convention. the professor was a leader in that effort to create the convention. the united states sets the bar on how the rest of the world treats refugees. this is one of the issues on which we need to lead. do we have any other questions? thank you very much for being here. thank you for joining us through c-span. thank you to all of these distinguished panelists to a shared their views with us today. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> every weekend on c-span 3, experience american history tv, starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story, here historic speeches by leaders. the visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses as top history professors and leading historians delve into america's past. american history tv, every weekend all weekend. >> tuesday on "washington journal," digital learning and the current education system. bob weiss of the digital learning council is our guest

then there is list p from "the fiscal *" -- is our guest. then there is liz peek from "the fiscal times." >> tonight, and a coalition of democratic, republican, and independent politicians attend a conference call "no labels," which has the goal of reducing partisanship in politics. after that, a discussion on terrorist threats in northern africa. later, a look at some of the challenges in implementing the new health care law. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public

affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal." during the week, watch "the u.s. house," and every week night, there are congressional hearings and policy forums. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. on saturday is, "the communicators." you can watch our programming any time at c-span.org. it is all searchable on our c- span video library. c-span, a public service provided by america's cable companies. >> the group "no labels" is attempting to bring people from different political persuasions together to reach agreement on policy issues. we will hear from david brooks, houston joel brand, -- kirsten

gilibrand. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> it is important, before we began, that a conversation that started a year ago with a handful of people have led to the insured. republicans, democrats, and independence, by word of mouth on lay, brought together and united -- by word-of-mouth only,

brought together and united. never give up your label, but put it aside so we can do what government should do and solve problems and find common sense solutions. today, we met the first test. they said it could not be done. they said we did not have a passion. they said you could not bring it together. but today, it is just not true. in my 35 years in politics, i have not seen more interest in a project i have ever worked for. [applause] this is your movement to build and to grow and we are here to help you in every which way. we have the power to build this voice and change behavior in

washington. i look -- i look forward to working with all of you. >> nobody sent you here. you sent your cells. nobody paid for you to come. you're here on your own dime and many of you have. a blizzard to get here. congratulations for that. throughout our history, this is

the way at the country has changed. this is the with the future has been built. in the past century, both political parties were transformed from the bottom up over and over again, starting with progressives. in our lifetime, the country has been transformed by social movements almost too numerous to count, starting with the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the anti-war movement, the pro-choice and pro-life movement, the religious right -- the list goes on and on and on. now it is time to do it again and why? we have been brought together by a shared concern, a politics that has ceased to work for america. we're sick of that politics. we are sick of the politics that myers the system and puts

their leaders into unless debate. we want them to come together and solve problems. [applause] you may be saying, "how can you do it? how can we do it?" this is a pretty big room, but it is a much larger country. in a year, this group will be multiplied tenfold, 100 fold, a thousandfold. with your leadership, this entire country will be organized and elected leaders who do the right thing will get your congratulations, your encouragement, your support. and those who do not will get called out. let me leave you with the thought that has become an unofficial motto for this movement, the words of margaret mead.

"never imagined, never a doubt, that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. indeed, that is the only thing that ever has." thank you very much. [applause] >> and we're here today because we believe that hyper partisanship is hurting our country. it is getting in the way of solving the problems we face. the professional polarizers are promoting division. it is our essential tradition. we are trying to reaffirm that basic message, out of many one. we can only do it by standing up

and being the change that we want to see and by showing a bit today, you have shown that there is conviction, that this is a place of principal and passion. we understand that the politics of problem solving is what has moved our nation for historically, that the extreme bargaining has led to gridlock. but there is a drum beat out there. this is a rebellious project that we are all engaging in today. it is so countercyclical to the attitudes that dominate politics. the impulse is to drive people out of parties, ideological purges and party purges, and they often masquerade as courage, that somehow walking lockstep in a party today is courageous. the last time i checked, that was conformity. that is the opposite of courage. that is cowardice. we have to stand up and practice our civic backbone.

we know we can do it because we have the numbers. that is the big secret in american politics. our politics have been hijacked by comparatively small number of folks on the extremes of either side. we can do it by uniting together to add support to those political leaders who have the courage to reach across the aisle. we will play offense pin we will look at creating a political action committee to play in this post-partisan committees. because many of us are from a different generation, not invested in a generational grudge match, we will start advocating for responsibility in our politics again that will be a big change, thinking beyond our labels. [applause]

>> there is a flag that has been flown at a lot of rallies this year. it is a great flag from the revolutionary era. but in our current political movement, what we are talking about today, i will like to recommend a different flag. benjamin franklin's flag that shows a state cut into 13 parts with one urgent reminder -- join or die. those are the stakes that we need to fight for. that is the flag we need to rally enter. if we do that, we can move the nation, not left or right, but forward. [applause] >> welcome to our little woodstock of democracy here. [laughter] this is so exciting. we get asked about this effort

and people say that there has always been partisanship. there has always been this poisonous environment enter politics. but the reality is that it is worse than it has ever been before. it is worse at a time when we face in arguably the greatest challenges we have ever faced. when we come visit with you, is completely different. we heard people say yet these meeting, emotionally and enthusiastically, that you do not feel like you have a voice anymore in washington. you feel like there are partisan voices on both sides of the aisle. the system, the way it is set up, it punishes people for good behavior. and it rewards bad behavior. we know that, while there were partisan party before, we got a lot done by not questioning each other's motives.

we did not call the the people the enemy. we did not call the racists and socialists. we did not call them names. when you have a system like today in washington where literally by members of the opposite party never even talk to each other -- they do not have lunch together. they go to washington and do their business and go home. the ability to get together and forge consensus -- consensus is when we come together, recognize we have differences, build on those differences, and create a pathway for work. these are all volunteers here. the reason that we have done this is because we care passionately about the problems that we see. but we know it will take you to fix it. we cannot do it. politics is a market. you are the market. you can move markets. and i think you will move markets with this effort. politicians and elected officials respond to numbers.

the fact is that you have not had a vehicle to express yourself. others have. they have very loud microphones that suggest to the elite and media that they represent the whole country. they do not. you represent the majority of america. all we're hoping to do is be a catalyst for you to create a vehicle where we can amplify your voices so that we begin to reward good behavior out there. thank you for coming. [applause] it is the general reflects to be cynical but what we are doing here. they make their profit and their attention through conflict. the only thing that changes that is if we really show them and numbers. we need you to go out and

organizing your community's and raise a voice out there. we need you to go out there and raise a ruckus for democracy. we are counting on you. [applause] we want to apologize in thadvan. i want to thank all our efforts extraordinary job. [applause] this is grass roots, baby. i want to show you a little film to get things started. the program may changes little from what you saw. democracy is messy, but it is what we got. here is the film. >> right now, there is no incentive in our political

system for people in either party to work together. we're beginning to think that people more liberal or conservative or on the other side of the aisle. >> they're not putting america first. >> that starts to fray at the threads of our country. there are organized groups on the left. >> they're not putting solutions first. >> and there are organized groups hundred. >> they are being controlled by their parties. >> both the democrats and republicans are working against each other. >> we have a situation in our politics where we are confusing to permit the with courage. -- confusing conformity with courage. we know it takes courage to think independently. we may not understand the whole process and how things go ♪ and just an ordinary man trying to live free and god knows ♪ be a man with a blue tie ♪ be a man with a red tide

togetherwe tie things and get it done for america? only one man with a voice ♪ that is something we have in common >> as an american, i know is that we can fix it. >> rebound. >> you need a social movement that expresses those voices at the grassroots of two political parties that actually have a lot in common, but whose parties to not commit that common ground to be expressed very often. >> they should be thinking of our country first. >> we will leave our children and our grandchildren a stronger and more prosperous country. we need to build a politics that is bigger than this polarization. in the race fight ♪ who is going to win?

♪ i wish they did not have those labels ♪ there would be more change with new labels ♪ my kids will grow up ♪ your kids will grow up, to ♪ would do not like them to be raised up next to hospitals and good schools? time, you could have made a difference ♪ but you decided to go with the party >> i think we will realize that people who are in the center of the republican party and people in the center of the democratic party actually agree with each other more. >> we need to provide a new space where people felt comfortable to actually get the work done. >> i want our leaders to know that, when extended to do the right thing, there are millions of americans who will stand up and say "keep going, we are

here, do not be afraid, you're not alone, we are coming with you." ♪ all you need with you is some honesty ♪ i am only a man with one voice ♪ that is something we have in common ♪ he is a democrat ♪ he is a republican ♪ there are too many people suffering ♪ i wish they did not have no labels ♪ there will be more change with no labels >> please welcome award winning author, commentator, and "new york times" columnist david

brooks. [applause] >> thank you. i cannot believe they chose that song over mine. [laughter] i will start by talking about america. go out to suburban st., 3:00 p.m., watch 8-year-old commander second grade, they have 80-pound backpacks, the wind blows them down like beetles, and they're stuck on the ground. they get picked up by their over moms -- their uber moms. the moment of conception, doing but exercises, staying thin, driving up in their audi, volvo -- it is socially acceptable to have a luxury car so long as it comes from a country that is hostile to u.s. policy. they take them over to

wholefoods and get a snack at one of the socially-enlightened grocery stores [laughter] . [laughter] my favorite section is the snack food section. they have these seaweed-based snacks. it is for kids to come home and said they want a snack that will help prevent colon and rectal cancer. [laughter] go to a home depot and watch a man by it a bbq because that is when he is most emotional exposed. he takes it out to his uconn xl, one of these big box malls -- his yukon xl, one of these big box malls, costco where you can

get 200 pound boxes of detergent. who comes here shopping for condoms? the quantities are so big? [laughter] and i started off by describing america to make one elemental point. american society is in good shape. we have the hardest workers, the most productive workers. we have more patents in this country every year than the whole world combined. the country is in good shape producing fantastic things. today is taylor swift's 21st anniversary. we created taylor swift. [laughter] it is the government that screwed up. we're not a decadent country with a bad culture print but we have a government that basically does not function. what will curtail that that we

are careening toward national bankruptcy. there's no democrat that neither -- there is no trust between the parties. there is no intellectual flexibility to make a deal. there is no ability to work out complicated legislation. and there is no moral authority in washington right now. the second we fell that, we fail our human capital. we have not kept up with educational standards. we need to ship for -- shift from production to consumption. we need to reform entitlements, the tax code, and many other things. all of these things have not happen because the people not wanted, but because government has not responded. why is government the way it is? some people think it is structural. we need to do a little re

redistricting, campaign finance -- that is not the main problems. they make the -- some say it is our politicians who are rotten. i interviewed three politicians every day. i can tell you that they are pretty good people every day. they are emotional freaks of one sort or another, but that is a separate thing. [laughter] we have good people stuck in a bad system. the main problem is that we have good people stuck in bad social relationships. it is a system that incurred as bad character, bad social norms, and bad ideas -- that encourage bad character, bad social norms, and bad ideas. many people do not get their ethnic identity from their political identity. we have people suffering from laziness that comes from living

in an information cocoon where all the facts are sorted for you before you even have to think about it. party leaders demand total party discipline and get everybody to say the same thing and stand in the same lines. we have the intellectual and securities, people who do not know members in the other said, will not have lunch with people, will move across the room to the other side of the senate to make some contact. we have people in the son system -- we have people in the system that encouraged triviality to win the message of the day and you get distracted from larger concerns. we have reached a point where all human contact in washington is distorted by a terrible system that makes people, even the people who are in the middle of it, makes them miserable. so what we need? to my mind, we probably do not need a third party. this is not about a third party. we need a social movement under the parties. we need a new code of behavior, one that create some fosters

competition. the founders were more vicious than we are. they were plenty partisan, but they had a code of gentlemanly behavior in which they could reach deals and create the the constitution and create institutions in this country does bipartisanship. [applause] -- in this country despite partisanship. [applause] we need to celebrate people who behave in the right way. we need an intellectual agenda that is not representative. if you go to a conservative dinner, there are a lot of think tankers and scholars. you go to a liberal dinner, there is a lot of think tankers and scholars. this is tragic because we have a tradition in this country which is a moderate-centrist tradition

that started with alexander hamilton and went out with abraham lincoln to give poor boys and girls the chance to succeed. earl warren and pat brown treated biggest school system in california. the treated water projects. they created a great infrastructure -- they created water projects. they created a great into structure. we need an intellectual revival as well. [applause] the first thing we need our institutions. presidents need outside institutions. when they do the orthodox thing, there are institutions to support them. when they do something unorthodox, there is nobody at their back. and we need institutions that will bring people together and support politicians, who will rise up when they do the right thing. [applause] finally, we need a social movement.

we had moved on, the obama movement, the tea party movement -- this is a country that year's national decline. we need a thousand people to change the norms, -- that fears national decline. we needed thousand people to change the norms. the structures and the mentalities that make washington the way it is our strong and deep and entrenched. it is only love of country that is strong enough to overcome these obstacles. [applause] we need to ask people and forced people to confront the few questions. how can you love your country when you take the other half of it? do you love your tax deduction more than you love america's future greatness? are you really unwilling to sacrifice your social security cost-of-living adjustment when soldiers and marines are in afghanistan site professing

their lives? [applause] -- in afghanistan sacrificing their lives? [applause] those are the sort of questions we need to ask to change minds and behavior. when winston churchill was about 21, his mother invited to his house for lunch a french diplomat who served as ambassador to england for 20 years. so he asked the guy, you have been here 20 years, what have you seen? and he said, have seen a revolution. when i got here 20 years ago, 400 families controlled everything. it was an agricultural economy. in the last 20 years, that has changed completely. you have had the french revolution without spilling a drop of blood. and what he was describing was a gigantic social change that happened gradually, step by step, with both parties contributing step-by-step day-

by-day. they had partisanship and politics, but they had constructive politics, where each side contributed to a larger project of reviving the country. because each side contributed to it, it took to advantage of both sides wisdom. because each side contributed to it, there was a deep social change that was widely expected. that is the sort of revival we need now. we need constructive challenge in politics. we need one that brings up the best and with the country has always been and that what we have had in the last couple of decades, a system that brings up the worst. thank you very much. [applause] >> please welcome nationally syndicated radio host and author michael --

>> i appeared with regularity on cable television. my view is that, any move away from hyper-partisanship and towards civilian needs to begin with the media. [applause] for a long time, have said and have written that the climate in washington is being shaped by an artificial presentation of opinions on cable television.

there is no room for new philosophical issues. either you operate consistent and artificial or you don't get a say. this is awarded with ratings. ratings are rewarded by passion and not universal appeal. it comes at a time when polling and voter registration information suggests that political power could lie in the middle, in the hands of those for whom no label seems to apply. i often say that the only people that i meet who view the world entirely through liberal or conservative lenses are the host or the pundits with whom i rub shoulders when i do the different programs. when i am buying gas, when i am buying groceries, when i am at a back-to-school line for our four children, i speak to people who

defied labeling. the politicians, unfortunately, do not take their cues from them. the elected officials seem to emulate the world of punditry. no wonder then, when elected, many treat the legislative colleagues the way they would a pundit on a split screen. today, it is political kryptonite. it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and it is robbing us of the substantive dialogue that the country so desperately needs to solve big problems. that needs to change. [applause] one of your founders, nancy jacobson, i thought, said it very well. no labels is an attitude, not an ideology. that sums up why i am here. i thank you for the invitation. because we have some initial interest figures, someone needs

to be tasked with keeping time. that responsibility also falls to me. the only label that fits our next speaker is a public servant -- dan glickman spent 18 years as a member of the united states house. he was also a secretary of agriculture under president clinton. secretary glickman. [applause] >> thank you, michael. thank you to nancy jacobsen and her team. thank you to david brooks for what could be the next preamble to america, which was just spectacular. he deserves a hand for that. [applause] briefly about myself, i was a democratic congressman from kansas. that is an oxymoron. kansas is the longest-running state that has not elected a democratic senator in the country and it is probably the most republicans did in the country. then i went on to the secretary of agriculture.

as some of you know, the agriculture department represents, in many cases, some of the most conservative political constituencies in america. but you learn that you have to be -- that you have to have a dialogue with different perspectives. then i went on to be the chairman of the motion picture association of america. i guess my agricultural department gave me the qualification to do that. i used to say that the biggest part of the word "agriculture" was "culture." it involves human attitudes and emotions and you have to work with both sides of the aisle. now i am at the bipartisan policy center started by senators-lee, dole, and baker. dole, k ors

and baker. i always did my best to try to be in the center as much as i possibly could. those incentives are out of the system today. i do not want to quit the belief that nostalgia is what made america so great in the past. there were things in the past that were not so good. but the fact of the matter is that there was a greater incentive to work together in years past, certainly during the 18 years i was in the house. there seems to be right now, tax reform, energy bill legislation, education and education, things that impacted america. it is not the same as it was before and the country is being hurt by that process. it is being weakened by that process. chris like this that can provide a grass-roots efforts to help politicians -- groups like this that to provide a grass-roots effort to help politicians is

critical. daniel burnham was a famous chicago architect. he built a lot of the chicago buildings. he built union station in washington and other places. he made a very important statement. "makes no little plans for they do not have the power to stir men's souls." america is a big plan. our political system has become a lot less resistant to keep america bay, making big plans. the futures of people in this room and throughout the country are being threatened by a political system that just does not seem to work as well as it used to. i am not arguing for fundamental radical change. i am arguing for the need of a grass-roots movement to help political leaders reach across the aisle to seek common ground, to try to find solutions so that america can be at the place that

the founding fathers intended it to be, to be great, to provide leadership at home and around the world that i think we were set up to be. this current system where more -- this current system rewards the status quo because the conflict we have today becomes personal and results do not tend to follow through. there ashonored to be an old politician who served a long time ago. but remember the system that was more resilient and a stronger america because of that. with no label's help and places where i work now, we can try to change the focus of america to a political system that really does serve the people. thank you all very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. secretary. during this portion of the program, we will hear from citizen leaders as well as voices from social media.

the first of the citizen leaders is from the great state of ldson.ticut, darnell olso >> good morning everyone. [applause] i am a city councilman in new haven, conn., aa democrat, an accident of birth. my crime was that i endorsed a democrat for governor and a republican for senate. as soon as i endorsed the republican, they started calling for my ouster from the party, for my removal from the city council, and, of course, they aid my home -- they egged my home. it is part of the political system that you cannot have a

different opinion. you cannot march outside of your party. no labels, for me, is a way of being able to express what you feel and what is good for my city and what is good for my country. i love the fact that this movement has started. i hope that it moves forward and i hope we go back and organize their areas. i certainly will. thank you for having me. [applause] >> thank you, darnell. hello, kiki. she has a view from the social media world. >> we got comments from friends around the country who could not get here. one says, "i have seven children and 10 grandchildren and i want the beauty that is the united states of america to always be there for posterity.

we can do better if we look to the vision of our forefathers with the constitution as our guide. i want my country back. and i will go to any lengths to ensure that the future is bright. i pray that you, as their leaders, will do the same." [laughter] >> thank you, kiki. please join me in welcoming a man who is the epitome of rational thinking in the united states house of representatives, from the great state of south carolina, congressman bob english. [applause] >> i have to live up to that epitome thing. i was in front of a fairly liberal audience this week and observe one of the most irrational responses ever. the speaker said that the president may not defend the power of the epa to regulate condoms. the crowd hissed. it was the most irrational response from a group of people who should know better.

and for the republican audience, eight guys stood up and said that the president was so unpatriotic -- a guy stood up and said that the president was so unpatriotic because he did not hold this hand over his heart when the national anthem was played. i said to the guy, "it is just not true. i have been with the president. i have seen him put his hand over his heart. the president is a loyal, patriotic american who loves his country, loves his wife, and loves his kids." i just disagree with him on everything. that is our challenge. you get an irrational response

from the conservative argument and you get an irrational response from the liberal audience. democrats are into fairness and republicans are into merits. the country needs both. the bonds that tie us as a nation are stronger than the ties the blind us to an ideology. people like me are conservative and we conservatives, by golly, know how to get things built. the conservatives know that risk must be followed by reward. we're also here to say that liberals know that the grape -- the great will squash the small unless there are fair rules of the road.

a businessman in the gaza strip said that god give us to eyes. one to see the situation from the perspective of another. we are here to say that it is not left or right, just forward. when the internet and the pc created enormous wealth and productivity and too much revenue to balance the budget in the late 1990's, we are here to say that it is not left or right, but forward to reinvent the car. it would not be left or right, but forward for us to win the triple play, national security, better jobs, and cleaner air. i have had the opportunity to be in iraq five times and in afghanistan four times to see the most amazing people in the world. not to the iraqis and afghans, you understand. they're fine. the americans serving theire.

i never ask a soldier or sailor or a marine if they are a republican or democrat. because in a war zone, you're just an american. the least we should be able to give to those willing to serve and die is people willing to die on figurative political polls by reaching on the other side and pulling the best out of both parties. let's do that with no labels. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, congressman bob english. now we turn to another of our citizens leaders, all the way from tucson, ariz., miss bonnie davis. >> thank you. good morning everyone. from tucson, arizona. i am here primarily because i have two beautiful

granddaughters who also live in arizona. and i implore you to look to arizonan if you want to see what the plans are of the extremists in this country whose only goal is to divide us so that they can conquerors. our state is in a terrible state and the only thing in my view that will save us and actually save our country is something that is starting today. we need to speak with each other. we need to find the best in each other. we need to work together to find solutions. we have solutions to real problem so that we can see beyond the trumped up kinds of issues that are so rampant, especially in my home state, my beautiful adopted state that i have lived in for 40 years. i'm so thrilled to be here and i am so happy that all of you have come. again, please, if you need a context for what we're trying to

do here, look to arizona, understand what is going on here, and you will be plenty motivated, a few were not already, which i am sure you are. thank you for the opportunity to speak to all of you today. [applause] >> thank you, bonnie. again, we turn to the social media world. >> we have another one. this is from matthew in oberlin, ohio "our politicians take students for granted. democrats assume that we will support them no matter what. we are a dynamic force in politics that is just as sick of the hyper-partisan rhetoric as any other group. we are looking for real leaders with the bravery to work with the other side to solve the huge problems we face. we are as open-minded as anyone and are waiting for politicians to show that they can lead."

[applause] >> thank you, kiki. our next speaker hails from the hawkeye state, congressman bruce really who has been in the house of representatives. please welcome congressman bruce bareilly. [applause] >> i am delighted to be here. i am proud to be a democrat from waterloo, iowa. but i am also proud that i grew up in a no labels house in a small low levels town called brooklyn, iowa. my father was a republican. my mother was a democrat. somehow, they made that work. and people had a problem in the small town i grew up in, they did not ask you if you were a republican or democrat. they asked for your help and they got it. that is what public service is supposed to be about. i am proud to call bob english,

who just walked off the stage, a conservative republican, a good friend of mine. i think it is a tragedy that we're losing bob from the house of representatives. [applause] i want to tell all of these young people sitting behind me that i do not take college students for granted because i have three children who are currently in college and, believe me, i listen to them every day. [applause] a the most important place i go every day is the house gym. why? because there are no labels in the house gym. i get to meet people like bob english and i got to learn about them, what they did before they came to congress, what their family are doing, and i find it is much more difficult to demonize someone when you actually know them and have a personal relationship with them.

one of the things that this movement should be about is bringing people together to solve problems and help people. that is why i ran for congress and i believe that is why most of my colleagues ran for congress. i am proud of the fact that the very first bill that i introduced in congress, the new era at, to create opportunities for young people and renewable energy through partnerships with community colleges, came about and was signed into law by a republican president because i had a great bill and i reached out across the aisle to congressman joe bonner, a republican from alabama, who have the same problems in his district that i had in mind. we worked together and got that bill passed and into the farm bill and signed into law by president bush. i was proud of that fact. just recently, before the last election, i had a very important piece of legislation called the plain language act requiring every federal agency to

communicate with constituents in language that they can understand, passed overwhelmingly in the house of representatives, and was held up by one republican senator, senator bennett from utah. i could have gotten frustrated and given up. he served in a different chamber and sometimes the distance between the house and senate seems like a distance between new york and los angeles. instead of getting frustrated, i scheduled an appointment with him and i met with him and his staff for nearly an hour. we worked out his problems and got that bill passed in the senate by unanimous consent, passed by the house with overwhelming bipartisan support, and signed into law by president obama. i do not feel i gave up any of my values or the reasons why i ran for congress to make both of those bills happen. yet, it seems that, in this partisan environment that we all live in, working together to

solve the problems is somehow become a liability for any elected official. the purpose of this conference is to start a spark a conversation. we have to work to spread that sparked around the country until we realize that we are most effective as a nation when we help people not by abandoning our principles, but by coming together and having a rational, adult conversation about how we solve complex problems. that is my challenge to all of you here. people who came together in goodwill from all of the country, from divergent political philosophies, very different regions with different problems, but came here because they care about their country, they want to see us move forward and be able to hold our heads proud as a nation that respects different opinions and yet can come together in an intelligent way to solve tough

problems. the challenge is not getting any easier. i can tell you that from firsthand experience. as someone who has two $0.5 million of secret outside money spent against me in the last campaign. we know that this is a tough challenge. but we also know that this country has never shied away from tough challenges. that is why your presence here today is a strong message that america can still do things the right way, bring people together, and saw all the challenges we face. thank you for having me here and i hope you have a great time at the conference. [applause] >> thank you, congressman bareilly. thank you very much. now we will hear from another of our citizen leaders, having traveled here from south carolina, mr. can subs -- mr. ken suggs. >> there is a country song that

says "i love the country, but i can stand the scene." -- but i cannot stand the scene. i am an attorney. let me bring something to your attention that man not -- that is important in this partisan world and that is the federal judiciary. i live in south carolina. there would not have been a civil rights movement in south carolina without the federal judiciary taking or the schools. these were people living in the community and had tremendous courage. because of the tremendous bipartisanship we have now, our federal judiciary is being depleted. good people cannot get appointed because of the partisanship in

this country. we have to overcome that. we have to overcome this "me versus you" mentality that has led us down this path to long. thank you. >> thank you. kiki has more reaction from the social media world. >> we hear from sun prairie, wisconsin. she says, "i believe that we must ask our politicians to look forward degeneration, ask them "what have you done in your term in office to move america forward? have you made america a better place to live, safer, provided opportunities, created a healthier in burma for all americans, young and old?" thank you. [applause] >> our next speaker is currently serving in his next term representing and advocate for just about 4 million californians, the second most populated state in the united states. we are so honored to have the

mayor on hand. we please welcome mayor antonio villaraigosa? [applause] >> first of all, let me say how excited and proud i am to see so many young people here. i had a chance to meet a lot of them last night. america will be on the right track, will go forward with young people getting involved with the way that you have. there has been a lot of talk about the need for bipartisanship, the need to move away from the polarization, the vitriol, the screaming that you see on tv and in the halls of congress and state capitals around the nation. and there is no question that we need to do that. i remember when i was speaker of the california state assembly. the first thing i did as

speaker, democrats used to sit on one side of the aisle and republicans on the other. i said, why do we not to them together? i colleagues were very upset. they said, we won the election. what we have to sit with them? the republicans said, of course, why do you want to sit with us? are you trying to get information about our strategy? and i said, no. i want us to sit together because i want us to work together. i want us to figure out this week and how we all face the many of the same challenges. we have to take our kids to soccer game wore a baseball practice. we have challenges with their constituents. and maybe once you start talking and getting to know one another, maybe you will realize that you have something in common. when i left the speakership, i said to both parties in the assembly hall there, in the

chamber, i said, "you know, i learned a lot in the six years that i have been in the legislature. i learned that there are democrats that i vote with everyday who would not invite to my home to dinner. and the republicans who i never would."vote who i we know that the problems the people face every single day are not a democrat or republican. they are real problems. as mayor, i am very fortunate that i do not have to be in sacramento or washington, d.c. fixing it pot hole or making the city safe is not a democrat or republican. it is not partisan. it is something you have to get done. and our city, people expect you to roll up your sleeves and get things done. unfortunately, what we have in congress today and what we have in state capitals around the

world is so much partisanship and not enough getting things done. and so, yes, i want to speak to the bipartisanship, but i also want to speak to the idea that part of why we want to move to bipartisanship and to talking to one another's because we want to give california and america back on track. we want to take on the challenges that we face in the united states of america today. but the other reason, i think, within the space of no labels that we ought to be able to talk about is the idea to challenge our own orthodoxy. i am a democrat and a progressive democrat. i come out of the teachers' union and was an organizer with seiu for 25 years before i came out. i am absolutely committed to our teachers and the union. but when

the most powerful defenders of the status quo are the teachers union. you see the cities crumbling under financial pressure and tensions and benefit structures unsustainable, democrats have to be able to challenge those orthodoxies, just let republicans have to be able to challenge their own orthodoxy. you see 20 little of that going on in america today -- too little of that going on in america today. [applause] i joked the other day, much as mayor bloomberg has tried to take over the schools, i tried to partner with our teachers' unions, with parents, with teachers to turn around our schools, to set a high borrower for our schools, to change the paradigm of the school system where 50% of our kids are dropping out and 80% of our kids are scoring at the bottom 20 percentile.

when you challenge in orthodoxy like seniority -- i am not saying we should throw it out completely -- but absolute security for transfers, for layoffs, for assignments cannot be the only thing we look at when we evaluated teacher. performance ought to be important, too. [applause] when in my schools, and i have taken on the lowest performing schools in l.a., when i am losing 55% of my teachers because the least senior teachers are the only ones that go to these schools, that we ought to be able to fix the problem. we ought to be able to not call each other names, you're anti- union, but figure out how we fix the problem. when cities like mine have had to face $1 billion deficit over

the last three years, when they make a clarion call and i start with myself and say, for the last three years, i have taken a cut of 16%. what about the rest of us? what about we all share and a sacrifice right now, tighten our belts together so we can provide police and fire services, that we can keep our libraries open. so these are the kinds of challenges that we face in our party, as a democrat, but the republicans face the same challenges. they say on the one hand they want to cut deficits and debt, and then pushed as hard to extend income tax to the rich and powerful, to reduce the estate tax. i supported president obama in the compromise, but it is important for us to recognize that you cannot do both at the same time, that you cannot go into three wars as we have and tell our children to pay for

them, because that is what we have done. no matter what you think about those wars -- [applause] in the history of our country, when we have gone to war, we said to the american people they have to sacrifice. i'd like to argue that while, yes, we do need to work together, we need to reach out, a democrat and republican, independent, and take on the challenges facing america. we have also got to talk straight to our own constituencies. we have to talk straight to the interests that tie our hands when we want to address the difficult problems that we face. these problems are the great magnitude, make the mistake. in the history of our great country, we have always been able to take those great challenges on when we are working together. i want to thank the young people

here today. i want to thank all of you for getting behind this effort. this is a conversation that cannot just have been in york. as to have been around the countries, in state capitals, in the caucuses, both democrat and republican, an independent and socialist, and the congress. we have to start having this conversation about what we are all prepared to do to roll up our sleeves, to get things done, to reach across the aisle, to move america forward. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you, mayor. thanks, mayor. now we have another of our citizens and leaders from new york city, please welcome benta brown. >> good morning. i am like so many of you tired

of bickering and destructive, always hostile, rhetoric. the rhetoric that keeps us from getting anything done. i grew up outside of washington, d.c., during a time when it did not matter if he were a democrat or republican. what matters is that you were american, country first. not country first is something that we used to exclude or to separate ourselves off from our fellow americans. the country first met a commitment to public service, it meant learning, it meant being a citizen of the united states and all of the rights and responsibilities that come with that. country first really truly meant something. it meant to a certain degree a dying to self in order to put the values of america for. i am one of those people that is

a a little bit on the fence politically these days. this is a movement that can remind us once again what it means truly to be an american, to solve problems, to move forward, then i am in. [applause] >> thank you. kiki mclean has more reaction from the world of social media. >> this time we hear from brenda from little rock. she says, "the energy and money we spend fighting against one another causes damage to the people within our country and limits our ability to help on all issues. let us find common ground, stop the stagnation and build momentum towards the betterment of our country and the world." [applause] >> please welcome our next speaker, a tireless advocate for the empire state, united states senator kirsten gillbrand.

senator? [applause] >> well, as a senator from new york, i welcome you to our great city, our great university. i welcome all of the students. i cannot thank you enough for the efforts you are undertaking with this conference. it could not come any more important time in our nation's history, and at a time of extraordinary crisis. not only do we have an unemployment rate touching 10%, we have a massive deficit, a two wars, on national security crisis at every border. it is a huge time of enormous discordance in washington as well. we have seen time and time again that people on both sides are measuring success by the amount of bills they block as opposed to the amount of solutions they find it. we should be measuring our success on how many jobs we are creating and how many problems

we are addressing. and it is really a time when we need leaders, leaders from the private sector such as yourself to have this call to action, to demand by partisanship, a coming together and working on solutions and not the partisan bickering that has become a staple of every political talk show on every evening news. i really appreciate your dedication to this. and there really is a vision for success here. there are opportunities in every way to have bipartisan efforts in the senate and in congress and in state governments all across this country. i am reminded even in my very few short years in washington that it is possible, on an issue like earmarked reform, where there are votes on both sides of the spectrum, even tom coburn and i can come together. if he wants to ban all earmarks. one thing we agree on is on transparency, what we need to do when it comes to federal

investment, we need accountability. we need to make sure the american people have the information they need to hold members of congress accountable, and that is why we are on a bill to have a searchable database, and we are doing it with john mccain. the lesson i want to leave you with is that your advocacy will really make a difference, because being able to hold public servants accountable for their behavior, for their discord, for the work they are trying to do in washington to solve problems could not be more important. like every advocacy group in this country, the ability to hold members of congress accountable is so important and it is really missing when it comes to the quality of working towards solutions, this quality of working together on what this country needs. so i just want to leave you with a greater appreciation for what you're doing, and a great word of hope that this is exactly what we need for america. [applause] >> thank you, senator,

gillibrand. let's welcome another of our citizens leaders, having traveled all the way from golden state, from san francisco. martha? [applause] >> good morning. well, i am from california now. in fact, i live in marin county, and the politics there are about as blue as they can be. i have to say it suited me. however, after the last election and the hyper partisanship, it scared me. and i see no labels as an opportunity to get beyond that and move on and get real and face our very serious economic and environmental and health care challenges to find solutions. and i think we are on the crest of a wave, and we like waves in

california, to make a difference and support leaders who will collaborate, who will work together, and who will help the vast middle to solve these challenges. thank you. >> thank you, m artha. kik mclean has more comment from the world of social media. >> we hear from mary from yhuri, pennsylvania. of voter who is tired of extremist views on both sides. our problems are not insurmountable if we find middle ground. we used to your extremist views only during election cycles. now that campaigning seems to be a never ending, the posturing is never ending. it cannot continue like this." >> thank you, kiki. our next speaker has battle longtime fixture in the world of virginia politics having

represented the 11th district for many, many terms. today, he is the president and ceo of the republican main street partnership which gives a voice to pragmatic republicans who are seeking to put aside labels and work together. would you please welcome congressman tom davis? [applause] >> thank you, all, for being here today. i retired from congress undefeated and unindicted two years ago. i'm very proud i have been a committee chairman of the government reform committee. i am proud of our record, but we see where labels are getting in the way of getting things done. members terrified to move, knowing better, but terrified to move because of strong individual constituency groups. just to address, the last comments, what we have

seen over the last decade is that the parties have sorted ideologically. we have seen a new media coming out where there is little vetting over the internet. we call it cognitive dissonance. this is added to polarization. the campaign finance reform bill and the citizens united case, the money has moved away from political parties and out to the political streams. the money did not disappear. it has gone up. what you saw this year for the first time is more money spent by interest groups in a political campaign and the parties and candidates combined. this sent chills down the number of political leaders who are not afraid to but these interest -- buck these interests. for the last decade, we had no good news coming from the federal government. you had 9/11, two wars that have not gone as planned, you've had

katrina, you of had the economic meltdown over the last couple years, the longest period of sustained unemployment since world war ii. real wages have not moved in 20 years. that is what this political system has delivered. and then you have to think -- take a look at the deficit and what this means for the future. we are borrowing this year in washington 41 cents for every dollar that we are spending. that is just unsustainable. it cannot last. but when you have one side lighting up, saying, we will never rain se revenue. and the other side saying it will not cut benefits. it makes it difficult to get to the bargaining table and do anything but read your own statements. it is not solving problems. let's take a look at how that money is being spent. when you take a look of the federal budget, you have medicare, medicaid, the bulk of which is for hospital beds for

seniors, social security, federal pensions, debt service, which is artificially low because interest rates are so low. total that up, that is 60% spent on retirees. that means we are not spending a education. we are not spending on infrastructure, on research and development, the kinds of things that will get america's strong for the future, that will keep us competitive in the global economy. our global competitors are not doing the same thing. they are investing in the future. making thesemaare not tough decisions. there are litmus tests, there are ideological persuasion is that people who come to washington wanting to do the right thing do not feel they can do it. that is where you come in. we will add a voice to the middle. we call ourselves the radical center. people that look at these issues and care about results.

we care about results, not the rhetoric. we do not care about the ideological purity, about caving in. i have been through all of that in my political career. our political leadership has smart, dedicated people, but they are not being propped up by people like us. they are being propped up by people on the right or left. what we are starting here today is so important for building for the future, to give our leaders occurs they need in the future. i cannot thank you enough for being here. i think this is the start of something big. when you look back in the future, you'll be proud you were here today to kick this off. god bless you all three thank you very . thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we hear now from another of our citizens leaders. nate garvis from minnesota. mr. garvis, the floor is yours. >> thank you. i am here from minnesota with my family, my wife and daughters.

we come from minnesota were purple is not only the color of our home town rocker prince and the vikings, but where purple informs out political conversation, the inclusiveness when read it mixes with blue. i'm here to pass on with your mother, a civic legacy that is not defined by the shrill voices of the far left or the far right. we want to give you a legacy of moving a much more important erection of fordward together with no labels. these are the folks, my daughters, who you'll be working with. i want to thank you for what you will do in the future as well. [applause] >> mr. garvis, you are our first no labels family. kiki, more from the work of

social media? >> we hear from chris from wichita. frustrated by our countries shift to polarized politics. we have lost sight of the issues that matter. now more than ever it is time to apply common sense to the problems of today and generate real solutions to move this country forward." [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we have heard from some terrific speakers already. after this next great part of the program, there will be time for all legs stretched, but this is most important of all. we have over 300 students traveled here from 90 colleges across the country to be part of this movement. [applause] you could aruggue that real change begins with all of them. would you please welcome some of the representatives from our no labels generation leaders?

[applause] >> hi there. i look forward to the day that this is as easy as the seasoned professionals make it look. until then, my name is matt sextant. i am a political communication senior at uni, also known as the basketball team that beat kansas cured i'm serving as the chairman of the iowa federation of college republicans, but i am here today amidst finals and snowstorms in an an effort to avoid the hyper partisanship that's been bred by past generations and give my generation a chance to pursue american solutions ahead of tests.n but missed litmus >> my name is alexandria

increase. i am a sophomore at the university of new hampshire. i am president of the college democrats. [applause] >> i am a doing here at the university of new hampshire. i'm a leader with the campus conservatives. i founded unh normal, the first drug policy group for the reform of marijuana laws. like our founders, we understand that compromise is the fuel that drives the engine of american governance. it is renewable. [applause] >> hi, i am a sophomore at emerson college. i am a member of our communications, politics and law association and i am part of the association running start to get young women interested in politics. [applause]

and i joined no labels so we can afford instead of backrest -- move forward. >> i am a a senior at dartmouth. i am the editor for "dartmouth review,"a publication that is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. i am god to blad to be here. > i am a freshman aat ohio university. i weakest -- i was considering the point -- a traditional avenues such as college democrats or republicans, but i wanted to have a greater impact and enjoy the challenge of dealing with different ideas and working with different ideas. i have committed myself tips no for the next four years and beyond. [applause]

>> we begin our pledge by acknowledging that we are facing the worst job crisis since the great depression, and the hyper partisan gridlock in washington threatens to leave us a week or america -- a weaker america. >> i am here because i want to make my party stronger, to address the tough challenges our nation faces. a win for one party is not necessarily all loss for the other party. as history has shown, are parties can work together in our common interest -- our parties can work together in a common interest. we are here to take an oath. i pledge to speak out against the hyper partisanship that prevents america from solving problems critical to our nation's future. >> i pledge to work with people whose principles are different than my own, and i will treat my

tears with respect. -- my peers with respect. i will listen to them. as i listen, i will think about advancing my own ideas. i pledge not to despair to another person because of his or her political beliefs, because i believe that human beings are political -- bigger than their political ideas. >> i pledge to demand solutions for my elected officials. i will call my congressperson, write to my senators, and email my mayor, governor, and state legislators until the lesson. -- until they listen. >> i place to do what is best for america. our allegiance lies first and foremost with the united states and not a political party. our future depends on it. we ask you to stand and join as in siding that -- reciting the

pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. thank you. >> may we have a round of applause for all of the young leaders is seated on stage? thank you all very much. [applause] 25.s 10: we will reconvene in 15 minutes. thank you.par ♪ >> say you want a revolution. we all want to change the world ♪ \ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> more now from the no labels conference. we will hear from new york city mayor, michael bloomberg, charlie crist, and congressman michael castle of delaware. for the topics include redistricting and election reform. columbia university has to this event. this is 30 minutes. >> play out for everybody, some of the press releases you put out about how the gerrymandering and non competitive our political process is and why that is such a political problem. >> the reason it exists is that people virtually act rationally all the time, and if you were a legislator you would noot want competition. the natural thing is to go from election cycle to election cycle and move your way towards

being the president and not have to run the risk of being unemployed and going into the private sector which scares the bejsuesus out of them. >> there's no jobs. >> because of their actions, there is no jobs. they do what you expect them to do. they make sure that they do not have competitive races. as long as they are the ones that set the standards, i do not think you can expect much change. in new york, ed koch created an organization, if reelected, you will go and do fair, non partisan redistricting. i hope that they do what' ed force them to commit to, but there is a long history of saying one thing before you get elected and say -- doing something different. >> is there any way you could

have a binding contract? >> no. >> at the federal level, you have to change the constitution. that will not happen at the federal level. in some states, you have to change the state constitution. in some places you can do it by referendum -- florida and california. in some places, it would be debated by the courts. when you talk about fair, a nonpartisan elections, it is not clear what your definition of fair is. is it equal opportunity or equal results? and that is -- the courts are all over the place. >> your fair is in the title of your organization. how are you defining it? if he would not mind sharing, how you define the problem and the successes you have been enjoyed. i want to talk about how some of these changes have altered the nature of the political process. how you dealt with some of the

challenges he was discussing? >> florida has the distinction of being pretty much the worse a gerrymandered state in the country right now. we have a situation in florida where we have about 700,000 more registered democrats in florida, but we have 75% now of our legislator is republican. that is a duke to the way the districts are drawn -- that is due to the way the districts are drawn. our legislators think it is due to the fact that everybody likes them very much, but the districts are drawn in such a way that whoever is drawing the district puts the opposite party, voters in large numbers into a very small number of districts and then puts their voters, spread them out over twice the number of districts.

that is the way it has been done in florida for years. this year, 63% of the florida voters in a year that was very unusual in florida for many reasons, said, 63% said, we do not want districts that are drawn for the purpose of favoring or does favoring a political party or an incumbent. that spoke very loudly about the mood of floridians. these amendments say that districts shall not be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor political parties or incumbents. we now have and the constitution along with that provision another provision that says that minority voting rights must be maintained. districts will now have to be compact. presently, we have dozens of districts that go for 150-200 miles, splitting counties,

splintering cities, and connecting areas that have very little in common. and districts will now have to be compact and it will have to follow geographical and city and county lines to keep communities together, so that voters will be able to vote alongside their neighbors for their representatives instead of finding that their neighbor next door is actually in a district that is totally unrelated to the district they are in. so there are a lot of reasons to think that, with fairness in redistricting, and this is supposed to take the rating out of redistricting. >> fairness to whose eyes? who is the arbiter? >> it depends. i agree that the legislators think fairness is drawing a district that is going to protect themselves or their political party.

this new constitutional provision that we have in florida outlaws that. and it's fairness to the people. >> in his eyes? >> to the people's eyes, obviously, because 63 percent of them for these amendments. in fairness means that the district is not rigged, set up to be a republican or democrat district. if, in fact, if the district is rigged, you know what that means. if it is a democrat district, the representative or the member of congress is going to be elected essentially in the primary with very little chance of a challenge from across the aisle. in a republican district, the same thing. when you have a situation where there is no real competition of ideas in an election, who gets elected?

the person who is either on the far right or the far left and then what happens? when they get to the legislature, they almost did not know how to come together to find solutions that will work for all of florida or all of the united states because they have only had to listen during our elections to people on the extremes of their party, and that is to they have to answer to. is welln's point os wel takens. . when you have districts that are so student, you get what -- when you have districts that are so skewed, you get what you asked for. as of former republican, now an independent, i can speak with some authority as it relates to

florida. ellen is exactly right. we ever -- we are state of 120 million people. we have 75% of legislate doors that are of the republican party. we have 750,000 more registered democrats than we do republicans. what does that tell you? \ >> well gerrymandered. >> they did a good job of that 10 years ago. >> you have been fighting a version of this in california, more with the actual mechanism of the primary process. tell us what you have been up to? >> if you agree with the redistricting initiatives that have been pushed ford in florida, in california, there is a 40% voter registration -- 14% voter registration.

we had arnold schwarzenegger that one in the open primary. it was a special election. arnold schwarzenegger would have never become governor in california under the close primary system we have today. i said along -- all along, how do you reform the system? the fox has redrawn the lines for the hens. i have worked in the open primary. i have worked on that for 14 years. i was a mayor. we had closed sessions. we discussed potholes, not republican or democrat potholes. when i got to sacramento, it was a call this problem. it was how do we focus, instead of health care or less taxes, how to focus on the republican party? i'm sure the democrats were focused on how to grow the democrat party.

no one was focused on how to grow the economy. that is why proposition 14 is very important. >> briefly, how is it that the open primary alters the dynamic you described? >> you say no labels. this is fantastic. it is a giant step forward and i support it. in california, in 19 days, i wrote senate bill six. we amended the constitution. the people voted 55%, starting in 19 days, the people of california will get to vote for their elected officials whoever they want, everybody is on the same ballot. guess what? you do not have to put an "r" or "d." you put your name, and the top two vote best candidates and vote-getters, get the runoff in the general election. open minded, reasonable, and

pragmatic. that is what america needs today. >> how would an open primary be different in your situation, congressman castle? >> i would be sitting next to you as a senator-elect castle today. it is an interesting question. we only have one member of the house of representatives. that eliminates a lot of the federal redistricting issues. we do state redistricting, which is important as well. a democrat from tennessee, and i introduce legislation to do what we are talking about here -- to have fair redistricting throughout the united states, which i think is essential. there are some incredible this. my staff has been preparing for this and talked about the 17th district in illinois. it apparently was drawn right along a river, and it is in and out, 100 yards wide, houses

excluded. that is the way reapportionment occurs across the united states both at the state level and the federal level. i am delighted to be here. what has happened in florida, and i am excited -- the fight for the open primary situation. i was in a primary in delaware. i was in a primary in delaware, and i was heavily favored to win the general election, and the tea party came in and spent a lot of money. i would have been better suited to an open primary. i had mixed feelings about that. parties exist for a reason. so i can understand the argument that they should be closed primaries. but i can see now much more

clearly than i could before september 14. [laughter] i may be on your side. >> two things we are talking about -- open elections and redistricting. a lot of redistricting is there for reasons that copy the u.s. constitution. the constitution has two houses, one is proportional to the population. every state gets two votes, whether the state is populace, small, urban, what ever the case. a lot of people would argue that is the right way to do it, and the founding fathers had that in mind. when the original route the constitution, it basically was male, white landowners. >> the good ole days. >> not the good ole days. that is where the history is. in america, ethnicity is an

important thing. the courts will say repeatedly, if a redistricting takes away the number of seats of ethnicity "a," "b" or "c," then it's not fair. you cannot have it both ways, to say we will not look at everything. >> you bring up an interesting point about the white male landowners, which is the ideals of the constitution that is laid out of originally. over the past few hundred years, there has been an ongoing moral progression and systematic progression to expand the basic premise of the quality through all people. >> we are much more democratic than we used to be paired >> without question. what i am saying is what is the next layer and the progression? is the next layer, having come as far as we have come, better thought it -- better fought in redistricting or in primary

reform? you are talking about the constitutional issue with redistricting. >> when i first came into office, i supported it with a lot of money, an attempt to change new york city's primaries to open election. and we were resoundly beaten. the city is overwhelmingly democratic, so you'd think the republicans were in favor. no. as a matter of fact, it was hard to find anybody in favor of it. since then, a lot of good government groups have said, yes, we should have done it. i thought to myself, where were you back then? if you want to have something that is totally open, then i do not have a problem if you can display the "r" or "d"next your name, as long as everybody can put the same name on your ballot. in 113 days, close to that, is going to have six, seven can

didates. it would be all democrats, because the democrats are so overly democratic. 5% of the people are going to put each of the two candidates in a runoff into the election, and most people are totally disenfranchised. >> how do you avoid that? >> i think redistricting is important. even if you have a fair redistricting plan, with a close, primary election, which is a midterm election where the voter turnout is low or, you still have to go to the right to win the republican primary and you still love to go to the left to win a democratic primary. that does not take out this partisanship. when you sit in an open primary coupled with fair redistricting, now we are rolling. as the mayor talked about, we

have that in california. we had an open primary in 1998, where you have to put an "r" and "d." what we did in california this year, is we asked the voters, given the choice to the candidate to put the "r" or "d," and that will pass constitutional muster with the supreme court. coupled with redistricting, we can move forward. politicians today, think about it, you want to unite the republicans and democrats, introduced an open primary initiative. they hate it. you are accountable to party proxies. now, every elected official running for office better have a message for november, because of your message is only for june, you will lose, because in california you have two democrats running against each other, and i can tell you which

will win -- the one that can get the independents and republicans. that person will be open-minded, reasonable, and pragmatic, and we are on our way. [applause] >> again, from this side of the room, it is interesting to hear that if everybody does not want this, meaning if the incumbent political power structure does not want this, the redistricting, the open primaries, can align like this on a bipartisan plan to make sure it does not happen, should that not mean that it should be at the absolute top of the list of the problems? they are telling you what is most valuable to them. they are telling you that which is most sacred and must be protected and would truly compromise the power structure. the american people are saying, we believe the power structure does not function in a fair, competitive way.

it is almost like a scientific experiment, where you try to figure what the variable is that matters. we found the variable that matters. at what point, and what would it take to organize, not just in florida, not just in california or new york, but using a platform like the one that is being discussed today with no labels, a coalition that can have a very clear, very easy to understand, very easy to understand -- without that you're doomed -- mechanism to advocate for this? >> you need to do what ellen did in florida. by advocating fairness, that is exactly what she did in terms of redistricting as it relates to state district in florida going for it. over and over and over again, when you market that in an effective way, that talks about the amendments on the ballot, --

you go straight to the people, not to the party bosses, but straight to the people of florida, and then they overwhelmingly passed it by 6 3%. to her great success, she did it. you advocate no labels. you talk about the country before the party. you talk about the people instead of the party bosses. as i travel florida, which is one of the most diverse states and the country, and you talk about what they want for the future of florida, the future of america, what they talk about is that what people that are fiscally conservative, spend money wisely as the mayor has done in york, but socially moderate. the me along. we are an independent bunch of people, -- leave me alone. if we have a good defense and good education, and you just search for common sense, these things can happen, and america

will be stronger for it. >> you know, the governor points out an important thing. we put together in florida a coalition of what used to be called good government groups, and they are almost obsolete today, right? but all of the organizations that fought for fair districts were non-partisan, and the supporters of fair districts were non-partisan, obviously, since we got 63% of the vote in florida. but the campaign against -- this relates to this no labels concept -- the campaign against these two amendments was to try and label them as left wing, left-leaning, liberal-leaning power grabs. tod this wa -s -- i am pleased report that we had success

thereby having a substantive amendment that actually said, in its language which the voters saw when they went to the polls, which actually said, district shall not be drawn to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent. voters saw through that, but it was a very, very ugly and powerfully stated campaign against trying to label thse and makeartisan -- them appear to be partisan in nature. >> to the extent that you're able to model any sort of effectiveness, whether in california with open primaries, or in florida with the redistricting, what are the barriers to scaling any sort of effective solution that will exist on a state or county level that can be brought into an adopted into larger spheres?

obviously, you are frustrated because he would love to be able to do these things, and you run into barriers. what could be done to celebrate, amplify, or better understand what people are doing that is successful in this regard so that the pressure to scale it into places that are more resistant to it starts to this mdiminish? >> it is not clear that the average voter wants what we are advocating. if you take a look what happened in the u.k., the liberal party was the darling of the press. everything was focused on the liberal party, but they were the king makers, they got cameron in, but they lost half a dozen seats. in the end, when you have an independent candidate, it is the two major parties that get most of the votes. that may be that the independent candidate cannot win and they want the lesser of two evils. it is not clear that the average

person feels themselves disenfranchised or want a lot of the things we advocate. >> at the same time, if you look at the statistics on the american view of politicians, if you look at the statistics on the american view of the incumbent power structure -- >> they say, throw the bums out and then vote for them. i do not like the postal service, but i love my postman. that is a phenomenon that has been there. a lot of it is name recognition. a lot is ethnic familiarity and solidarity. a lot is lethargy. if you do not bother to vote, you help one or the other. i come back to how far this country has come from what the original framers of the constitution envisioned. the good old days were not always the good old days. things are , a better today

where everybody in theory is in franchise. at the margins, no. almost everybody has a vote. >> i would like to change the tone for a moment. as was mentioned earlier by joe scarborough, in terms of the funding of campaigns, or outside money was supporting campaigns then through the two political parties and the candidates themselves. this is become a huge problem in america. i had the pleasure of introducing something called the disclose act last year. [applause] it got me in a lot of political trouble. it was the case called the citizens united case which said that corporations and labour unions and nonprofits could contribute more directly to advocacy for candidates in this country. so five of us said, fine, and

we introduced this legislation. and basically it said, if you are going to make these kinds of contributions, you need to disclose who your chief executive officer is and who you're 10 largest contributors are. politicians do that any out. political parties do that. we felt they should do it. -- politicians do that anyhow. it passed narrowly. there were two republicans that voted for it. it went to the senate, where it was never taken up. that is a huge problem in america. money in politics is a tremendous issue right now. i think it needs to be addressed. now we have the spread of these outside groups coming in and getting involved with campaigns, not even going to political parties or candidates. and that is a problem. even in this room, we have

people who are advocating the public financing of campaigns. that may be multiplied by something -- that is something we need to be considering in america today. we need to clearly deal with that particular problem. while i am on my horse, one quick point made earlier today, and that is that the influence of the political parties and the caucuses in washington, d.c., it's incredible the influencemot party. they will get you in caucus meetings, and they will say, you have to vote this. it will get republicans elected. they will try to put you in that position. the will to stand up and say i will not vote that way, i will look the other way, is something that is lost. i think both parties -- doing

anything that is meaningful. then there is the complete choking when it comes to deficit reduction and some of the major issues of the environment that face this country. there are significant problems in how washington, in particular, operates right now. >> we are talking about reform. congressman castle just talked about it. nothing good could come out for a reasonable, pragmatic person in the republican caucus. we have to do this or that. no one is talking about the big issues -- the budget. republicans do not want revenues. democrats, they do not want to cut. there are three ways to balance the budget -- you can cut, raise revenues, or you can borrow. you do not want to do any of the three, there is no leadership. they use this labeling to stand behind the leader and say, my

leader does not want me to do that. customs and immigration reform. we're getting nowhere. nobody wants to touch it. my father cross the border in 1963. republicans should own that issue. his son is the lieutenant governor. >> i'll leave it on this. you hit this point well. this country is based on a tremendous number of ideals that are tied to fairness and equality that have never, have as yet to completely manifest themselves. however, if you look at the amount of effort -- i was up in seneca falls on friday, which in in addition to be the town upon which where the women's suffrage movement started in 1848, at that point in time women were considered property.

it was ok to whip them. it was a slave country. those people worked against those types of oppressions, which were so much more violent and present in the actual lives of the disenfranchised community, or in it this case, half the population. it took them 70 years from 1848 up through their ability to vote. i really believe that this organization, that this panel and this particular conversation about electoral fairness and collect w-- electoral reform is the latest chapter in an ongoing conversation between the desire of self preservation and the destructive acts of change that caused those who are trying to preserve themselves to find themselves in a transposition. for that reason, it should not be as frustrating as many of us

find it to be, that this is finding resistance. it is natural that this conversation comes into a tremendous amount of resistance. that goes into the civilian narrative around this organization. the resistance to this type of change is a natural occurrence among human beings. then that frustration will not enjoying you to respond with the level of aggression or frustration that might otherwise occur and yourself if you understand those things and understand that as you can see on this panel, and this panel is a fraction of the people in this country who are very much in favor of the ideas that existed. i cannot think the five of you and of not only for being here today but for giving me the opportunity and honor for being able to manage the conversation with the five of you. rt's cool, and i get to weae my sneakers. thank you very much. [applause]

>> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, a discussion on terrorist threats in northern africa. after that, a look at some of the challenges in implementing the new health care law. now, a discussion on terrorist threats in northern africa and ways to combat them. from the jamestown foundation, this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> ok, i am coin to turn the

floor over to our next panel appeared-- i am going to turn the floor over to our next panel. >> my name is jeff porter. i am an independent consultant. i focus on north africa. there are a lot of folks that focus on north africa and the middle east or sub-saharan africa. i only focus on five countries. it is a rare opportunity to be on the panel or chairing a panel dedicated to north africa. it gives me something to do. so, it is a real privilege to be here. i am looking forward to a fruitful discussion with my esteemed colleagues here. we will primarily talk about al qaeda and the islamic -- akim, acme. it is a new group. it is something that occurs hoffmann mentioned in his opening discussion this morning -- that bruce hoffman mentioned

in his opening discussion this morning. i want to frame the discussion and give us an understanding of where acme fits in global terrorism and fits into the region of magrib itself. broadest comment i can make is what it was formed in 2006 and formalized in 2007, we would talk about one al qaeda. now we think about three al qaeda. s. it may sound like a multiplication, but in fact it is a positive story. i will tell you why that is cur. one of the reasons that the multiplication is a good story is that it is not clear that there is any operational coherent among the three groups that exist in north africa.

there is a group in, based outside aspen they seem cut off. it is not clear what they want. we talk a little bit about what the terrorists want, what the ideological aspects are, but with aqim, it is not clear. the one thing we have to be aware of is a veteran of the afghan campaign. he is a mujahideen. he is about 38 years old.

he used to be a legitimate -- but he is more of a mafia said today. oso today. a mafia s he seems to be primarily motivated by generating revenue, not necessarily engaging in terrorism or spreading to a lot. there is another who is probably a terrorist. he is probably the most lethal of aqim. all of those who have been murdered have been murdered by his grip. but his operational capacity is not clearly delineated, and his goals are also unclear. he negotiated with the alliance

with al qaeda prime. another operates in the mountains outside of algiers. he seems operationally cut off. a fellow researcher in the room was recently in algiers about one year ago and was told by some of his counterparts that the two groups in the sahara are no longer sending money or weapons to the group in the north. he is struggling for relevancy and a mission. he made a recently about one month ago, and earlier in the fall, seven employees were kidnapped. they ended up in his hands. this is perhaps unwelcome news.

all of this, i think, is a fairly positive trajectory. al qaeda in islamabad seems to be on a downward track. there are several things that may change this. the evolution of aqim may change in a different direction. fundamentally, the biggest game changer for aqim are the increase linkages between organized crime and terrorism in the sahara. organized crime is taking on many characteristics, drug running from latin american cartels, from west africa, shuttling primarily cocaine of west africa, leveraging the facilities aqim has, and they're able to do this undetected. i do not know if philip morris and knows this, but there is a factory that sells cigarettes up into north africa, and there is

also a human trafficking. about 150,000. it sounds like a small number, but about 150,000 since parents are transported by every year. saharans ared0,000 transported every year. i would show a picture on a cell phone. some new weapons that al qaeda in the sierra is actually able -- in the saharas. the picture of the alleged weapon is an anti-aircraft machine gun, allegedly. they are soviet.

it is evident of what the revenue from kidnapping in contraband and trafficking can get you. there are new oil and glass blocks -- gas blocks. mauritania is encouraging exploration. there is intense vacation in the

area that is relatively unexplored and uninhabited. ms. is potentially problematic. this was a very interesting organization. aqim has struggled to maintain its relevancy. if we can deploy the proper policies vis a vis aqim, we may be able to use them to test proper counter-terrorism methods around the world. we have a speaker that will be talking about connections with organized crime. dario is from naples, italy, so we also have some historical ties to organized crime. [laughter]

following him, we have jean-luc. he is a senior fellow at the institute for strategic research in paris but also a senior fellow here at sais. and then finally, we have andrew mcgreggor. what is interesting about his comments is that they have been basically been based in the ninth year -- niger. what we have not seen is that going eastward towards a van. indre is the director of a consulting firm, aberfoyle international, and also works at

georgetown. with that, i would like to pass it over to dario. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> so the thank you very much, first of all, for inviting me here. normally, i am used to speaking at boring and empty academy gatherings. if i should die because of the emotion of what is going on, -- actually, i will try to do this the best that i can and explaining in my view the three main developments related to the evolution of al qaeda in the past few years.

ok, well, the background, this is, in my view, this is an organization which has been weakened in the past few years from the algerian efforts and counter-terrorism. the algerian government now was far better in preventing the entrance of raw materials. they have been able to get lots of surrenders with the organization. moreover, this is a development that we have also. there is a sort of consensus in the population because of the effects of 2007 into 2008, and so now, the question is is aqim a normal al qaeda, sort of a

and i have some expertise on this. the three main focuses of the presentation are the increasing role of narco trafficking, the creation of the sort of kidnapping industry, and the salehization and factionalism related to these kinds of activities in the sahel area.

these have always been involved in narco traffic. in kidnappings. and they were active in the sahel region, but the new point is that these kinds of activities, they have a far bigger importance for the organization. and there is a sort of ideological flexibility from this organization. there are the use of narcotics.

there are disconnections between al qaeda and the narco trafficking group. this is also in peru, brazil, and bolivia. these drugs arrive in africa from a very small country, but it is one of the most important hubs.

mali, all of the countries of the area. then, they go through morocco and algeria towards europe, to spain, which is the main entrance door to drugs in europe. there is the geographical know how. this region is a real complicated area, which is where harsh to operate their -- which is very harsh. they can sell protection.

as we will also see in the kidnapping industry, this is a really important point. at times, aqim works with local groups that have nothing to do with islamic ideology. there are more interested in getting money. therefore, they can sell the hostages they kidnapped to the organization.

in the kidnapping industry, this is nothing new. we had the kidnapping of 32 european terrorists in the area. and there is the increasing presence in this region. the problem with kidnappings is is getting worse and worse, because european targets, they are really tempting for this organization, because european governments, they are more ready to pay ransom to save the lives of their citizens instead of, for example, america, or china.

they do not care what is one line with this kind of -- [laughter] as i said before, there is a sort of multi level action. this is what i call a win-win situation.

the leadership can claim the fact that -- all of the things related to the islamic rhetoric. and they're also instruments of negotiation with local and european governments. for example, nigeria. governments in male. -- mali. i said there are no

opportunities to carry out things they want to do in this area. there is an increasing young population, and there is the spreading of radical messages. there is a change of the center of gravity towards the southern part of the normal activities.

there is increasing internal competition in order to get this ability, and it can lead to increasing level. this is a map of the sahel. we talked about the most important actors. they are looking for more visibility and more prestige as an organization. these three main developments, there was another one that i decided to keep up from the presentation, because otherwise

it would be a bit long and boring, and it is about the new role of nigeria in the region. then, we should discuss which type of model is in the galaxy of the islamic groups. there are in the islamic groups in the balkans. an italian-style organization. there is a high degree of conflict with the different

families and factions of the organizations. as i said, this is a point that i would like to stress again. this could be very dangerous development for the countries of the area, for the europeans, for the west in general, -- in spain, there are some groups that are operating as a means to transport the drugs.

there are those trying to get illegal documents and bezos and those types of things. there are lots of immigrant communities where there are some members of these organizations, so it poses a serious risk to the security of europe and in general to the security of the countries of the transatlantic partnership, and the last two remarks involve the

coordination. it could be good on one side and then dangerous on the other. they will have a al qaeda, though they may look like a mafia-style group. this is in a different way, other than another type of group because of the brand, because of the fact that if you carry this out, without any jihadi aims, someone else can claim the attack. this is on a different level rather than on a level of a normal mafia organization.

so it is really hard to understand what they want. it is hard to understand who is in charge of the organization, but this is one of the most important developments. these other things which we should keep on discussing. so thank you. [applause] >> thank you, dario. it is very interesting. i want to welcome now jean-luc marret. it is a particularly silly and talk big. president sarkozy declared war on al qaeda, which obviously led them to declare war on france -- it is particularly salient. >> good afternoon, ladies and

gentlemen. the foundation has invited me here, and thank you for that, to make a presentation on some elements of french counter- terrorism. i am going to say "ct" operations. i have been currently living in at d.c. four 3.5 years, and i am a fellow at a think tank. dan wheeler a non-partisan think tank, -- and i am in a non- partisan think tank. i would like to state at the outset that the views presented here are subjective, and i only speak for myself. the subject of french counter- terrorism is not an easy one, and i say this for several

reasons. number one, by tradition, there is a whole lot of tradition that surrounds this type of activity then, there is also this issue of transparency. it is far different from the american one. public relations and public diplomacy. very recently, one service required a spokesman -- acquired a spokesman. number two, but i do not have time to work too much on that, i think here in the u.s. and there in europe or in france, we have a different view to represent the threat. it seems to be they hear, you are more inclined to talk about al qaeda, al qaeda central, and now, more recently, homegrown

terrorism, while in europe, especially in france, we are mostly focused on this global- local nexus. let's a global, which means we are mostly working on the made in france or made in german terrorism in connection with countries of origin and diaspora. having said that, i think we need to talk about the threats. i should start to say that almost every week, france received threats from networks or individuals. some are very explicit. such as a fatwa to identify a radical here or there, or a radical from aqim, and there is

intelligence gathered from some in africa. this has to be evaluated. french territory, which is not a big secret, managed to work against anti-terrorism since 1996, but it is feared that an attack will successfully do something one of these days. like the u.s. counter-terrorism, it can only delay the moment. this is inevitable one of these days. so french specialized services are announcing their readiness with counter-terrorism. the french city swat teams, we

have two national swat teams in france. there are a number of trained officers simply preparing to manage the big scale terrorist attack, like in mumbai, or massive takings, and we aren't doing this with other european swat teams. similar to the u.s., i think, france seems to be much more of a target in africa or overseas, where we have roughly around 90,000 nationals, citizens, north africa, even though it is declining in algeria, and we have around 110,000 french speaking, and we should also mention the economic activity in

french-speaking africa. i think is more less in the basement. the next time one man moves, he will be arrested. i think the aqim are using the sahel as an opportunity. having said that, i think we need to have a memory about the field, because many of these things are not new.

the regular army were mostly shape for a big, conventional situation in europe. cold war oriented. we have a lot of stuff about

intelligence now. we have made some progress on that. that is not so old, actually. this is not pc anymore, and among my students, i have some officers, and it must be said that what we're talking about, in often stands for various origins. there is a dedicated military program that started in 1920. one from the south met another one coming from the north.

there is a payment of ransom in exchange for a captive. you can read papers and books from many journalists and lecturers. in the 19th century, it was practiced. in the french side, a lack of compound closure of companies

working the fields. and the traditional factors that i have mentioned. we should not forget that the french military has had an event from 1881 and ask for military intervention against these tribes because since roman times, they have been known to openly welcome those into the fold. there is nothing new. and there was a very recent example. we have a bunch of guys who were affiliated with the capacity.

the name was typically local. from the western view, you can see that with aqim. there was a very prestigious city with a lot of culture and a lot of cultural of activity -- cultural activity. this is a very specific and militant reference to the local past. there is nothing local year. it must be noted that every comparison with the u.s. has its

limitations. for example, there was a coordinator created. there is mostly around 15 people. this is summing up the french fbi. this is an intelligence agency which reports directly to the minister of the interior. it was effective in july 2008.

dcrg. the french national police services. there was a rise of islamic insurgency. while the service is very active, -- for the external we

have the general external security, comprising roughly a 4500 people. this is the france external intelligence agency. there was an increase in capacity. in order to analyze various pieces of data.

overall, this is not jack bauer. it can be very basic. at the same time, high-tech, too. it mostly comprises of inputs from paid or unpaid conformance from local tribes and looking at sensitive areas to check aqim moves. i would not be surprised if the u.s. side is doing its at the same thing at the same time. i hope, actually. the technical choice in the program announcements the strategic priority.

ok, so this is supposed to provide for capacity, but it is partly a good size for africa. we have a branch, but we also of special forces from the military side better able to intervene. this is what we call special ops, c.o.s., and there is a

fairly long field experience in africa, which is significant. we also have the french police cooperation, and now, this has been brought up since it was in 1961 but also ordering drug trafficking. there is the lack of compound culture, the number of citizens we have there. and with the money they receive, they can increase their capacity. this is around 50 million.

this is a lot of capacity. so there is some worrying situation. in northern mali. the french purpose is to avoid a situation like iraq and afghanistan. this means we went to be supporting others, and the big thing for us is that we have a few hostages, and we need to have actual intelligence, and this is not so easy to do.

i would be surprised if they did not try to enhance the capacity is, like multiple bombing attacks, or things like that with a massive impact, and it could potentially change the format in the field. especially if this is a worst- case scenario. thank you. [applause] >> i hope you often on the presentation as fascinating as i did. it was a very interesting expose

on what is taking place in france, particularly within the ct community. i found it particularly instructive. he has laryngitis, so please bear with him, and please keep the rustling of papers down, because he is not going to be speaking very loud. please join me in welcoming andrew mcgregor. >> thank you, geoff. bear with me as i do this in my best very wide imitation. may i have the slides, please? thank you. the january 9, 2011 referendum

will mark either the creation of a new african nation or the beginning of a third civil war. both north and south have been farming in preparation of such conflicts. both sides might be expected to use proxy's or to create alliances with neighboring countries, raising the possibility the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. a breakdown in regional security might allow entry into the region of non state terrorist groups, such as al qaeda and its affiliates. sudan currently possesses an oil reserves estimated at 6 billion barrels. production provides 60% of the total no. revenues and 98% of the south revenue stream. sedan's growing oil industry has funded the rearmament of both north and south, but it has also

added a new geopolitical dimension to a potential conflict. china's continued economic growth with eyes on securing oil supplies from nations like sudan, supplies that will be immediately threatened by a conflict that would be largely fought in the oil fields of south sudan, and united states is expected to become a player in the south sudan oil industry, and the development could only be made possible by southern independence, as current sanctions prevent this. american investment groups are already buying up large tracts of agricultural land in south sudan. their interest is in untapped oil reserves rather than farming. oil currently represents nearly 20% of the cidoni is gdp. an interruption -- 20% of the sudan gdp.

this is a significant sum to a developing country. neighboring countries would also secure cost be to trade. -- costs to trade. if they block oil shipments to the pipeline, the result would be the loss of all development gains made in the last five years and possibly even starvation. the south however cannot just live happily ever after. the refineries are all located in the northcom and the only pipeline for export in the landlocked self runs through the north at the red sea -- the refineries are all located in the north, and the only pipeline for export in the landlocked south runs through the north at the red sea. an important oil producer like sudan, it would have immediately -- it would

immediately produce an effect. unless we forgive, there it be terrible loss of life in a renewed conflict. in the other civil war, roughly 2 million people lost their lives with twice as many displaced, many permanently. the failure of sudanese politicians to reach agreement on the citizenship issue will directly affect the many southerners who've unit -- who left the north. the ruling national congress party has indicated that these seven cities will lose their right to work or receive health care in the north. the sudanese president still wanted on international criminal court indictment for war crimes in darfur, has at times said

nothing other than a vote for unity would be acceptable. but other times, he will except whatever outcome is reached. the south has made some of the in strides -- has made significant strides. the peace agreement gave the south the right to maintain its own army. with south sudan spending 50% of its budget on arms since 2005, and you conflict will look different than the one before. battle tanks from ukraine have been obtained, making the south at least equal to the north in terms of armor. this preparation for war has, however, , and a great cost in

the oil-producing areas, which obscene little money while there is environmental degradation for the facilities. this could easily lead to internal struggles with in the south. the 10,000 man united nations -- it cannot increase the size of its force without getting the permission of cartoon. they have proven in a sexual -- .roving ineffectual wil it would take a massive increase in the size and power of the force along the 1,250 mile border. independece in south sudan would

also boost the independence in darfur. especially if there is another opening. perhaps, with this in mind, this of sudanese president has made extensive efforts -- the south sudan president has made extensive efforts. the most powerful of these groups, the justice and equality movement, which launched a raid on the capitol itself, something previously thought impossible. the dispute over a border region, lying along the north- south and border, also has the potential to spike into a civil war. hundreds of local residents were killed in 2008 between forces of the north and south.

a separate referendum to be held separately with an independence vote will determine whether abyei joins the north or the south. most are expected to join. the arabs, who pasture there herd's there for most of the year, will be included in the voting. there are few signs the referendum will take place on time. khartoum has said it is necessary. there is new violence in the already war ravaged territory. officials now speak of annexing abyei, but only after making significant financial considerations to -- concessions to khartoum. there is an accusation of widespread atrocities against civilians during the civil war.

complicating the whole issue of war and peace in the nile valley is a growing and deadly serious dispute over use of the nile waters. the white nile begins in sub- saharan africa, some 400 miles south of the mediterranean. much of this water is lost in massive swamps of the south sudan. more important in terms of water is the blue nile, which begins in the mountains of ethiopia before joining the white nile in khartoum. unlike egypt, ethiopia enjoys a fairly abundant rainy season. in recent years though, the rains have become less dependable, and ethiopia is determined to build a huge irrigation system to avoid further famine. ethiopia is also in the midst of bought a rebuilding an ambitious series of dams for hydroelectric

polysemy -- hydroelectric power. the egyptians say that this and others is like asking them to abandon their nile culture and go live in the desert. the inflexible attitude is based on two unchangeable facts, and the population has reached unprecedented numbers one of the land is confined to a narrow strip. both food and energy supplies are inextricably tied to nile water. agriculture represents one- third of egypt's economy. all of it is dependent on nine water. rhetoric over the water issue is growing extremely heated. -- all of it is dependent on the

nile water. they talk about not being able to win a war with ethiopia over the nile waters. the current treaty was signed during the 1920's during the british occupation. over 55entitled to billion cubic meters of nine water -- nigeln -- ile water. it is almost 100%. other countries of spent over 10 years trying to modify this agreement to no avail. a new deal to share the nile waters was sound by ethiopia, kenya, uganda, rwanda, and tanzania, in giving the other nile basin countries one year to sign on.

some have promised to sign the pact, but others have rejected it. with egypt, their self-described gift of the nile, calling it a national security issue, challenging their sacred control of the nile. however, each of refusal to negotiate new terms is not sustainable. besides ethiopia's massive energy skiing, -- energy scheme, they are building more power plants. as the prime minister says, the egyptians have yet to make up their minds as to whether they want to live in the 21st or the 19th century. a political struggle over oil and water in the region could also result in a new wave of proxy warfare. a good example of this type of proxy conflict can be found in the resistance army, eight wild

weill group, the survival for decades was solely based on sudanese support as a proxy against uganda and retaliation for the uganda support for the south. the renewed conflict would undoubtedly see shartoum -- khartoum involved. al qaeda would also like to return to sudan, where they're generally unwanted by any party today without even a fish or even covert support by any group. the sudan security service has been largely effective in preventing an al qaeda return to sudan, but a general breakdown in security could create conditions favorable to infiltration and the formation of new al qaeda cells.

a renewed conflict in sudan would quickly bring uganda, ethiopia, and egypt as sponsors or even military partners of one side or another. uganda, especially, with an experienced, well-trained, well- equipped military has said it is willing to protect south sudan independence. a new civil war in sudan can also easily spark the first major water war, a costly harbinger of future global struggles over increasingly scarce resources. the south sudan president has warned of a return to violence on a massive scale if the referendum does not go ahead as scheduled. no amount of military measures will convince most southerners that their future lies in