding it very difficult now to divest. the same thing happened inside pakistan. because of many years of autocratic rule, provinces were taken away. it is only in the last two years that some rule has taken place. the 18th amendment to the powers of light from the president and gave it back to the prime minister and parliament. also to the national finance commission of war. the first time now, in the next month or two, the prime minister

has promised to actually reduce the size of the cabinet so that those secretaries that will all -- that belonged previously to islamabad will now move to the provinces. until and unless pakistan can stabilize its own policy, it will be difficult for us to get a decision now pakistan that will really be helpful on the border. here pakistan places a strange paradox, a conundrum. inside pakistan wen the taliban to go over, there was a huge public outcry against the form of government that the taliban represented, what they were doing to the local culture and the local population. the army, which had lost its respect among the population, had fallen from #one ranking in institutions that the people

respected. it fell to no. 3, behind journalists and lawyers. once the people of our kali taliban actually functioned, they push the army back and said we are with you. go and sort these people out. the army went back and did the job and managed to rise again to no. 1 ranking, if you follow the polls. the question is, if that is the case inside pakistan, this pakistan want a taliban government in kabul? i think the answer is no. at the same time, there is still a vestige of the previous thinking in the corridors inside pakistan. the view of pakistan is some kind of client state, and the

misguided notion that is rooted in the war against the soviets were because of that contiguous ity of the territory, pakistan felt their best representatives junepashtun. so they broke and essentially the northern alliance and the west country. i think a serious step needs to be made within pakistan to rethink this view and to look at how stand as it truly is, a much more mature, well established country get has been in existence for over 200 years, whereas pakistan is barely 63

years old. to understand the reality and tutsi afghanistan in any way. -- to see afghanistan. the 2011 deadline i think was unfortunate in that it was highlighted and then people did not read the footnotes, the explanations that followed. the message that went out to pakistan was shades of 1989, the u.s. is going to have another precipitate withdrawal and we will be left with the chaotic situation are western border. we already have lived in india, rising as an economic and political power to the east. they need to have some kind circuit, some kind leverage in what ever would ensue once the allies quit afghanistan. you have to recall that pistan

was not in the coalition of the willing. it was in the coalition of the colors. we had president bush are of at our center last week and he had a hard time trying to -- we had president musharraf, making some bad decisions in terms of deployment of the army. the good news is that the army chief general does appear to get this come to some extent. last year when he spoke at the national defense university, and i know a number of the people in the audience were there, he used the term strategic debts. this is a terminus haunted us since the 1980's. -- a term that has haunted us since the 1980's. it meant essentially that if india were to break through into

afghanistan in occupied territory, that pakistan would use iran and at -- india. the reality on the ground is that if india were to break through, it would occupy the biggest cities and the key infrastructure between north and south pakistan, essentially by the country into two reports, and the game would be over. it does not matter if the state in afghanistan, it would not mean much. essentially, after the general left, the army forgot about this. it is a very wonderful toddle which continues to -- wonderful title. it is aided and abetted by western media. i don't think there is a basis

in terms of reality for this kind of thinking. general came redefine strategic debt. he said a prosperous and stable afghanistan. if this were to occur, we would have fresh relationships between the two countries, which would be much more important. a thing on a larger scale, it would be to the united states should now make active efforts been cultivating its other strategic partner in the region, which is india, to give pakistan that breathing room that would allow ample to grow more forces to fight on the border. as it is, pakistan now has 34,000 troops, which is much more than they need to get the job done. so it is a question of timing now and whether the hedging strategy will be affected.

we will see what comes out of the data and if it takes us to 2014, i expect that pakistan is rethinking their strategy. thank you very much. >> next we have mr. max boot. he is one of america's leading military historians and foreign policy analysts. he serves as senior fellow at the council on foreign relations in new york. more than 100,000 copies of his book are in print. his last book has been hailed as a magisterial survey of technology and more, and really crafted history by the the wall

street journal." he is an adviser to u.s. commanders in iraq and afghanistan and was a senior foreign policy adviser to senator john mccain during his presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008. in 2004 he was named by the world cares council of america as one of the 500 most influential people in the u.s. in the field of foreign policy. before joining the council in 2002, he's been eight years as a writer and editor "the wall street journal." the last five years as the opinion editorial editor. from 1992-1994 he was an editor and writer at "the christian science monitor." >> thanks very much. is a pleasure to be here with all of you. isw has become a very influential and meaningful think

.ank it is an honor to be here with so many distinguished fellow panelists. you seem to be awfully busy, and rightly so. when i assess the situation in afghanistan, what other that is where we have come from early 2009, not that long ago, to today. it is an extraordinary leap we have made in a relatively short time. i can remember visiting afghanistan in early 2009. it was really a very sleepy, back water theater. we had only about 30,000 troops. it did not matter what the generals were saying, you cannot do effective counter insurgency

when you only have 30,000 troops. we did not have the infrastructure or an agenda beyond doing a holding action. all that has changed. there is now since for the first time in nine years that we are actually in afghanistan to win and that we are getting resources and strategy necessary to prevail. that does not mean we are armed to transform afghanistan into a country as peaceful as switzerland any time soon, but that does not have to be the culprit all have to do is create a in afghanistan that can police its own borders. there has been marked improvement over the course of the last several years. we have gone from pure than 150,000 afghan security forces to more than 250,000, in their quality is up because there's more intensive training. salaries are higher. desertion rates are lower trade that is along with the surge in american forces from 30,000 to

100,000. there are 40,000 allied forces there. for the first time we have a possibility of implementing a serious counterinsurgency strategy. that is what our forces are doing today in the pivotal centers of taliban activity in the south. i saw for myself this summer that in fact the strategies that have worked in numerous countries also work in afghanistan. i saw that just visiting an area where the marines when in well over a year ago. it was a virtual ghost town run by the taliban. today it is safe enough that you then walk around without a bodyguard. schools that were closed have reopened. stores have reopened. political and economic development is on the right

track. nawa is a little bit further along than other areas, but other areas are on a similar trajectory. the marines will be able to create the same kind of security conditions then to allow a transition to the hold and build phase as they have already done in nawa. the area around caen are has been the hotbed of the insurgency. that cleared the taliban out of areas which have been taliban strongholds for many years. we will not have the full measure of success of those operations for a while because it is one thing to clear them out, but you have to hold onto what you are getting. it is vitally important that our troops be able to hold on next summer when there will be inevitable counter-offensive. these are not the usual in and out operations we have done for nine years.

these are serious counterinsurgency plans being implemented, which of course involves not only keeping the enemy out but also moving into the population to keep the enemy from coming back in. i'm pretty confident all the security front. i think we are making good progress and will continue. the two areas that will remain the most problematic will be the hardest to do with. safe havens in pakistan, and issues of governance and corruption within afghanistan. let me briefly addressed the safe haven issue, which has already been discussed extensively by my colleagues. with a do not have a magical solution for solving the problems of pakistan. i don't think anybody does. i don't think there will turn off all their support for the afghan taliban any time in the near future. but we can safeguard afghanistan

against foreign interference. we can make it much harder for these insurgent groups, whether they have pakistan support or not, to reach the kind of havoc and mischief they have been able to do over the last several years. the model have in mind is columbia. it is another proof of concept of how programs can more successfully. farq continues to exist because it receives outside support from venezuela and other neighbors. and yet today, but was shot is safe. you can move around without security. -- yet today, bogata is safe.

if we can get afghanistan right in terms of security and governments, and i believe we are on the right track, it will not matter that much if the taliban still has save havens in pakistan. they will not be a strategic threat to the future of afghanistan. beyond the issue of increasing the level of security in the south, the other critical element of counterinsurgency success is increasing the level of governments and decreasing the level of corruption. that is something that alienates people from the government and is the best recruiting agent that the taliban has. thankfully, in some ways, some of this problem has been made by our own efforts. for years, we have poured billions of dollars into afghanistan without having a large number of troops on the ground. we essentially tried to buy

security on the cheap bar rescue troops from warlords and power brokers. but that has done is to vastly increase the level of corruption and to increase the power of some of the most hated powerbrokers within the country, the very people who were driving the afghans into the arms of the taliban. that is actually something that we can control. we are not waiting on the afghan legal system to move against corrupt government officials. we can have a major impact ourselves, simply by getting a grip on our spending and making sure that our contractor and dollars are not doing corruption. that is something that is happening right now for the first time. general petraeus has put one of the most gifted officers of the entire army in charge of a task force, charged with reducing corruption and getting hold of our own spending. that is something general

petraeus understands will be a vital part of our success. that is something we are focusing on really for the first time right now freed one of the issues has been that other agencies of the u.s. court have not seen the importance of dealing with corruption. there have been well-documented reports to a lot of war lords. that is something we have to be concerned about. we need the unity of effort approach here to do with corruption and make sure that is a major issue that we are hoping to create good governments in afghanistan rather than helping to create warlordism. the greatest asset we have on our side, beyond a vast military capabilities of the services, beyond the capabilities that the nato and security forces bring, the greatest asset we have is the goodwill of the people of afghanistan.

this is not what the 1980's when soviets turn the entire country against them. we are not seen by and large as an invading force. support for the taliban is very low. the people of afghanistan have tried taliban rule and they did not like it. fewer than 10% today it would like to see a return to the taliban. nearly 70% support the nato mission in afghanistan. i would suspect a number would be considerably higher if we get a better job of keeping law and order. we essentially have the people on our side. as a historian of counterinsurgency and insurgency, that can determine the success -- to have the people on their side. at the end of the day, the people there not want to see a return to taliban role. that is why i think we have an

excellent chance to succeed. it will not be quick or easy. there's still a hard fight ahead. >> thank you, max. we appreciate your comments very much. i think we did a good job of providing you with an information and stimulating some questions for you. we have a microphone in the middle of the room. we have somebody that will take charge of that. i would like you to ask a single question as opposed to multiple questions so everybody can have a shot at this and we will have plenty of time for questions. yes, sir. >> i wanted your reaction -- this is for all of you -- of the tanks we are investing now. is it a good idea or a bad idea? >> the question is the tanks that were asked for by the command in afghanistan -- many

of us abstract our head a little bit as to why they had not been there before. given the success we enjoyed with them during the counterinsurgency in iraq. we have been very successful as long as they were coupled with ground troops with them. i think the commanders recognize that a tank accompanied by a and century is a formidable weapons system. you can't knock down a wall with the gun if someone is sitting behind that wall. it is an intimidating piece of equipment and weapons system on its own. without that to be true in iraq. you can't compel other people's will just by its presence. that is a factor. it also provides protection for our troops. it takes one whale of thean

ied to defeat it. the tell that does not have the weapons systems to defeat it. someone will start providing them to them given the presence of those tanks. my answer to that is it is a good thing that we may see more of them if it turns out to be what the commanders think it will be and that is an effective weapons system. >> but add to that, the decision by general pretorius approved the dispatch of those tanks blows a big hole in one of the myths about counterinsurgency because some people suggest it descend on realistic kind of approach that you are trying to win hearts and minds, you're not doing the hard putting necessary to defeat the enemy. nothing could be farther from the truth. successful counter insurgency means moving troops among the

people to do civil interaction projects. it combines all that with very hard-headed kinetic action. general petraeus is surging american efforts across the full spectrum of activities. he is increasing efforts to bring electricity to cities and increasing air strikes, putting pressure on the insurgent networks across a whole spectrum of activity. that is what it takes to be successful. nobody should imagine that american commanders are under some kind of misapprehension that they can win over the taliban by demonstrating we are nice guys. there is a hard court at to be killed or captured. you have to be careful when using force to not kill innocent people. we can increase air strikes pretty dramatically while not seeing an increase in civilian casualties. that is because for the first

time we have boots on the ground. we have excellent intelligence. we can take out and search it safe havens very precisely in a way we were not able to do before we were using a counter terrorist approach. >> mr. mcfarlin. >> thank you, general. thank you to each of you for coming and for your contributions to the public debate and raising awareness of ground troops. thank you for your presentation. there seems to be a consensus among you that right now prosecution of the counterinsurgency strategy is making real progress. everything i hear from battalion level and special operations people indicates that. what i also hear, however, is that there is a persistent

worry, some would say bitterness, occasionally hatred about the government. it is in kabul but also the district village level. if we continue to make progress on the battlefield and that facilitates the drawling down and turning over of deep security requirement to afghan forces, what about governance? it it remains corrupt, somewhat dysfunctional, and not really a coalition -- can that remain stable?

the corollary is, is it possible? our wheat focusing on how to broaden that government and make it more expressive of the real -- are we focusing on how to broaden that government and making get more expressive of the real situation? >> if the government issue is one of the many challenges we are facing in afghastan. you normally face them in other counterinsurgency efforts as well. the reason counterinsurgency exist -- the reason why insurgents exist is a general grievance against the sitting government that people are willing to take arms and do something about. the reality is that the approach that is being taken, particularly dealing with corruption, is a balanced approach. number one, as max mentioned, we are going to watch the

dollars given to them because they are lining the pockets of the enemy. that has to stop. we have a task force doing that. as a matter of course, we will start to deal with the predatory nature of corruption as it affects the people. it affects them in harassment taxation of the roads inside the villages. we are close to them now. in the past, we were not. we are right there with them. at whatever level we can act to do something about it we will do that even if it has to get to the general officer level. what we will not do is ignore it. that is what is happening now. the egregious level of corruption that takes place in particularlyes, in security ministries, those will be identified and brought to in most cases to resolution.

the other thing is the corruption at the higher levels of government will be dealt with in private and not in public. there will be no beginning of the chest about some of victory over having accomplished something with a government official as it pertains to corruption. it will be done privately. we have had a lot of success with this in iraq with general petraeus working privately with maliki and egregious nature of his opponents. we took action because we had evidence. indisputable evidence -- so stop talking about the generalities and get to the specifics. if we do not have the specifics and then start talking about it. as mr. mcfarlin was talking about, that is a real challenge

for us. we will continue to work with that. there are really good people out there at the local level that are courageous and to make a difference. there are others who should not be there. we will work through that. at the end of the day, we cannot solve all of these problems in the timeframe we have. that is the reality. i hope we can turn this over to afghan national security bourses who can continue to provide stability and security. i am comfortable that we can make some changes at the local level to improve the to provideance responsibility to the people. it is a challenge and it will continue to be a challenge probably right up until the time we leave. >> i want to speak to this question a little bit. it is a terribly important question. i agree with much of what general keane said.

let me try to raise your confusion to a higher level of detail. [laughter] first of all, we do need to take responsibility for our actions. that has two pieces. one is the things we do on the ground. the second piece is our national interest. these are quite separate problems. yet we get down to a level of detail that we not -- that we do not normally do in washington. we are in the process now of trying to get a handle on contractors who are very corrupt with our money. let me give you a specific example. contractors attacked other contractors in kandahar. they do so because they think americans are leaving soon and they want to make a bundle.

when you give a contract to the afghan equivalent of a minority contractor, you have an expectation that he will be attacked not only by the taliban but by people on our side. there are a variety of things we can do to deal with that. it is not a hopeless situation. but when you make the per step, you better know what you are doing and how you deal with those problems as they come because if we find our logistics are being seriously impacted because the new contractors cannot deliver, we will have to either secure the new contractors, which we do not want to use the force to do, or you back off and go back to the old contractor, in which case you supper a large political defeat. this is a solvable problem. i raise it because i want to underline how difficult it is to deal with these problems. it depends on your execution of

policy that you get to a correct decision about policy. on the larger global of government corruption, i do believe that we must deal with the incoherence of our old message. i say it is incoherent because of the question of how soon we are going to leave. as long as afghans at senior levels believe that we are leading rapidly, there are two logical responses. one is i have to steal more because i will have to run. the other is a i have to build up a network of local commanders who will fight for me because i will not be there when the americans leave. i have enough -- those are very afghan responses. as long as people believe that, our dialogue of the harm corruption dusted the nation, which is absolutely true, is

completely irrelevant. afghans have a model for survival if we leave too soon. that model is hal the -- that model is how the former leader of afghan survive. there were two massive attacks by the mujahedeen helped by the pakistani army using artillery. i heard some accounts that they lost 10,000 people. they failed. if they had held on until the fall of the soviet union cut all his funding after which he could not preserve his network of alliances. as long as there is a strong doubt about our will to remain, there it will be a strong logic for afghan the leaders to try to maintain these militia forces in

which case our arguments about why those do violence in the war do not compete much. i raise this because it is directly relevant to the message we radiate in washington. we cannot deal with corruption as much as we want to only on the basis of our recriminations in kabul. we will have to deal with it in part as a part of our national will. i do agree with what general keane said about dealing with it in private. our people action over and over has been to try to deal with corruption in very western ways. we have to have the task force and it has to be investigatory and left alone. we go and arrest a guy who may be corrupt as the double, but is also a key component of president karzai's political support.

it the space arrested, they will pull apart -- if he stays at arrested, they will pull from the government. we go in and have a fit about corruption with the consequences should have been completely clear. if we are able to do what general keane is talking about a deal with this privately, we can make some major impact. but that means we have to do something we are very bad at with a very big government with a lot of pieces, which means we have to know what our pieces are doing. before the arrest takes place, we have to think about it what to do the arrest. do we want to try to contain it? is it possible to do those things? the only reason i am going on and on about this is because you really need to understand one, the degree of complexity and

bald and, too, the degree to which our own purposes and old will are to carry out the mission. >> all of this is well and good, but it is not a message of -- it is not a question of punitive measures. it it is good governance you are looking for, it has to begin at the committee level, which means finding all party and power to the community and beginning with the muses it -- beginning with the municipality as a key component of government. i say this because our own center is looking at this issue now. we feel that if you take away appointauthority to teachers and policeman, you are going to give us some position

of strength to the local believe that they have ownership. they will protect that against the taliban and anyone else he wants it disrupted. i think that model has to be turned around and taken from the community up rather than from kabul down. >> you have to do with the fact that if you are not very careful, what you'll do is at the bulk power to the very corrupt holders of power who are in the province. there is a lot of tension between giving power to the corrupt. this is really important. we have, in my judgment, too many people, civilians and military, who are operating locally on the belief that kabul does not matter because it is incompetent. the latter is true. when you deal with try to set up things on the local level

whether it is police force or government, what you create is a deal of suspicion and what you find is that kabul does not had the ability to do things well. it has the ability to screw up what we are doing. the belief that we are creating "says piers it -- we are creating local conspiracies. you may get good people removed and that we had a fit about it. it requires a cost that coordination between what we are doing on the ground and what we are doing and talking about in kabul. the line in president obama's note that we will work with karzai where we can and work around him were we must is not going to be dismissed in kabul.

they come to believe there is a local conspiracy. let me give you a historical case -- the british with the government of helmut. they built them up in the press. they ignored kabul. a lot of things are going right, but enormous frictions. when he was removed, there were three days in which president karzai refused to take a telephone call from london. the message of that refusal was it is still my country. you cannot run us out. we have now enormous assets that we did not have in my time. >> we have to move on. >> we have to be very careful how we use those assets. we have a delusion of understanding power dynamics and if we are not careful and

exaggerate our abilities on the ground we are going to hurt ourselves. >> next question. >> this is a question of defining terms. i know this is an ongoing debate. in terms of our international interest, what is the best case scenario if we succeed and the worst-case scenario if we fail in terms of us and what is the reasonable timeframe to answer that question? >> i would just answer it as their historic 10 -- i would just answer it as a historian. prior to the communist coup in 1978, there is this notion that afghanistan is hell on earth. it has been a country longer than the united states has been around and lager that pakistan has been around. in the '50s and '60s it was seen as a model third world country

where tourist wet. it was a hit the destination. you can get a taste of what life was like before the war. that is the ultimate best-case scenario of what afghanistan can look like. we will not achieve that any time soon. it is helpful to think about that and understand that afghanistan is not a country consigned to perpetual war. that is something that has been thrust upon them by a a a course of events. they are hungry for decent and accountable government. if we help them get there, we will create a strategic ally in the region that will help us deal with pakistan and many others. on the other hand, if we pull out precipitously, it is pretty easy to see what will happen. it will be a repeat of the 1990's when you sell the country torn apart by civil war, when trouble was getting shelled every day, when human-rights

abuses were occurring. the taliban promise to return to some kind of law and order. as we know, their promises or hollow. their offer was not good governance. they offered this horrible with totalitarianism, which the people thought was a horrible type of government, but if we see afghanistan once again becoming a place where there is no significant support for central authority, you can expect that kind of civil war and the rise of the taliban. by the way, the taliban and still have very close links with al qaeda. prior to 9/11, afghanistan will come to be a place for terrorists to hide. >> does anybody else want to add to that? thank you. next question. >> always like to pick up on

something brought up -- >> would you bring the micropyle up -- would you bring the microphone up? >> i am just curious, has the government of pakistan done enough to increase the capacity of the frontier corps? >> yes they have. the u.s. is planning a huge role in that. it has to go even further down into the community level to the people who live on inside the committee and or from the community. in terms of the changes in the frontier corps, from being a backwater with the dregs of the pakistan army used to be set, it is now a place where any

aspiring young officer who was to make a mark wants to go because it allows them to fight. more recently, a good sign of that was when after many years, a brigadier from the frontier corps was promoted to major- general. he is now being brought back from having commanded to become the head of the frontier korda. the frontier corps, within the last two years, has improved tremendously. it is much more capable of looking after the local situation. >> anybody else what to answer that? next question. yes, sir? >> i would just like to ask a little bit more about or that more about president

karzai's. its important to grade the turnabout to which they are able to take over. is there any contradiction? is there a concern about the operations of general petraeus is embarked on? >> do you want to start with that? >> yes. the nature of counterinsurgency is full of contradictions. you got to get used to it. you are always going to be trying to tread a balance. the increasing tempo of attacks against -- by special forces type units against insurgents has had a considerable measure -- has had a considerable

measure of success. you have two issues that you have to deal with that may be involved. one is afghans are very sensitive about this stuff and they have tremendously long memories. that intake what happened five years ago it what happened yesterday into one picture. two years and yesterday are the same. it is hard to get unstuck. you have a funny perceptions. i remember they did an investigation after one big battle where they claimed the dutch had killed a lot of civilians. one afghan explained that he -- that they kill his opera.

he was asked what is all i did. he said he was shooting. yet these problems you have to work your way through. remember that president karzai is constantly on the telephone. it is good, it is bad, but everybody is calling. he vibrates through this popular discontent and he has a problem that we have, in his view, not responded to over a number of years. i think that view is exaggerated, but we have learned that it -- he has learned that if we do not respond to him, he goes to the press. we will have to live with the contradiction, but i think we are on the right track. but we will have to continue to provide a very high level of detail about what we are doing. there will not be an easy answer to this one.

>> first of all, president karzai is aware of the nature and character of all our operations. he gets briefed on some level of detail in terms of what is taking place. with those operations are classic counterinsurgency operations or whether they and all of special operations forces. he is very much up to date in terms of the progress we are making and what the issues are as a result of that. general petraeus has continuous meetings with president karzai. i would describe it as a cooperative relationship, yet a firm relationship they have with each other. they speak very frankly with each other. number one, the president is well informed as to what is taking place. i think the ambassador put his finger on it. i would just express it a little differently.

president karzai has been in power for nine years. he is on his sixth petraeus. he is seen expectations before. he is seen expectations not met before. he also has people to answer to. i think a lot of that was posturing for attention before the lisbon talks. he reminded everybody that he was head of the sovereign state and he had some issues inside of that. to look get that as a major divider from what general petraeus is trying to accomplish, what nato is trying to accomplish, there is a major chasm there and we are going in different directions as a matter of policy would be wrong. matter-of-fact, they are on the same page again. that is the reality of it. it happened. it is unfortunate.

it got people of trust -- a got a poor frustrated about it, but i think a the karzai net for that to take place. mission accomplished. >> the heads of state held a stake in showing that they are not american puppets and they have to stand up for the afghan people. they have said that the iraqi security forces to take over very soon, but he did not press the issue. he did not demand that our troops should leave because he understood that he needed our troops. i think president karzai understands the same thing. >> is there another question? thank you very -- update there is one. the wedding get the microphone -- go ahead and get the microphone. >> there seems to be a

disagreement over whether the authority over afghan security forces should be local. that disagreement did not seem to get fleshed out. >> i am not sure i am a match for ambassador in human -- ambassador newman. in my view we continue to use the word "we." we must do this, we must do that. out that the government in kabul and the government in the provinces -- afghanistan has had a way of balancing its various regions and interest. we can build up were wards or we can build up local interest

groups that are not tied to the war lords. there protect themselves against an inch -- but the taliban. as we go away from the border region, there is more likelihood that will happen. if we focus on some of the elements of local government that the afghans themselves can be one stepre will forward, two steps back initially and then there will be three steps forward. the issue is the value of the ordinary afghan has is the same as the value of some one in idaho or iowa or washington. we have to respect that and not had this kind of vanity that somehow we know what is good for them and that we will work it out and impose it on them. it is much better if we do it

from within. there will be debate and discussion, but i think it will have roots and it will outlast the coalition's presence in afghanistan. >> i just want to piggyback on something he said, which is the importance of respecting afghan institutions and respecting the people of afghanistan. we have talked a lot about executive power of president karzai. there is also a lot of talk about the provincial district governors. we also need to keep in mind the checks and balances on executive power which calls for the legislative branch. there is a parliament. there is a large history of jurors and jurist. we have to empower them and act as a check on executive authority. that is very much in line with traditional afghan tribal culture. that is something we should

empower. unfortunately in the last decade or so they said -- things have gotten out of whack. we have created a network of actors. part of the process of reform is not only to take away power from some of those actors, but als to empower those to speak up for the boys of the community at act as a check on the executive branch. >> i do not think there is a lot of disagreement here in principle. i totally agree with the issue of lifting some of these things grow out of afghanistan. i take it is important as we look at evolution in addition to not try to engineer too much

ourselves, really be humble about how much we know and understand -- to also reflect on how different afghanistan is from the afghanistan of the '70s. i actually did the did afghanistan first in 1967. my father was ambassador there. i spent 3.5 months traveling across the country. i still a lot of the place -- i saw a lot of the place. the trouble system of the '70s has been shattered by war. the tribal leaders have lost the cohesion they had in these cases. in 25, all of afghanistan was one tried able to exercise and keep all the election of members.

that is one measure of how fractured tribal leadership has become. tribal leaders have lost power to commanders, what we call war lords. we have had a role in helping that in some cases. that does not mean it is not possible to develop power. we have to be very careful and have a lot of understanding or a lot of room for things to grow somewhat naturally in afghanistan and not assume that we can engineer it. by the way, i agree that tibet is something that looks like that passed the '70s. people did not expect as much from government. they have seen things they never solved in the '70s. in the '70s, people talked about the golden age of development.

we have for less development projects and then then we have now. as we deal with how things evolve, we will have to do with the reality of an enormously fractured society and be very careful that we are not standing up jurist without standing project -- without knowing who we are standing up. it is not a difference over the objective, it is a reminder of how complicated it is to work on. thank you. >> i will just add one thing, we are helping to strengthen the capacity of the ministries at the national level, some of them have a very fine leaders that the upper levels. they are not the level of

measure of effectiveness. those we are talking about where the local leaders come together to address the needs of their people is part of the country -- is very important. our command has routinely participated in that. it is pretty remarkable to watch that unfold as they grapple with local issues, which security is a part of that. that is what we are a part of that ourselves. we helped to strengthen that and assist in any way we can. they are their meetings, not our meetings. we are participating because they want us to participate. it makes sense for us to participate in it. january 2009, the people elected their own provincial leaders in iraq. every governor appointed by the

central government he ran for office was not elected. it was essentially an election of secular people purses' religious zealots. as a result, the people for the first time had a government that they had elected and was going to be held accountable to them. we do not have the form of government in afghanistan nor is it in the near future to run elections at the local level. that is certainly one of the challenges. we are trying to strengthen that local government for the same reason we do it was a seminal event in iraq. at the local level is where the people are and the government has an opportunity to be responsive to those people and assist them with their needs and services. given the rule of nature of the communities in afghanistan, it

is even more of an issue as opposed to the urban nature of what we were dealing with in iraq. i want to take my colleagues for participating on this panel and taking time out of their busy schedules. we appreciate all of the comments you have made here and all of you for attending and the fall questions that you asked. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> newly elected u.s. house members are in washington, d.c., for an orientation session although they will not be sworn in until next year. among other activities, choosing at all this. the new members enter a lottery

which gives them the order to choose their offices. here is part of that lottery. >> route #73. -- room number 73. [laughter] >> do not be nervous.

>> room number 8. [applause] >> o no. -- oh, no. [laughter] >> mr. brooks, room number 81. room number 4. [applause] [laughter]

iezenga, room number 52. room number 85. [applause]

>> that is why you have a lottery. >> just your name and your state. that is all i need. let me give you this packet. you're going to see mr. flemming. she has selected room 1130. >> next, senator elect michael lee at the federalist society. after that, second circuit appeals court judge talks about national security and the constitution. then, president obama and nato officials began a two day meeting in lisbon. >> like this weekend, joining authors as booktv heads to the

miami but fair international. joined in with your calls and e- mail. plot all weekend on c-span2. your march or part of the federal budget and part of the agenda for the upcoming congress. find out what earmarked for online at ec stand video library. search and watch programs explaining your marks and the arguments before and against them. it is washington your way. >> utah senator elect mike lee and mike pence deliver keynote addresses at the 2010 federalist society convention. the republican lawmakers discuss the gop's agenda on capitol hill. the federalist society is an organization of conservative and libertarian-leading attorneys. this is one hour.

>> it is my privilege this afternoon to introduce u.s. senator elect might leak from utah -- u.s. senator elect mike lee of utah. senator lee opens up his biography with the following sentence -- discussing everything from the due process clause to the second on the net around the dinner table. [laughter] this guy is serious. lest you believe this is a mere rhetorical flourish, i had it on good authority from people who saw and heard mike on the

campaign trail that he spent much time talking quite seriously and quite specifically about the limits on government boards contained in our constitution and why they need to be respected. one current u.s. senator, who i will not name and whose asset i am about to butcher, said to me, "he is actually out there talking about the commerce clause." well, i expect we will be hearing more about that very soon. [laughter] [applause] mike lee served as the president of our byu law school chapter. this may explain his campaign speeches, but it would not be fair for us to take all of the credit. he did clerk for his father who

was a brilliant lawyer who served as solicitor general of the united states under president ronald reagan. please join me in giving u.s. senator mike lee a hearty welcome. [applause] >> i was almost 38 or 39 before i realized that most families did not discuss the constitution over potatoes. to me that sells perfectly

normal. the united states constitution was something of a separate religion in our home. we discussed these things constantly. i remember initial conversations with my dad about roe vs. wade when i was about 10 years old. they explain the facts of the case. as the minister explain it to me, my response to him was how it overlooks the fact that there is nothing in the constitution that makes this a federal issue. i was bothered by that issue at that age. i do not think he realized i was weird either. [laughter] i decided to get into this race and to run for political office because i have come to believe that our federal government is too big and too expensive. i doubt there are many in this

audience you disagree with me on that. but just in case there might be a few of you out there, i remind you about the fact that we have the federal government that has accumulated almost $14 trillion in debt. within a year's time we will have reached a $15 trillion debt. that is a lot of money. there are people in the united states of america today to do not make $15 trillion in an entire year. [laughter] it is sad, but true. if you divide $15 trillion by 300 million amerins, it works out to $50,000 a head. a lot of people do not make that much money in a year. if you divide it by the number of taxpayers we have in this country -- it is well over one to $25,000. that is a problem.

the debt we are acquiring is unsustainable. it gets worse when you start to consider that we have unfunded entitlement liabilities that are estimated at $100 trillion -- some say even more than that. we do not know. the part that we do know is disturbing and has caused us to realize that we have a problem. the problem harkens back to it earlier times in our nation's history. a couple of centuries ago americans started expressing concern about a distant, powerful, national govnment -- not based in washington, d.c., it did not exist then. it was part of maryland. but a national government based in london. attacked as too much and regulated as too heavily. it did not respect that quintessentially american

principle of local, self rule. the idea that people government sells better than -- the idea that people govern themselves better than government does. this national government was so far from the people that it was slow to respond to their needs, even when it did respond. so the people came to an understanding that feels somewhat familiar to us, that national governments, by their very nature, do have a certain tendency towards tierney. they have a tendency to become tyrants unless their power is carefully checked. that remains true, and this tendency towards tyranny that national governments have regardless of whether it is run by the king on one hand, or by an elected president, or by an elected president who thinks he is a king. [laughter]

unless we restrict the power and put careful boundaries around it, tyranny will ensue. it is an inevitability. it is the nature and disability -- is the nature of mankind that this will happen. we as a country decided that we would reject this kind of natural government. after we became our own country, we put together our founding era document. we decided to come up with a list -- a list of powers we knew we had to have in our national government. we put forward that list in article one, section eight. with very few exceptions, every power the federal government has is found in article one, section eight. it is all too frequently overlooked. we decided to give congress the power to regulate things like interstate and foreign commerce, to take care of our national defense issues, to develop laws

governing immigration, what they call naturalization back then, to establish a uniform system of weights and measures, to declare war, to regulate federal public lands, and there are a few others including my personal favorite power of congress -- the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. we do not talk about that one as all but as we should all the we do in my house. [laughter] my children have come to regard that with great affection. but in case you missed that one in your last family discussion, a letter of marque and reprisal is basically a hall pass issued by congress that entitles the holder to engage in state- sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the united states of america. it is the last thing i do, i am

going to get a letter of marque and reprisal. i will be a pirate and you can all join me. [applause] my point in all of this, within that document, within this charter for our national government, there is no power to do all things that congress deems expedient. there is no power to make fairer -- there is no power to make life better and more equitable to americans. there are instead powers that james madison -- whose name this society reveres -- described the powers of the federal government as few and defined. where as the powers reserved to the state, those lingering aspects of sovereignty, can be presumed to exist in the states

unless they are not in here. that part was already implicitly clear in the main text of the constitution. it was made clear without any ambiguity or uncertainty in the 10th amendment. yet we are where we are. since the new deal era, every single year that combined expenditures of the 50 state governments has been significantly less than the expenditures of the federal government, that was never true before the new deal era. it has been true ever since the new deal era. i trace this back, boasted that, to the changes that occurred in our judas' purchase -- in our jurisprudence in the late 1940's.

the court has been falling that now infamous standard that congress may regulate any and every activity can be said to substantially affect interstate commerce. we lawyers know that that is just legalese for a very simple concept -- congress may regulate any aspect of human existence. and yet there is not a single point up on weekend -- upon which we can be all certain that the founding dollars agreed that they were not creating a federal government with general police powers. they were not creating an all- purpose of national government. not one of those would have signed their names to this document and not whether states would have ratified this document if they believed what they were ratifying was anything other than a limited-purpose national government. [applause]

i have been told since high school that i need to bury the hatchet when it comes to wicker v. filburn. my high-school history teacher was fantastic. he used to tell me to get over it. the federal government is big and we all benefit from it. that ship has sailed. leave it alone. i do not want to. i do not think i can. [applause] you say, because the king's court threw in 1787 remain true -- uc, because the things that were true in 1787 remain true today.

we are experiencing the best evidence that those guys were right. we would not be in a position where we are facing a $15 trillion debt with 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlement liabilities if they simply respected these basic precepts, if they stuck to the program, if they focused on those things that they are supposed to be doing. i mean look, there is only so much you can spend granting letters of marque and reprisal, right? the solution, i believe, lies not with an attempt of the federal judiciary to roll back legal precedent. do not get me wrong. i love baathist -- i would love it if that happened. i applaud those states who have attacked president obama's health care plan in the courts. even under that president, this -- that precedent, this health care plan crosses the line. the american congress is

telling the american people that they may have to buy a specific product today may not want. -- product they may not want. i applaud the efforts. i do not believe that they can return us to what i referred to as constitutionally limited government fast enough to get us out of the mess the we are now facing. i believe, hope and expect that in time we will have a supreme court in which the majority of justices will decide that the standard adopted previously utterly obliterates that doctrine. until that time, what to do? i believe we can do something that will not have to take years or even decades to complete.

we have, as it turns out, not just one branch in our federal government. we have three. and only one of them is controlled by people with lifetime appointments. the other ones you can vote for. the problem is that in the political branches over the last 75 years, members of congress in both houses of both political parties have seen that the supreme court answer is always yes, really with only two exceptions, the united states versus lopez in 1995 being one and the united states inverses -- verses morton being the other. in every other case where the question is, does this accede congress's commerce power, the answer has been no. the answer has always been yes to congress. you can do this and nothing the courts can do will interfere. some members of congress have stopped asking the question of whether they could, because the answer has always been yes. then they stopped asking whether they should.

under article 6,each member of congress is required to take an oath to uphold the constitution. in my mind, that means more than doing that which you can get away with in court. we drove over year in a taxicab just a few minutes ago from my temporary space up on capitol hill. i do not know whether the cab driver exceeded the speed limit law at some point. he may have. he may not have. i was not watching. but the fact that we did not get a ticket on the way over does not mean that he was complying with the law. it just means a the did not get -- it just means that he did not get caught. so too with congress, especially when you consider the facts that, in many circumstances, very few people, if anyone, could be said to have standing to challenge certain actions taken by the federal government. certain federal spending programs,especially when you consider that lawsuits and never get brought because of the

perception of futility. it is not fair to say that just because the courts scarcely, rarely interfere with congress as exercise of authority that congress and members of congress are complying with their oath to uphold the constitution. what i am saying is that members of congress need to be held accountable, and need to hold themselves accountable to their oath, regardless of what the courts might be willing to enforce. that needs to become part of the american political discourse, the question of whether each member of congress, or each person pursuing an office in congress, will independently police and independently limit to the exercise of congressional authority out of respect, out of devotion to the principles of the american revolution, those the were embodied in our founding-era document, principles that have been utterly ignored, i believe, for the last 75 years within the three political branches of the

government. we must expect and we must demand more from our leaders, but it will not happen until we as voters and start the discussion, until we commence what i call, "the constitutional debate." when i first decided to get into this race, to run for the united states senate, i wondered, as a lawyer, am i speaking out on this to the point where i cannot see the inability of the young -- the voting lawyer public to grasp the importance of this? in audiences throughout my stay, -- state, i ran the basic history of wicker v philburn. i explained the origins of the commerce clause and how its interpretations had evolved over time. people got it. they understood it.

i continue the discussions after i got into the race, and sometimes my campaign staff had to get after me. they put down some pretty whorisharsh rules. they told me in most circumstances i could cite only one case in one speech. i could refer only one time to a specific identifying clause in article one section eight. i found all sorts of ways of getting around that, but the point is, people listened. people without any legal education can and do grasp these things, and they grasp it well. this is something that the american voting public can and should and must, and i believe well, understand, because it may well be that we can get out of the current mess that we face.

for the principal reason that renewed emphasis on federalism not just when the accords it did not just within the courts, but within the public, maybe the only non-partisan, non threatening way the week and based some of the problems that we have. -- that we can face some of the problems that we have. it is quintessentially american. the idea of self rule is an american idea. it is one that allows us to remain agnostic on many of the most fundamental and sometimes contentious questions that we face in government, questions considering such things as what, if any, is the role of government in the provision of health care? there are people on both extremes of the political spectrum who i believe could find areas of common agreement with what i am saying. for example, there are people

to the left of me politically to -- who would say that the only way out of our current health care crisis is to establish a single payer, government-run health care system. i want to be clear. i am not one of those people, in case there was any mistake. there are those who feel that way. fed many of them are just as adamantly hostile toward obama- care as i am . there are other people who say the government should never, ever get involved in the health care of the citizenry. it should be up to private institutions, families, churches and so forth. regardless of where you are on that spectrum or whether you're somewhere in the metal, i think it is much easieto get people to the point of asking the additional question, not just whether government should get involved, but at which level?

should it be at a national level or should it be at the state level? i think we can make a compelling argument, even one directed toward our radiological left, that would say it ought to be at the state level. -- our ideological left, that would say it ought to be at the state level. you could do it far faster, with far more consistency, making it far more true to what you envision as the utopian ideal of the federal government providing, or a government providing this. if it is not the federal government, then the state. there are many people in vermont that would like to create such a system, a system that would be far easier if the federal government stayed out of this all together or at least avoided any further intrusion into the realm of what is within a what states control. control. what state's

it is already the unique prerogative of the states to licensed physicians, to license other health care professionals including nurses, to license hospitals and clinics, to regulate the provisions and the issuance of health insurance policies within this state, and to establish a system of laws governing medical malpractice lawsuits. states can bar more effectively, i believe, manage all of this rest -- states can a far more effectively, i believe, manage all of this or risk, rather than -- this risk, rather than having those decisions made at the national level. there are other practical decisions to be taken into account as well, geographic, demographic, and other particularized circumstances that vary dramatically from one state to another. one state may be able to do far more for its people based on the money it is able to bring in and then another state may be

able to do. in utah, for example, the average health care cost per person per year is about $3,800. in another state, it is over $8,000. there are similar disparities all over the country. if released big decisions at the state level, i believe they can be dealt with far more effectively and efficiently in a manner that is more respected to life, liberty and property that we as americans tend to cling to. that is the whole reason why we are here today and we are not speaking with a british accent and we do not wear wigs when we go into court. [laughter] [applause] not that there is anything wrong with that. [laughter] i used to ask the justice alito whether we should not bring back the way to the court just to add to the decorum of the

whole thing. he did not write off on that at all. he was not enthusiastic. my hope, my motivation for getting into this race has everything to do with restoring the debate, to the political branches of government. for my part, i pledged to my constituents at, and i repeat that pledged today, i will not vote for a piece of legislation that i cannot reconcile with the original intent of the constitution. [applause] to say that differently, if i cannot imagine myself explaining to james madison with a straight face why what i was doing was consistent with the text and history of the constitution as it has been amended all 27 times, i will vote no.

i will do every single time, regardless of what the president -- precedent says i can get away with -- precedent says i can get away with. there is a big difference, and it is a difference that i will honor, a difference that will guide me and will guide my every vote as a u.s. senator. my hope is that by making this part of the american political discourse, as it once was, and i believed it was for the first 150 years of our operation under the u.s. constitution, we will as a people be able to come to some consensus as to what powers might be long more properly at the state level. this does not mean less government overall, necessarily. this does not mean that we cannot provide certain services to provide a social safety net to people.

but it may mean that we refocus our attention away from the federal government in some instances and for the states, that we will be pushing some power out of the federal government where it will be received by the states. we need people pushing that power out of washington, and we need other people on the other end to a bullet into the states. -- ready to pull it into the states. i believe they can and will. i believe we can do it and we will do it. may god bless the sovereign united states of america. thank you very much. [applause]

>> the senator is going to take two very quick questions, and they need to be short so we have time for an answer. in the back. >> congratulations on your election. my name is steve. i have a question for you. there is a debate about the proper role of senators in the confirmation process of the federal judiciary, whether senators should just make sure that judges are competent and not cronies, or whether they should really scrutinize their beliefs. i wonder what your thoughts are on that. >> we are not there to just check a box. we are there to look for obvious -- we are not there to look for obvious pathologies and

say, has this nominee ever been convicted of a federal offense? ok, the answer is no. the box is checked. did this person graduate from law school and passed the bar exam? i think we are there to do more than that. in my case, that means a thorough examination into whether or to what extent each nominee understands his or her commitment to the constitution and to the laws of the united states. i will be looking into the idea of contextualism. this old-fashioned notion that our laws consisting of words and our words have meaning, many of which have been ignored, will lead to anarchy. that is what will guide me. >> who do you perceive in the senate will be an ally to your pledge to examine every piece of legislation along a

constitutional litmus test? >> we have a few there already who feel this way. i want to be very careful. this is a ceg reference only. we had a role to speak no latin. -- rule we had -- no latin. i told my staff today that i can keep out -- geek out all i want, these are my people. [applause] my c.e.g. reference is to jim demint and tom coburn. among others,i would also include rand paul from kentucky,

marco rubio from florida. rob portman from ohio. there are others as well. this is not something that is unique to any one senator. unfortunately, it has been too rare. fortunately, it will be rare no more. [applause] >> thank you very much. we look forward to having you here in washington and that many -- at many of these gatherings as well as others. thank you very much. [applause] we are going to move right into our next address. if we could have the

congressmen and david come to the platforms. >> thank you. it is great to be back again. i am here for a very brief purpose right now, to introduce our next speaker. he is a dear friend of mine from before i ran for congress. it is my congressman from the sixth district of indiana. he has been on the judiciary committee and is knowledgeable of those issues, most recently as no. 3 in the republican leadership, and somebody that many, many people say is going to be a leader not only in our party but in our country. he has given an interesting talk that i have asked him to share with us today on his view of the presidency and the constitutional parameters for that office. so, without further ado, let me give you mike pence.

[applause] >> thank you, david mcintosh. i not only followed him to this podium, but i followed him to congress. he was a tough act to follow in 2000, and we have been huffing and puffing to keep up with david mcintosh, one of the storied founders of the federalist society. thank you for your leadership and your friendship. [applause] my topic today is the presidency. and the constitution. and my remarks are derived from a speech that i had the privilege to give at a college just a few months ago.

i bring it today as a matter of first importance. as our nation embarked on the process of considering not only this president and a presidential contest, but it is my hope that our nation will consider the presidency itself. it is in that spirit and before this distinguished group of legal minds that i bring my remarks today. the presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the american government. more often than not for good or for ill it sets the tone for the other branches and it spurs the expectations of the people. its powers are vast and consequential. its requirements from the outset and by definition are impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and a consistent attention to its purposes as set forth by the

constitution of the united states. is it not amazing? given the great nature of the office, those seeking it should take pause. rather, there is a matter rush toward something that once its powers are seized can be wielded as an instrument. the nation and the people can be transformed according to his highest aspirations. other than in a crisis of a house divided, the presidency is neither fish nor intended to be such an instrument. when it is made that, the country sustains a wound and cries out justly and indignantly. what the country says, the theme of this address, what it says impelled by its long history, quite naturally and

rightly, what it may well have set on november the second, is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. [applause] it says that the president should never forget this, that he is not risen above us but is merely one of us. he is chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision according to the design laid out in the constitution and impassioned by the declaration of independence. the presidency must adhere to the definition expressed in the the constitution and the conduct of find overtime and tradition. while the powers of the of the seven large, along with those of -- office has been large, along with those of th the

legislature and the judiciary, the framework is different. without proper adherence to the role defined in the constitution of the presidency, checks and balances become weakened. this has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the congress at times, and that the congress is independent of their desires. fused in an unruly unity, the political class has reached -- raged forward with an expansion of power and prerogatives mistakenly believing that power is by definition good. -- by default to do good. even among the simplest among us, that is not so. power is an instrument of fatal consequence. it is defined no more readily than quicksilver and escapes intentions as easily as air flows through a mesh.

those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self restraint. a republic, if you can keep it, is about limitation, and for good reason. we are mortal. our actions are imperfect. the tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best of choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind. some, perhaps many, may die. because of this, a true statesman lives in what churchill called a "stress of soul." he may give to call but only because he is robs peter. -- he may get to paul, but only because he robs peter. that is why we should be wary of a president that seems to float on his own greatness. all greatness is tempered by mortality and every soul is evil.

this has seldom been better expressed than by thurgood marshall's dictum. thurgood marshall said that we should, "to do of what we think is right and left the law catch- up." laws are being written that are so long that no human could read them in a lifetime, let alone implement them, let alone give people the feeling that they are being asked, not told. our nation too often finds itself in the position of a dog whose position is to simply obey, but america is not a dog. it does not require a "because i said so" jurisprudence, to

which it is then demanded to catch up. it does not require laws of such complexity that they are heavier than chains or a presidentia who acts like, speas like, and is received like a king. [applause] the presidency has run off the rails. it begs a new clarity, a new discipline, a new president. [applause] thepresident is not our teacher, our two-tier, our guide or our roller. he does -- our tutor, our guide or our ruler. reserve neither him nor his vision. it is not his job to redefine custom, a lot, believes, to --

custom, law, beliefs, to appropriate industry, or to impose justice some 300 million people. it is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from the people to him and to the acolytes of his choosing. is my characterization of unprecedented resumption -- presumption incorrect? i deferred to the judgment of the people which they will make in their own eyes and their own ears, but listen to the exact words of president obama's transition team, who said at the point of his election, "it is important that president obama is prepared to take power and began to rule day one." or more recently, the new head of the financial consumer

bureau wrote, "president obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field." take power, rule, leveling. though it is now, this has never again and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the american president. [applause] no one can say this too strongly. no one can say it enough until it is remedied. we are not subjects. we are citizens. [applause] we fought a war so we do not even have to treat kings like kings, and if i may remind you, we won that one. [applause]

the powers of the presidency are extraordinarily and unnecessarily great, and great president and treat them -- great presidents treat them sparingly. no finer, more moving understanding of the nature of the presidency has ever spent -- been expressed, in my judgment, then by president coolidge. he was the son of 16. "the day i became president," college wrote. -- coolidge wrote. he had to started to work in a tobacco field when a co-worker said, "if my father were president, i would not have to work in a tobacco field," to which calvin coolidge replied, "if my father were your father, you would." [laughter] his affection for the boy was

obvious, and his admiration. the president's son contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the south lawn. he wrote words that resonate with many parents in the room. he wrote, "and what might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if i had not been president," and then he continued, "in his suffering, he was asking me to make him well, but i could not, and when he went, the power and glory of the presidency went with him." a sensibility like this, not power, is the source of presidential and dignity, and it -- presidential dignity, and it must be restored. it depends entirely on

character, a discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic of life -- the republic, but life itself. it communicates the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself. he relies not on his own prospects but on the star of -- the storm of history, through which it is his responsibility to navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed upon him not merely by man but by god. in the capitol rotunda are heroic paintings, the signing of the declaration, the victory at yorktown, and a painting that depicts a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy.

upon hearing from benjamin west the george washington, having won the war, urged by some to make -- to use the army to make himself king, but having surrendered instead, he said, if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world. he did, and he was. [applause] to aspire to such a virtue and self restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense, it should be easy. difficult because it would be demanding an ideal, and easy because it is just the right thing to do and the rewards are immediate and self-evident. a president to slight the constitution is like a writer --

rider who hates his horse. he will be thrown. [laughter] [applause] and the nation along with him. the president solemnly swears to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. he does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement or reinterpreted. -- read interpret it -- reinterpret it. other than a crisis of morality, decency and division, like the civil war, if he should want to change the constitution to fit his own designs, he should do so by amendment. he adjusts the power of the office by his own willful interpretation, and with the planned debate government of -- and we supplant the government a lot with the government of men. -- of law with the government of men. they should be on his mind all the time, a prism through which the light of all governments pass.

sometimes we have moved erratically away from this. we can move back. who better than the president to restore the scope and devotion -- this hope and devotion? at home, the president must be cautious. abroad, his character must change. were there to be a primer on how to act with other states, and none has been needed up until this point, you could be confident it would contain the following. first, you do not about to kings. -- bow to kings. [applause] outside our borders, the president of the united states bows to no man.

in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. [applause] you do not argue the case against the united states but rather the case for it. [applause] you do not apologize to the enemies of the united states of america. [applause] now, should you be confused, let me help. a country, people or region the harbors, shelters, supports, encourages or cheers attacks upon our country are enemies of the united states of america and you do not apologize to them. [applause] closely related to this and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president's complex responsibilities is his duty as

commander in chief. in this regard there is a very simple rule, and noun to some residents, regardless of party. -- unknown to some presidents, regardless of party. if, and it is the biggest if a president can face, for it will follow him and cost lives, and death, and it is and if that requires -- if, and it is an if the requires deep thought, a lifetime of education, the knowledge of the general, the wisdom of a statesman, and the heart of an infantryman, if, after careful collaboration, -- deliberation, intense stress of

soul and the deepest prayer, if then you go to war, then having gone to war, by god, you go to war to win. [applause] you do not cast away american lives for those -- or those of the innocent noncombatant on a theory. if the politics of your election or your own party intrude on your decision for even an instant, there are no words for this. more commonplace but hardly less important are other expectations of the president in this regard. you must not stand on the provisioning of our armed forces. the error must be on the side of surps, not scarcity. he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single

american life. the american soldier is precious as even the closest of your kin, because he is your kin. for his sake, the president must say to the congress and to the people, i am the commander in chief. it is my sacred duty to defend the united states of america and to give our soldiers what they need to complete their mission and come home safe. [applause] in fulfilling this duty, if the president waivers, he will have betrayed his office. this is not policy. it is probity. it is not an expedient artifact of the imagination. it is written on the blood soaked ground of iraq in -- and

afghanistan. it is in a thousand other places of our history in lessons repeated over and over again. the presidency, a great and complex subject upon which i have only touched, has become symbolic in overreaching. there are many truths that we have been frightened to tell. if we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. better that we should not flee, but rather fall -- but rather stop, and look them in the eye. did not our forbearers say to us, knowing what they knew -- i have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions and speak the truth is simply, and to what is right. -- and do what is right.

slowly, and with resolution. to work steadily, without animus and fear. be like a rock in the tide. to let the water tumble about us, be firm and unashamed in our love of country. i see us like those first federalist, back in 1776. danger all around, but a fresh chapter ready to begin, and corrupted, with great -- uncorrupted, and with great possibilities and inexplicably, perhaps miraculously. the way is clearing ahead. i have never doubted the providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds. if only as a reward for a year and to first principles. as churchill -- as a reward for

adherence to first principles. before congress in 1941,as churchill said, "he must indeed have a blind sold the cannot see it that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below of which we have the honor to be faithful servants." a long time ago during the tortured history of rome in the fourth century a.d., the emperor constantine was faced with an ultimatum backed by what appeared to be military force impossible to resist. a failure and defeat seemed certain to everyone, but in the morning, when his answer was due, he said to his assembled troops, "last night, after i retired to rest, the shade of the great konstantin rose before my eyes, and his well-

known voice and forbade me to despair of the republic." we too have a voice is of shades -- have voices of shades who emerged from our past. we too have what lincoln in his first inaugural address called, "mystic chords of memory stretching from everywhere." -- every patriot grave." they bind us to the great and to the humble, the known and the unknown. and if i hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are, everyone of us, their descendants. the sinews are still there, quite lively, waiting to flex.

we can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. i know this is true. but even if it were not, we could not, indecency, stand down, if only for our debt to history. the debt we owe to those who came before, who did great things, who suffered more than we suffer, who gave more than we give, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for us, who they did not know. for we drink from wells that we did not dig and are warmed by fires we did not build, and so

we must be faithful in our minds, as they were faithful in theirs. many great generations are gone. . see them in my mind's eye they forbid us to despair of our republic. i see them crossing the prairies in the sun and the wind. i see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines. emigrant ships crawl into the harbors at dawn. i see them at war, at work, in peace. i see them long departed, looking into the camera with hopeful and sad eyes. i see them embracing their

children, who became us. they are our family and our blood. we cannot desert them. in spirit, they come down to was in connection out of love. we cannot be tried. they are silent now. from the eternal silence from every patriot grave, there is yet tenneco that says -- yet an echo that says it is not too late. he faith in us. keep faith in god. do not, do not ever despair of this republic. [applause] thank you. god bless you. thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> also speaking of the federalist society, judge dennis .. jacobs -- dennis jacobso he discusses how the constitution affects national security issues in the court. >> thank you for the opportunity to deliver this lecture, named for barbara olsen. she spoke to us about compelling matters with a directness,

kantor, and wit. it weighs on me to do justice to this occasion. i will talk about lawyers that war, more particularly, the professional elite and the bar associations that are at war with the military of our own country. i am not the first to notice there's a prevailing hostility to all institutions organized on military lines, and a suspicion of the people in these institutions and professions, the fbi, of course, even the boy scouts. this is nothing new. i am not part in the curtain. it is part of a wider current of fashion. to bar with race, whenever many americans consider the military, the worst thing they can bring themselves to imagine is the

only truth they know. elsewhere, in other fields and professions, it may be just a matter of fashion, of snobbery, and gratitude, but we need to take this phenomenon seriously because of our power, our influence over the constitution, our weight in policy, and the roles that we have been given and have taken in american life. with us, there are consequences in features beyond the cultural divide. it becomes a great and consequential problem. what we hold and trust should cause us to examine ourselves by their standards, even if we are not flattered by what we find. so far as i can see, the distinction between the military and the bench and bar is not remarked on in our profession. i started with the premise that this is pervasive in the lead to

legal communities and myriad institutions, bar associations, law firms, and their pro bono project, the law schools in all their works, the courts, the judges, jurisprudence itself, what can be called big block -- big law. i will talk about how this came about. this is unbecoming to the legal profession and distorts our law. it is downright dangerous. ironically -- [applause] because ironically, it weakens rather than titans the control of the military. the isolation of the military can be explained by the existence for -- of the old volunteer force, among baby boomers in the upper reaches of the legal profession, military service has been rare.

those in the military in enlisted ranks are assumed to be mentally limited or luckless refugees from backward areas of the country. to be sure, they are not like us. there is a well-grounded impression that the demographics and characteristics of people in the military differ from the makeup of people who form the illegally leaked. secretary of defense robert gates observed at duke university that the propensity to service most pronounced in the south, in the mountain west, and in rural areas and small towns nationwide. the percentage of the north and the northeast, the west coast, and major cities continues to decline. so, the military is composed of southern and mountain types. we are unit coastal or by coastal. many of them are rural.

we are urbanites. albeit with country houses. the military maintain secrecy, while we profess an interest in openness and disclosure. there is the money. the military does not have our share of women, sociologists, gays, volvo drivers, english majors like me, persons with handicaps, the elderly, me again, and so on. to be clear, i am an example of the urban league's elite, the little island i live on as manhattan. i drive a european car and i did not serve in the military. i am not here engaged in special pleading. given the differences between

our spheres, our encounters would be limited, in any event. in the elite institutions of the bar and legal education, people in the military are actually sequestered or excluded altogether. there seems to be no effort in the law to correct this exclusion. in the law school, separation is policed. law schools welcome to their faculties of law officers -- philosophers, ethicists, political scientists, even criminals. there are few with military experience on the self-selecting law faculties. this absence is most remarkable among the considerable faculty teaching in the law of war, human rights law, and treaty law. i asked a member of a distinguished law faculty, many of these colleagues had served in the military. after some thought, he said,

one, adding after moment that the service was in the israeli army. the banishment of r.o.t.c. from campuses have counterpart in the longstanding ban on military recruing in the law schools. today, there is a competing moral imperative, the need for federal funng prevent the actual exclusion of military recruiters, but i am told some law schools circulate a cautionary memo telling students to stay away from recruiters. other schools take other measures with the result that military recruiters have no visitors to their desks. although official statements may say otherwise, it would seem that in most elite law schools, military service is not credited as public service for purposes of scholarship funding or preferential admission.

i would bet that it is easier for law school applicants to claim the credential of public service by having done voter registration in the cemetery than by a stint in the navy. thus, recruitment is prevented in law schools. i know it is an article of faith that there is a principal ground for hostility and discrimination. many people feel strongly about the policy called "don't ask, don't tell." the alienation i'm talking about predate the clinton-era policy. aversion to the military became a dominant current of liberal and academic during the economic region during the vietnam war. since then, it has not abated or much developed. young people have been indoctrinated to recoil from all things military and have been taught to attribute that instinct to the policy on gays.

there is unfinished business in this country when it comes to gay rights. opposition to a de "don't ask, don't tell" policy is unresolved, but it has a contextual element. if it is no longer not asked, there will be other reasons. women excluded from combat, homophonic -- homophobic hostility in the ranks, institutional bias, and so on. prejudice never runs short on its fuel of rationalization. it must be said that the citizens of the republic should be wary and skeptical of the military, as they should watch with caution over all government institutions. even lawyers should be watched. but, distrust of government power by the legal leets is largely suspended when it comes to many centers of government power that are staffed by lawyers.

epa ,eeoc, osha, not to mention the course. as to these institutions, the bar and the judiciary seemed to be deferential, trusting, and nurturing. when it comes to the military professions, even military boy hearing, the distrust manifested by american legal institutions becomes a fixation, a calling, and is considered a badge of honor. some of the hostility against the military by the legal elite has to do with the culture of the lawyers themselves. their functional. their financial. they're politically interested. they are pretentious. between lawyers and the military profession, there is a competition for prestige, resources, influence, and authority. it is an uneven competition among our natural bandages.

there are all the legislators and all the courts. there are few and external constraints on our exercise of power. internal restraints are deficient as well. as a profession, we are not self-examining. are critical and investigative skills are always directed otherwise. law and competition does not get along well with others. we intend to press our advantages without apology. we celebrate our dominance as judicial independence and the rule of law. this competition has become intensified by war. lawyers and judges are of the view that someone -- something is of great importance, it can be safely left to us. we lack humility and approaching -- in approaching great matters. we tend to assume that adversarial hearings will render judges on a competent -- omnicompetent.

our mindset is that if something is of greatest consequence, such as speech, thought, expression, race, identity, and sexuality, property, life-and-death, it cannot safely be left to any ultimate influence or insight but hours -- ours. conflict is one of those great matters. civilian judges have reserved the last word on all consequential matters. we think it is normal for it to exercise power over the taking and detention of prisoners, interrogation, conscientious objection, surveillance, military tribunals, and so on. there is a structural problem. the legal profession is not vested with responsibility for defense of the nation. it is a positive virtue o