the food safety you're in the u.s. that is the food safety side. then you mentioned and vegetables. the fda does not have an equivalent standards for other countries that import fruit and vegetables, seafood and other things _ there's jurisdiction -- under their jurisdiction. host: clyde is our last call from mississippi. it's a farmer himself. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning, steve. i was a farmer until june 23 of 2010. the usda sold my farm and home. i will read you a pair of that is part of my position i have with the supreme court. i said, the depression of the 1930's was directly contributing

to the farmers resources. we were gripped by another depression caused by the federal government's failure to keep a covenant with the states to maintain private practice of farmers' crops and livestock. in march, this coming march, there is a documentary that will be finished. if you will write this down, the website is intheinterestofnationalsecurity. com. i would encourage everyone to go to the website. host: thanks for the call. guest: depression was a very bad time and this country was built on the backs of becker --

agriculture. would you have low commodity prices, the economy suffers. i think any economist will tell you that when agriculture is doing good, and a sector of the u.s. economy will be doing good. the part in 1993 -- 1933 that you mentioned, that is where the farm bill comes in to try to bridge that gap when the market is not providing a market value back to a commodity to cover the cost of production. however, this last farm bill had the lowest prices ever written below production costs. it is more and more difficult to write these bills due to spending. host: our conversation has been with chandler cool. and he is the vice president of public relations for the national farmers union.

this week we are looking at food and farming issues. today we focus on family farms. tomorrow we will get the issue of sustainable food movement. on thursday, the issue of childhood nutrition and legislation aimed at reducing obesity among america's children. and friday, the issue of organic food. we will look at the regulation of organic food. we are back tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern. thanks for being with us on this tuesday [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ ♪

>> coming up to night during primetime here on c-span, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we'll take a look at executive power and its limits with former independent counsel ken starr and tom yu. and.:00, q &a from londonder garrison taylor talking about humor in public life. coming up in this hour at about 10:30 this morning, we will bring you a briefing from the pentagon operations in afghanistan very we will hear from an army colonel in the east-central part of the country. the colonel commence an international security assistance task force and that is live coverage of the pentagon briefing on afghanistan coming up here on c-span.

until that grieving begins, let's take a look at the headlines from this morning's "washington journal" and a discussion on the economic outlook from -- for the new year. is from "the chicago debut in," which encapsulates what a lot of states are facing. gov. pat quinn trying to borrow $15 billion. the has been meeng with several a lawyer lawmakers. the governor is floating the idea of borrowing roughly $15 billion. below the fold, a focus on homelessness in america. in this case, the twins in the chicago area dealing with their own homelessness. finally, the story below the fold in "the new york times a michigan town pleading for bankruptcy.

a michigan town outside of detroit made famous by the dodge auto maker which since left the town. we will talk about that story. we want to focus on that, with a number of headlines, including this -- robert taxes will likely stay the same across much of maryland.

robert, joining us on the republican line. north carolina. caller: my question is, why did the social security adnistration -- they are running out of money. if they would quit loading it out. you try to live on $672 a month. there is no way in the world you could live on that. host: the cost of living increase in the next year. caller: they are not giving us one. host: yes, what i was saying. there is no cost of living increase because inflation is a essentially flat. caller: that is what i've done undetand. -- what i don't understand. here we artrying to live on $671 a month. no way you could live on net. host: the budget is the next big battle with the 112 congress convenes next week. this headline from "the wall

street journal." the administration scrambling to assemble what could be pivotal bachmann following a six-week delay in confirmation of the new budget director. budget outline also coming with the state of the union address next year. michigan, our focus is the u.s. economy. prediction for 2011. caller: good morning. calling back some of the workers to the automobile factories, second shift and that. so, that is up. basically our towns are just cut

to the bone. having to cut the police out, crime has been up, and the fire department and all of that. so, even though the bailout did help the car industry, there is still a long, long way to go before michigan is going to be backed up on its feet. host: how far from judy caller:. is about 20 miles east of laing. host: from the jump page of the "the new york times" article. the michigan town left pleading for bankruptcy as the city manager and city officials tried to find a way to pay the bills. although the 75 current police officers and firefighters make up to two runs and 40 workers in

the city, the average pay for police officer is about $75,000 a year. contract negotiations under way. some union officials claim this effort is a way to try to influence the negotiations for any possible pay increase for firefighters and police officers. the town, by the way, just outside of detroit. 2.1 square miles. it describes as a gritty michigan city. bill is joining us from detroit. good morning to you. caller: these open -- wall street guys that get the billion dollar bonuses and these republicans and democrats playing the bait and switch game. the time to talk is over. was out of work for three years, went back to school and still could not find a decent job. working temporary things but now i am back on unemployment. i get $100 a week -- last the

what i did before. so, i did not qualify for food stamps. we get tired of the top. we need to take these politicians and start killing th and burning down buildings. host: i think killing them is probably a little over the top, do you think, bill? he hung up. that call from detroit. from "e washington post" this morning, inflation concerns spurred beijing to raise interest rates again. a lot of articles on this tuesday morning focusing on the u.s. economy knoxville, tennessee. caller: longtime listeners, first-time caller. i am not quite as radical as bill from detroit -- host: he was a little over the top. caller: but i don't see recovery

as long as we have all the money in big business and greed. i did not see grieve letting good jobs coming back to the country. am 61 years old. i worked construction all of my life. i am semi retired and i am okay because i live with it might mean spirit -- within my means. i am scared for my grandchildren. i think we are going to turn it into a third world country and i am sad about it. but thank you for letting me talk. host: if -- the other story, the weather in the northeast. "the post" has iced burg. jet travel impacted by all of this. jenny joining us from louisville, ky. your outlook for 2011, the u.s. economy.

caller: i don't know. i don't know. i just don't feel like there will be a lot of changes. i don't know, it depends on what they are cutting. i don't know how much more they can cut. the guy was right about what he said. i worry more about our children and our grandchildren. it is not their fault. but i have a question. i am not sure about it. i saw where you read about -- i think it was a state, if they file bankruptcy. i never heard of a place filing bankruptcy. who would pay for that? usually when somebody files bankruptcy really the taxpayers and up paying for it. host: it is not the state. it is a town in michigan asking the state to declarbankruptcy. it is an "the new york times." just outside of detroit. some details, for example, in the article.

it points out that this month authorities in rhode island says a city in central fls could face bankruptcy if the immediate drastic changes -- so, these are different municipalities asking their states to declare bankruptcy to try to clear the bks and of the financial situation. caller: that ishat scares me because i think that with all of this going on, it is going to take america forever -- it is not going to take one or two years, it is going to take a very long time for us to get out of this predicament that we are

in. and i do not think we should borrow any more money from anybody regardless of what. host: read the story about china raising interest rates. we owe billions to china right now. thank you for the call. back to the earlier point about bankrucy and impact on municipalities. because "the new york times" points out that it is meet -- it remains a rare for municipalities. the story, aga, on the jump page of the a section of the new york times, as hammtrack,

michigan, once the state to declare bankruptcy. -- wants the state to clare bankruptcy. scott is joining us from sparta, new jersey, a republican line. good morning. caller: well, i think the economy is slowly coming back to someone normal but i do not think it will ever be what it was. i think the middle class will -- for very long time. jobs are gone, they are not coming back. inur state, my governor is doing a lot of the dirty work that has to be done. people are not too happy about it, but if we don't start cutting corners and cutting spending and really trying to do some hard, difficult things, this country is going to be in bad shape for a very long time. host: the storm in new york is impacting a little bit of the economy. this is from "the new york

post." macy's at herald square, only about half of the staffers could make it into work. chris is joining us from new york city. good morning. our line for democrats. caller: how are you? that's good. i think the outlook would be grim it specifically for 99ers. i have been without unemployment benefits since march, by the way, so my hope that there would be legislation not only introduced but past -- doubt any republicans will want to do that, to provide extensions for the 5 million unemployed, not just the 2 million that got extensions. host: a lot of interestn the

open the new york times" story an related stories about bankruptcy. chris saying -- you can join the conversation online at twitter.com. caller: here in northwest ohio and seven michigan and northeast indiana, it will be probably teno20 years before the economy gets better. right now williams county in ohio, out of 88 counties, has the highest unemployment in the state and we are very heavily automotive industry. as jobs keep leaving the country, people are forced to take pay cuts, cannot buy new cars, so that has a big effect on the economy in northwest ohio and southern michigan and northeast indiana.

host: thank you for the culprit from our twiiter page -- there is no money left to bail any one out. arnold, governor of california, will have to figure something out. indiana, good morning. caller: you have a caller three or four that -- income was six under and $72 a month? host: social security. caller: he is a republican? if people wouote their interests instead of their fears, we would get out of this data on a recession we are in. host: thank you for the call. companies siing on cash, not spending it because of concerns about the economy. the story in the business section of "the washington post." companies more willing to make a deal.

volume on global mergers rising 19%. scott joining us from fort

worth, texas. good morning, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call but i went to respond to a lot of the pessimism from the callers, one say we needed to start knocking off politicians and another guy saying he was very concerned about his grandchildren. if you all keep voting for republicans -- democrats or commonness, this will continue. if we went with ron paul for 2012 i will assure you, return to constitutional government will lead to amazing wealth and prosperity very soon. host: thank you f the call. on our twitter page a lot of people waiting in. it is going to take some serious cuts to start getting this debt mess under control. ro was right again. he told the nation in 1992. referring to ross perot. an e-mail from us. constantly amused people are worried about the future of the children and grandchildren but finding no one step to the plate

saying raise my taxes to pay off the nation's credit cards so my children and grandchildren to not have to pay for our excesses'. trash is joining us from lubbock, texas. -- trish is joining us from texas. good morning. caller: i do not see it will change anytime soon. i don't think the states should be bailing out municipalities. i don't know what the answer is there, except that we need to create jobs. the only thing i have been able to come up with personally, and we are doing it in my area, is alternative energy. if we would spend, spend, spend, spend on alternative energy in, and in this area, wind farms, it would create jobs. number two, it would completely

get us away from foreign oil, if, if no one remembers, it is part of what started this. when the middle lease went up on the oil for two or thresummers ago, that is when this whole economic thing started. like dominoes. so, we are going to have to spend. people are going to have to get used to that. we are just going to have to spend in a more fiscally responsible way and we are going to after quit listening to republicans because this is the deficit started under reagan and every republican that is supposed to be -- they are the ones that are supposed to be fiscally conservative, they are the ones who have spent us into this mess. and people don't seem to remember that. we are spending on two wars billions every day. i don't know what the answer to

that is. but what we are doing is not working, so we need to stop. host: thank you for the call. from "politico." below that, writing that the president is eyeing chicago as his campaign headquarters as the white house begins to gear up for the 2012 race. this e-mail from paul -- there is a map of the city, which is outside of detroit. 2.1 square miles. not far from lake michigan. part of the greater detroit metropolitan area. the story in "the new york

times," the michigan city asking the state for bankruptcy. police and firefighters question whether the bankruptcy talk is just a scare tactic for negotiations. debra joining us from clarksburg, tennessee. we are using all of these stories on the economy to get your take on the economic outlook for 2011. good morning. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. i have a question. if any country has any kind of disaster, our government seems to send money to them immediately. and i feel like with our economy falling of the way that it has, we are in a disastrous situation. host: thank you for the call. from john, saying -- let us go back to "the baltimore

sun" and maryland property rates. jamie hopkins right thing maryland homeowners will see property values plunged 22% on average in the latest round of state assessments, a record drop that would not necessarily translate into lower taxes. carolyn, republican from louisiana pity caller: how are you today? yes, on the foreign oil business, we have not build new refineries in this country in the 30 or 40 feet -- 40 years. we have all the reservewe need in gas and oil.

we have too many regulations. i found out i was a libertarian and thought i was a republican. social security was a ponzi scheme. wall street is liberal. the green is mean -- ethanol each spot -- eats up. corn is food and they found out --sing corn to make gas, it is more toxic. now they are lobbying against it, the environmentalist. i think we need to do away with all the regulations and quick -- qu paying ex-president's for anything they have done. they need to go write a book and make a million dollars. i am sick of paying from worn out presidents. d we should quit paying all the senators and congressmen and all these people who have been in office for years for the rest of their lives and keepinghem. and i think all the congress and senate should take a cut in their pay, along with -- unions

were good in the 50's and the 196's, but they self- destructive and destroyed themselves and they need to take a cut in their pay and i don't mind if my social security does not going -- does not go up until 169. that would be great. i do not want anybody from the government telling me every year -- advisor my doctor that -- to do away with my medicines i will go ahead and die. i think it is inappropriate for the government to do. host: i think we got all in, carolyn. this story from "the washington post." 22 new films listed in the national film registry, including "all the president's men" and "the ercist." movies filmed in the washington, d.c., area. part of a collection of war -- more than 500 films by the library of congress has put on

this list. you can read the story on line or in the style section of "the washington post." back to your calls and back to the u.s. economy. marlene from jefferson township, new jersey. caller: i was a bookkeeper. i retired. but a couple of things. about social security -- people beer understand from the day they start working, they are paying 6.2% of their income into that, ps, your employer matches that, almost 12.5% of your wking life in, going into a system. i watched c-span since 1982. 1983, social security was bankrupt. if you paid a couple hundred dollars a year into the system. in 1983 they went from 300, to $4,000 is what you could

actually pay out of your pay into social security. think about it, people. if you were paying 2000 and your employer- that is $4,000 a year for 40 or 50 years. where is the money? the government has taken up trillions of dollars out of social security. meanwhile, who is paying for all of the employees that worked for the government? i have a cousin that makes $60,000 a year pension after 30 years. i have another cousin who is a retiredolice officer in new jersey that >> you can watch "washington journal" on line at any time. we will now take it to the pentagon. reporters will be briefed on operations in afghanistan. the briefing is just getting

under way of life here on cspan. colonel uong is conducting operations in several districts and provinces. from september until december, another task force served in the south. that unit has now returned to their host province. he joins us today from his headquarters in salerno and will provide a brief update of current operations and we will take your questions. >> good morning.

thank you for giving me this opportunity to address you today. thank you for being here. the 101st airborne division -- 66 years ago, our forefathers defended against the enemy in the battle of the bulge. it is fitting for me to take a few minutes up front and provide a brief overview of what the task force has accomplished in the last 11 months in the gallant tradition of the 101st airborne division. our brigade combat team, rockasan is formed around an industry -- infantry division. this formation is the most the deployed units in the army today having completed three rotations in iraq and we are about to sit

finished our second deployment in afghanistan. the brigade has the distinction of being the only airborne brigade to have participated in every major conflict since there inception in world war two and the first u.s. unit to set foot on mainland japan in 1942. our primary mission in afghanistan is to protect the population and increase the capacity of a capability, and credibility of the afghan national security forces as well as afghan government. my task force was initially responsible for the provinces for the first seven months of our rotation. it was an area that is approximately 35,000 square kilometers the shares a border of approximately 261 kilometers with pakistan. in september, we handed over the responsibility of paktika

province and have retained responsibility for two other provinces. our task is counterinsurgency operations. the key task under our campaign plan include but not limited to neutralizing the insurgency, combined action with afghan security forces to build competency, capability, and credibility with the afghan populous. we want to enable effective governance and partnership at the provincial and district level and finally, facilitate development in agriculture. in the last 11 months, we have seen a gradual but measurable progress. first and foremost, the combined coalition team has taken approximately 2000 fighters out of the fight for the insurgency. the ansf is capable of conducting operations in many areas here.

the security that we have created has allowed government officials to reach their own people, many of them isolated for years. my teammates from the department of state worked hard side-by- side with the provincial and district leaders to improve local governments and rule of law. in this largely agricultural region, our teammates from the u.s. department of agriculture and the national guard development business teams from indiana and oklahoma have been directly assisting the afghan provincial director of agriculture irrigation and livestock with training, government outreach programs, and increasing afghan agricultural prospects. under the mentor should of our provincial reconstruction team and usaid colleagues, local government leaders are actively taking part in the project development and management of the budget.

regions previously controlled by the taliban, we are starting to see elders coming to meetings by the thousands. that is something i did not see 11 months ago. kids are now going to school, playing cricket, flying kites, activities strictly forbidden under taliban rule. to me, it is a subtle sign of hope. for the first time since i have been here, local atmospherics are indicating that the people are beginning to feel that security is much, much better and more importantly for the first time, they are feeling the provincial government is now working for the people. in short, while fragile, we are seeing progress across the board and with that, i welcome your questions. >> we hear often that during

these briefings that there are subtle signs of progress. what more do you need to see in the next few months from the afghans, particularly developing a civilian capacity so they can take over control and the u.s. can start drawing down the number of forces? >> as far as taking over control, that has to be based on conditions on the ground. there are some promises. as far as the new k government thehost, i am very optimistic. it has been a hard-current win for us. during my first several months, we had a corrupt situation. we had a beneficial removed from his position. he was followed by a guy that was halfway aliterate.

about six months ago, we were able to gain a very competent leader. people are starting to feel there is progress. in addition to that, over the last year or so, in the two provinces i am responsible for, we have gained an additional 6000 afghan national security forces. we have several courses that we run to build our capacity, running their nco school and assisting in their basic training. perhaps the most important aspect of what we do is the combined action meeting we eat, sleep, and fight alongside our afghan counterparts. in the ana in particular, they are getting better. over the next couple of years based on conditions on the ground, we will be able to transition village by village,

district by district, and hopefully the province overall. >> on the other side of the border, how much of an effect are you saying as far as a this low of fighters. -- as far as a slowdown of fighters? can you block fighters from coming in? >> let me speak about two main topics. locally, i can tell you that at least in these two provinces, the uncertain network is on their heels. we have captured and killed many

of their fighters and midlevel leaders. the senior leadership routinely hide in the tribal areas in pakistan for fear of being captured or killed. in addition to that, the effectiveness of their attacks that can cause death or injury or accuracy of indirect fire against the coalition has dropped 50%. on top of that, we have increased four fold the number of operations and patrols up to 12,000 in the last year. 50% of the friendly forces are initiated by this. there has been, quite an impact their infiltration is seasonal at this time. they have lost a lot of fighters

last summer. there were talks of several of their leader's losing credibility, possibly losing their jobs. we were able to continue this pattern of good coordination and good intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance and we caught a lot of them through these gaps. we were able to destroy large numbers of these fighters. it is taking a toll on their operation and their effectiveness. henceforth, they have changed their ttt to not filling a large number of fighters which makes it difficult for them to synchronize and they are more vulnerable to our operations. at the same time, it allows us to close down places. copsera is terrain-tough.

we controlled a couple of routes coming in from pakistan. as we effectively targeted that network, we feel that this combat power could be used in a population center to better secure the population. >> you said that there has been increased four fold in the number of patrols and operations. can you expand on that? is that specifically in khost province? do you have the total number of patrols in operation? that whelpful. can you explain a low bit more

about your sense of confidence about the situation on the border in khost? do you feel you're confident that the border is no longer porous and you think you can close outposts? or have you given up on trying to stop fighters from coming across the border and focusing on the population centers where they will go to? >> we have close to the exact number of operations. operations have increased in paktia. in addition to that, increased operations across the area include rc south. i had to send a battalion back

there to fight a vicious fight. our strategy has been to increase the up-tempo and capitalize on success while we think we have some momentum. right now, i am executing the winter plan. that has not occurred in be years before. that is not the primary fighting season. we will not allow the network to be able to rest and refit. as far as the border, i think it is naive to say that we can stop forces coming through the border. 261 kilometers is what i have. we are disrupting the focus on the area based on the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance operations. we want to do targeted operations on these guys coming across. the head many places where they can come across. therefore, i have both been

focusing areas and focusing them on fighting on areas where they have to bed down. our success has been there. in order to secure the border, it takes effort on the other side by the pakistani. it takes the tribes to reach an agreement and we need their support to keep these guys outside. more and more, as our footprint is an expanded along the security line of effort, it is harder and harder for these guys to come and bed down in these villages. there are a couple of specific instances where the tribes have told these guys that they need to move out and they are not welcome. it makes it harder for them. you are aware of the safe havens on the other side of the border. >> are you saying that in the

area of the border that you are responsible -- you are saying that you are giving up on the border crossing points because you cannot control the border and you will fight them as they come into afghanistan? i am puzzled by this. would you need more troops, more surveillance of drones, more surveillance capability? is this part of the overall military strategy? >> i did not say that we have chosen to give up on the border.

as a matter of fact, we have more than a dozen crossing points that we had ansf and u.s. forces to back them up within several kilometers of the border. to secure the border in the traditional sense, if you are talking about what we would do a log our own border with mexico in the southwestern united states, that is not what we are doing. it takes an inordinate amount of resources to do that. therefore, you can look at this as a defense in depth whereby you have your front-line defenders which starts on the pakistani side of the border. they have hundreds of checkpoints backed up by dozens of checkpoint on our side that are manned by afghan border

police and we back those guys up with u.s. and ans forces. you can get more effect by defending in death than in line. we pick and choose where the best places we can defend the border. then we can be able to target those guys where they feel safest. i think that has been the key to our success. >> you said it was naive to say that we can stop them from coming across the border. in the time you have been there, how many border cops have to shut down and how would you describe the capability of un forces along the border in your area? >> i have shut down a single cop

a couple of weeks ago. we were able to retain enough success down there to have death to stop these guys close to the population. i want to focus this single platoon out of dozens of platoons i have. this is not a large amount of force. that mission was a strictly to re-focus. we were making enough momentum now that i feel we can bring this platoon of the border to conduct more population-centric counter insurgency. we still have forces out there that are conducting operations and combined action with all three entities. , afghan border patrol, uniformed police, and the

national afghan army. >> thank you, colonel. happy holidays and a happy new year to you all over there. thank you for your service. what message do you have as we enter the new year, 2011, for the afghanis and how you feel your troops are feeling in the new year and finally, what message will you have about the pakistan concern about cross border terrorism? do you have any message for the pakistan is an afghanis in the new year? >> yes, 40 afghanis, i wish them a happy new year and remain strong and there is hope that we will be here with you as long as it takes, as long as our

nation and nato is committed to this operation and we will be by your side. to the pakistan is, i am looking forward to continued partnership. i have had the opportunity to have the 11th corps commander here a couple of months ago and i had great interaction with him. within the next few days, i will be able to have another border flag meeting with senior leadership from the 11th corps. also, my condolences for the sacrifices that the pakistani military has taken over this very, very long and tortuous conflict. the same message goes out to my pakistani comrades that we are with you shoulder to shoulder and i think together we can beat this enemy. to my soldiers always near and dear to my heart, thank you for your service and sacrifice.

there are many heroes here. we have many purple hearts and a couple of hundred arcom with the valor, two silver stars, this war has been fought and carry on the shoulders of our young servicemen and women. my hat's off to them. >> can you tell us if you expect to close any more khost in your area? can you explain about the trend in violence and how the insurgents are fighting and what kinds of attacks and whether those attacks are on the decline? you seem to be suggesting that their attacks are declining.

>> yes, those cops are very difficult because they are condition-based. as we phase out over the years, some of those cops need to be closed out or transferred to afghan security forces. in the near term, we are not planning on closing any cops. i try to put some fidelity and t's and qualitative analysis as far as the trend itself. if you talk about pure number of attacks, those numbers have been going down in the last eight months. the last eight months average, those numbers have been lower. 50% of those attacks were initiated by us. we were going out there and

doing raids and ambushes and looking to make contact with the enemy. even though we have taken many operations to drive up the number of segments that interactivity, the number remains constant. there is a 50% drop in the effectiveness of the enemy attack meaning they have less trained fighters coming through. many of them are getting killed or captured. they are losing a lot of experience. lately, the trend has been assassination. that is all they can resort to doing to target a vulnerable afghan officials. in addition to that, they have caused a tremendous amount of civilian casualties across the board with their ied's. te uiuse pressure play ied's

ied's and they end up killing a lot of people. even yesterday, we had a meeting with the village elders, that is a tumultuous region in northern paktia. the people were feeling a sense of security. we tried to get some of these people connected to the government. we were attacked by indirect fire. it wounded one local child. that is about all they can do at this stage. we are getting less complex attacks. the suicide threat is pretty high gear. here. you have one or two guys who don't care about civilian casualties. it is easy for them to mix in

among the populace and all but moscow or a school or kill innocent civilians. >> it sounds like you have good and close relations with the pakistani military. can you coordinate your operations with them? if you plan an operation, do you tell the pakistanis that you may be driving in an across-the- board and vacant position forces to stop them? has not gone that far yet? >> i will tell you we have not gone that far yet. i was looking forward to this last fall campaign in which we can do complementary operations. that was part of my campaign goal was to get to that. the goal of the summer was the derailment effort and are pakistani brothers were focused

on humanitarian assistance operations. there is stuff in the works right now and that will be one of the topics that we will discuss next week at this conference, to be able to do complementary operations. up north in other provinces, last year, the fourth infantry division was able to reach complementary operations. that is what we are trying to replicate down here. we can do better with that but we are looking forward to more cooperation with pakistani forces. >> the successor unit will probably be doing that sort of thing? >> i did not get the last question. >> the unit that follows after you will probably be doing, o

lemoyne 3ps? complementary ops? >> yes, my plan is to work with afghan security forces and a pakistanis to plan the first 90 days of the follow on task force which would include complementary operations. i made positive and optimistic person. i am looking forward to be able to do that where we can gain good effect across the board. >> to follow the k about thhakani network -- to follow a about the hakani network, how is their financing? can you quantify that? you have deaths -- described the

fighting in kinetic terms and how much you have been able to take insurgents of the battlefield. how much of that is involved in removing the financing? >> that is a very good question. we have been trying to get after the financing stream. that is difficult to do. in afghanistan, the use an informal system called the hawallis. it is hard to track the money because it is all done with paperwork and a series of complex transactions between individuals. one of the ways we have been able to mitigate threat financing is a more judicious application of how we contract projects and how we manage that from the inception to the end.

unfortunately, several years ago, that was one of their venues for them to be able to enable these projects and we are doing an effective job providing oversight and supervision over these projects. >> could to quantify how much you have in funds a year disposal? -- at your disposal? >> can you repeat the question? >> funds at your disposal. >> i can tell you what we have committed here in the different provinces. i have a broken down in front of me. we have about $42 million of ongoing fund in paktika.

we have completed about $25 million worth of projects in paktika. elsewhere, we of $20 million of ongoing projects. $49 million in completed projects. a lot of it has been on education, health care, roads. the funding is out there. one of the things i had to do when i first arrived in theater is look at the judicious application and responsible and be good stewards of our funds. the money is out there. we have been trying very hard to have transparency. we have been trying very hard at the provincial level. with the development plan. we have that down at the district level. we will be getting -- we are

beginning to of elders from villages participate in the project nomination process. it is for the people, through the people. in iraq, we were tracking a body amount of dollars spent. i never really liked that. i think -- you are able to provide -- the problems in districts can use this money and project to provide for their own people. >> with that, will turn it back to you for any closing remarks that you care to make. >> ok. i like to thank you for the opportunity to talk about what our partners have accomplished here in the paktika khoanadd kht provinces. we're anticipating the approval

of the third grade -- the third brigade. i've known the colonel for many years. he is an outstanding soldier and a leader. his team has been waiting for this mission throughout the last year. the gains in here are fragile and reversible. we will make sure that we have campaign continuity for task force duke. they have the professionalism to capitalize on the work we have started here. i am confident they will continue in our footsteps and also forge new paths from which the people can take charge of their own destiny. i also wish to thank my soldiers and their families. the task force cannot have accomplished all without the support of our nation, our friends, and their families. we miss being home for the holidays. i will tell you to a man and woman my soldiers are proud to

be serving in our nation, particularly in the tumultuous region of afghanistan during the most critical period in our nation's history. i am proud and humbled to be serving with these fine men and women. thank you for this opportunity. best wishes to you in the new year. armstrong. -- army strong. >> congress gavels in a week from tomorrow. tonight, discussions and conversations with outgoing and incoming members. the outgoing congressman from michigan and his successor, the seating at 6:30, fall by the

outgoing minnesota representative, jim oberstar. primetime, 8:00 p.m., will look with ken starr about executive power. that is at 8:00 p.m. at 10:00 p.m., q&a with john burns. garrison keeler talks about humor later tonight. all that getting under way tonight, on c-span. >> sunday, the grand public places and those only available to the justices and their staff. you'll hear about how the court parts from all the current supreme court justices, including elena kagan. learn about some of the recent developments. the supreme court, home to the highest court, caring for the

first time in high definition on sunday, ion c-span. >> a movement called no labels. it will expand to all 435 congressional districts in the coming year. founding members of the group and david brooks joins michael bloomberg, charlie crist, and michael castle to talk about proposals for electoral change. the conversation is just under two hours. >> please welcome our panel.

[applause] it is important before we begin -- with knowledge a conversation at the start about a year ago with a handful of people has led to this room that today it will soon be 1000 people from all 50 states, republicans, democrats, and independence, a word-of- mouth only, brought together and united by a simple idea -- no labels, which means never give up your label. just put it aside so we can do what governments should do and solve problems and find common sense solutions. today, we met the first test. they said it cannot be done. they said you could not bring it together. but today, it is not true.

in my 25 years, i have never seen more interest for any project i have ever worked for. so today -- [applause] this becomes your movement. 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 forward to working with all of you. [applause] >> just take a minute to look around this room and take some pride in what you have accomplished today. this is the way change always

begins in america. not from the top down, but from citizens up. that is what you're doing here today. nobody sent you here today. you sent your cells. nobody paid for you to come. you are here on your own dime. the view braved a blizzard to get here. this is as precious as today but as old as america. this is the way the country has changed. this is the with the feature has been built. in the past century, both political parties were transformed from the bottom up over and over again, starting with progresses. 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-work movement, the pro-choice movement, the religious right -- the list goes on and on and on. and now it is time to do it again. we have been brought together by a shared concern, a politics that have ceased to work for america. we are sick of that politics. we are sick of the politics that meyer citizens and their elected leaders in endless debates. we want politics the brings us 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. it is a much larger country. a year, this group will be

multiplied tenfold, what hundredfold, 1000 falter with your leadership, this entire country will be organized and elected leaders could do the right thing will get your congratulations, your encouragement, your support. those who do not, will be called out. not by me but by you. let me leave you with a thought that has become an unofficial motto to this movement. the words of margaret mead. never 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 are here today, republicans, democrats, independents, from all 50 states

because we believe that hyper partisanship is hurting our country. that is getting in the way of our solving the serious problems we face. and the professional polarizers seemed to be preaching a message of division. we know as americans it is not true. it is out of our essential traditions. and we're trying to reaffirm the basic message -- out of many, one. by showing up here today, you have shown there is a conviction. this is a place of passion. we understand that the politics of problem-solving is what moves our nation forward. peachtree important we have seen leads to gridlock and division. who there is a drum beat out there that we're pushing up

against. this is a rebellious project that we're all engaging in today. it is so counter-cyclical. impulses to drive people out of parties. party purges. there is this idea that walking in lockstep with a party today is courageous. the last time i checked, it was conformity. that is cowardice. we have to start streaming up. being in the change we want to see. we can do it. we have the numbers. our politics have been hijacked by a small number of folks on the extremes on either side. but we can do it. we can add support to those of political people who have the courage to reach across the aisle. we're going to play offense.

we will create a political action committee to play in these primaries, to start standing up for the vast majority people who seem disenfranchised. many of us are from a different generation. we're going to start advocating for a general responsibility in politics again. that will be a great change. [applause] there is a great flak it shows a snake -- there is a great flag that shows the snake that says, "do not tread on me." flag showingklin's

a snake cut up into 13 parts. "join or die." that is the flag we need to rally under. [applause] >> welcome to our woodstock of democracy here. [laughter] this is so exciting. we get asked about this effort. people say there is always been partisanship. there has always been poisonous environment in our politics. the reality is is worse than it has ever been before. it is worse at a time when we face the greatest charges we have ever faced. it is amazing if he spent too much time in washington heights think the whole world operates like washington.

it is different. what we heard people saying at these meetings is that you don't feel like you have a voice anymore in washington. if philip there are partisan voices on both sides of the aisle -- you feel like there are partisan voices on both sides of the aisle. people get punished for good behavior. we know there were partisan times before. we got a lot done by not questioning each other's motives. we do not call the other people the enemy. we did not call them names. when you have a system in which we have today we're literally members of the opposite party never even talk to each other, they do not have lunch together. they never see each other and go home. when you have a system like that, it paralyzes the ability to get together and forge a

consensus. consensus is when we come together and recognize we have differences, build on those differences, and create a pathway for. these are all volunteers here. we care passionately about the problems that we see. we know it will take you to fix and it. it. you can move markets. and i think you will move markets with this effort. politicians respond to numbers. you just have not had a vehicle to express yourself. others have turned to have clout microphones -- they have microphones. you represent the vast middle of america, the majority of america. we're hoping to be a catalyst for you to create a vehicle where we can amplify your voices so we begin to reward good

behavior. thank you for coming. [applause] is the established interest general reflects to be cynical about what we're doing here. they make their profit through conflict. the only thing that changes is if we show them in numbers. we need you to go out and organize in your communities and raise a voice. we're hoping for you to go out and create a ruckus for democracy. we're counting on you. [applause] we want to apologize in the vans. this will be messy today. that is what happens when you have a volunteer effort. i want to thank our volunteers,

pulling this together, getting you all here. [applause] this is a grass-roots, baby. i want to show you a film. democracy is messy, but it is the best we have. here is our film. ♪ >> right now, there's basically no incentive in our political system for people in either party to work together. we are starting to believe that people are on the other side of the aisle. >> our representatives are not putting america first. >> that is dangerous. >> they are not putting solutions first. they are being controlled by their party's. >> the force democrats and republicans to work against each

other. >> we have an absurd situation. we're confusing conformity with courage. conformity is not kurds. it is paris -- it is cowardice. -- conformity is not courage. i am trying to live free be see a man let's get it done to it right -- do it right for america ♪ >> i believe we can fix it. >> we need social movement that

expresses those voices at the grassroots. we have more in common. the parties do not permit that common ground to be expressed very often. >> people are taking sides. we should be putting our country first. >> we will leave our children and grandchildren a more prosperous country. we have to build a pulte 6 that is bigger -- we have to build a politics that is bigger than this pettiness. i wish they didn't have no label there would be more change with no label my kids will grow upper your kids will grow up good schools

mental disability could have made a difference >> if we take away the labels, the folks at the center of the democratic and republican party probably agree with each other more than the extremes of their own party. >> would need to find a new space where people can feel comfortable to get the work done. >> went leaders stand up and do the right thing, there are millions of americans who will stand up and say, keep going. we are here. to not be afraid. we're coming with you. -- do not be afraid. man i'm only one with one voice democrats republicans

people are suffering a wish they didn't have no labels there would be more change with no labels ♪ [applause] >> please welcome award-winning author david brooks. [applause] >> thank you. i cannot believe they talked akon's song over mine. call to a suburban street, 3:00 p.m., watch the eight year-old coming up second grader to have these 80-pound backpacks.

they're getting picked up by their moms who have taken time off to make sure they get into harvard. they have -- they were less than their own children -- they weigh less than their zero children. they drive up in their volvos. it is socially acceptable to of a luxury car. they want their kids to be rich and successful and in light. they take them over to whole foods to get a snack. -- the what do kids to be successful and enlightened. my favorite section is the snack-food section. the have seaweed-based snacks. it is for kids who come on and say, mom, a one is tactile help prevent colorectal cancer -- i

want a snack that will help prevent colorectal cancer. a man is a most emotionally expose what he buys a grill. he may want to roast a by s ison. wallboard over here. cop -- walmart over here. costco, you can get big bags of tater tots. i go to costco and think, who was here shopping for condoms? the quality is so big. [laughter] i wanted to make one point. american society is in good shape. we have the hardest workers, the most productive workers.

we have more patents in this country than the rest of the world combined. we have the same culture we have always had. the country is in good shape, producing fantastic things. .e created taylor swift - i love taylor swift. we have a government that basically does not function. what has government felt that? -- what the government failed at? there is no trust between the parties. no intellectual flexibility to make a deal. no building to work out complicated legislation. no moral authority in washington to ask for shared sacrifice. we failed to -- we're wasting

people because we cannot kept up with educational standards. we need to fix the immigration system so we become a crossroad patient for more congealed world'. all these things have not happened not because people do not want but because of the government is not responding. why is government the way it is? we need to do some redistricting, we need to do some campaign finance. i am a journalist. i cover these people. that is not the main problem. structure is not the main problem. i try to interview three politicians every day. they are pretty good people. they are emotional freaks. that does not matter. my basic impression is we have in a badple stockeuck

situation. relationships in a system that encourages bad character, bad social norms, and bad ideas. people used to derive their identity from their ethnic group or something they have achieved. now the do so from their political party. any sense of compromise becomes a matter of dishonor. we have people suffering from narcissism thinking their side has the entire truth. people are suffering from lazy death. -- people are suffering from laziness. we have people suffering from conformity. we have the intellectual insecurity of people who don't know members on the other side, will not walk across our room to the other side of the senate to actually make some contact.

the life and politics becomes organized from the petty maneuver to when the message of the day. and you get distracted from larger concerns. all human contact in washington is distorted by a terrible system that makes people miserable. what to need? or probably don't need a third party. i don't think this is about a third party. we need a social movement under the parties. we need a code of behavior that creates a constructive competition. the founders or more vicious than we are. they were plenty partisan. but they had a code in which they could reach deals and create the institutions of this country despite the partisanship. we need a code -- [applause] we need a code that celebrates

this sort of people. lindsey gramm -- we need to celebrate people like lindsey gramm. we need and intellectual agenda. if you go to a conservative titter come there are a lot of scholars. if you go to a centrist dinner, it is a bunch of lobbyists. no offense, but that is where the ideas will come from. we have a tradition in this country which is a moderate- centrist tradition. it went on to abraham lincoln and the whig party. to give poor boys and girls a chance to succeed. it created the railroad act. earl warren created the greatest school system in this country. they credit water projects. that is a vibrant tradition that has been dropped from american life.

we need an intellectual revival, as well. [applause] we need institutions. politicians -- president need outside institutions. when the do the orthodox thing, institutions will support them. when they do something on orthodox, there is nobody at their back. we need a social movement. we had move on, we have the obama movement. this is a country that fears national decline. change what is acceptable behavior. this movement needs to be based on a revived patriotism. the mentalities that make washington the way it is our strong and deep and entrenched.

it is love of country that is strong enough to overcome these obstacles. [applause] so we need to ask people if you questions. how can you love your country when you hate the other half of it tipped the love your tax deduction more than you love america's greatness? soldiers and marines are sacrificing their lives. [applause] and so that is the sort of questions we need to ask to change behavior. when winston churchill was about 21, his mother invited a great diplomat who served as ambassador to england. young churchill asked the guy, you have been 20 years, what have you seen?

he said, i 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. what he was describing was a gigantic social change that happened gradually, step-by- step, with both parties contributed step-by-step, day- by-day. in edwardian england, the head politics. but the had constructive politics, where each side contributed to a larger project in reviving the country. each side contributed. it's a good vantage of both sides wisdom -- it took wisdom.ge of both sides'

we need a politics that brings out the best in who the country has always been and not what we have had for the last couple of decades, a system that brings out the worst. thank you very much. [applause] >> please welcome author michael smerconish. >> thank you very much. you're about to hear from a number of elected officials and some citizens leaders who will share with you their thoughts on the need for less labeling. you just heard that i am a syndicated talk radio host. i appear with regularity and cable television. my view is that any move away

from hyper partisanship and toward stability needs to begin with the media. [applause] for a long time, i have said and have written that the climate in washington is being shaped by an artificial presentation of opinions on cable television and talk radio. to view and to listen is to become convinced that there are only two diametrically opposed approaches to the issues and there is no room for nuance. either you offer a consistent presentation or you don't get a say. this approach is rewarded with ratings. ratings are driven by passion and not universal appeal or general acceptance. death comes at a time when informationvoting quar

suggest power could lie in the middle, in the hands for whom no label seems to apply. i often say the only people that i meet who view the world entirely through liberal or conservative lenses are the hosts are pundits with whom i rub shoulders when i do the different programs. when i'm buying gas, when i'm buying groceries, when i'm in a back to school night for our children, i speak to people who defy labeling. the politicians did not take their cues from them. they emulate the world of punditry. when elected, many treat their colleagues to wait a pundit on a split screen. collegiality used to be

commonplace. 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. and that needs to change. [applause] one of your founders, ms. jacobsen, i thought said it very well. no labels is an attitude, not an ideology. i am here.s up why somebody needs to be tasked with keeping time. the only label that fits our next speaker is public servant. dan glickman was a member of the the united states house and a secretary of agriculture under president clinton. secretary glickman. [applause] >> thank you, michael.

thanks to david brooks for what could be it the next preamble to america, which was spectacular. he deserves a hand for that. briefly, i was a democratic congressman from kansas. that is an oxymoron. kansas is the longest-running state that is not elected a democratic senator in a center. i was a democratic congressman curt i went on to the secretary of agriculture. the agriculture department represented in many places some of the most conservative constituencies in america. you learn that you have to have a dialogue with people of different perspectives. then i went not to be the chairman of the motion picture association of america. i used to say the biggest part of the word agriculture was the

culture and that was my qualification. in industry that involves human attitude, emotions, and you have to work both sides of the aisle. now i'm at a place that was started by four senators. try to find bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems. we need a grass-roots movement in the country to give credibility and to provide incentives for political leaders to try to do the right thing. when i was a congressman, being a moderate was critical for me. i always did my best to try to be in that center as much as i possibly could. those incentives are out of the situation today. there were things that were not so good.

there was a much greater incentive to work together in years past, certainly during the 18 years i was in the house. proceeds to pay a tax reform bill, education legislation, things that impacted america. it is not the same as it was before. the country is being hurt by that process. it is being weakened by that process. groups like this that can provide a grass-roots effort to help politicians make this country achieve what the founding fathers wanted them to achieve is just so critical for our call it was daniel burnham, a famous architect who built a lot of the chicago buildings. he once made a very important statement. he said make no little plans, for the day to not have the power to stir men's souls. america is a big plan. our political system has become

a lot less resilient to keep america big. the futures of people in this room and throughout the country are being threatened by political system which does not seem to work as well as it used to. i am not arguing for fundamental change. there is a need for a grass- roots movement to help political leaders to reach across the aisle to seek common ground, to try to find solutions so that america can be the place the founding fathers intended it to be. so we can provide the leadership at home and around the world that we were set up today. the current system of rewards the status quo. the conflict would have becomes personal and results tend not to follow through. i would say to you that i am honored to be here as an old politician that served a long time ago but remembers a system

that was more resilient and a stronger america because of that. i think with new labels helping in places like where i work now of the bipartisan policy center, 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. we will hear from some citizens leaders as well as some voices from social media. the first is from connecticut. darnell goldson. >> good morning. good morning, everyone. i am a city councilman in new haven, connecticut. the democrat by accident of birth.

my house egg -- i have my house beg a couple -- my house eighgga couple of weeks ago. i endorsed a republican. they started calling for my ouster from the party, for mark removal from the city council. they egged my home. it is what has become of our political system. you cannot have a different opinion. you cannot march outside of your party. millable for me is and -- no label for me as a way to express what is good for my city and for my country. i love the fact that this movement has started. i hope that it moves forward. i hope we go back and organize in our areas. i certainly will. thank you for having me.

[applause] >> thank you. hello, kiki. >> we have gone comments today from france from the country who could not have gone here. this is from california. "i have seven children and 10 grandchildren. i want the the united states of america to always be there. we can to better than the agenda driven by partisanship if we look to the vision of our forefathers with the constitution as our guide. i want my country back." [applause] >> thank you, kiki. join me in welcoming the man who is the epitome in thinking. from the great state of south carolina, congressman bob english.

[applause] -- bob inglis. >> that is tall billing. i was in front of a little audience recently. it was one of the most rational crowd response as ever. the speaker said the president might not defend the power of the epa to regulate carbon. the crowd hissed. these people should know better. i was in front of a republican audience. the guy said, the president is so unpatriotic, he doesn't even cross his heart when the pledge is recited. he sat down. i need to say, what would you expect? any of those things would have

done. i decided i would not do that. so i said, "it is just not true. i have been with the president. the president loves his country, loves his wife, loves his kids. i just disagree with him on most everything." in a republican operative came up to me and said, don't give him that. that is our challenge. will have to do is replace this sense of grudging -- what we have to do is replace this grudging compromise. that is to wait for. democrats are into fairness. americans want both. the ties that bind us as a

nation are stronger than the ties that blind us to an ideology. we're here to say that people like me or conservative. we conservatives know how to get things builds. one of that risk must be followed by reward -- we know how to get things built. the great will squash the small unless there are fair rules. a businessman, that god gave us two eyes, one to see the situation from the perspective of another. it wasn't left or right. it was forward. the internet and the pc create enormous wealth and productivity and open up revenue for us to balance the budget in the late 1990's. it would not be left or right, it will be four to reinvent the

car. it would be forward for us to pre-power -- repower our lives, better jobs, cleaner air. i've had the opportunity to be and iraq to see the most amazing people in the world. not the iraqis. they are fine. the americans serving there. i never ask a soldier or sailor whether they're republican or democrats. in a war zone, you're just an american. the least we should be able to give to those willing to serve and die on little else is people willing to die on a figurative political hills are reaching to 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. now we turn to another of our citizens leaders. ms. bonnie davis. >> thank you. i am bunny davis and i'm here because i have two beautiful granddaughters who live in arizona. i implore you to look to arizona 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 conquer us. our state is in it -- is a terrible state. the only thing that is going to save us and save our country is something that is starting

today. we need to get 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 problems so that we can see beyond the trumped-up kind of issues that are so rampant. my beautiful adopted state that i have lived in for 40 years. i'm so thrilled to be here and so happy that all of you have,. please, if you need a context for what we're trying to do here, look to arizona and understand what is going on and you will be plenty motivated if you're not already. thank you turn much for the opportunity to speak to you today. [applause] >> thank you, bunny. returned to the social media world -- return to -- we turn to

the social media world. >> "democrats assume we will support them no matter what. republicans assume we will not make serious inroads. we are a dynamic force. 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 mind as anyone. we're waiting for politicians to show that they can lead." [applause] >> thank you, kiki. next up, our next speaker justwo won a tough race to represent i will for a third term. -- to represent iowa for a third

term difference i am proud to be a democrat from iowa. i am proud i grew up in a no labels house. my father was a republican. my mother was a democrat. somehow they made that worked. when people had a problem in the small town i grew up and come they did not ask if you were republican or democrat. they asked for your help and they got it. that is what is public service is supposed to be about. i am proud to call bob inglis a conservative republican a good friend of mine. it is a tragic we're losing bob from the house of representatives. [applause] i want to tell all these young people sitting behind me that i do not take college students for granted. i have three children who are currently in college. i listened to them every day.

[applause] the most important place i go every day is the house gym. there are no labels in the house gym. i have gone to meet people like bob and i've got to learn about what their families are doing. i find it is much more difficult to demonize somebody 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. i believe that is what most of my colleagues ran for congress. i am proud of the fact that the very first bill the introduced in congress to create opportunities for young people and renewable energy through partnerships with community colleges came about ellis signed

into law by republican president because i had a great bill and i reached out across the aisle to congressman joe bonner from alabama who have the same problems in his district and i had in mind. we work together and got the bill passed and into the farm bill and signed into law by president bush. just recently, before the last election, i have 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. it passed overwhelminly in the house. it was held up by one senator. i could've gotten frustrated. he served in a different chamber per sometimes the difference -- sometimes the distance between the house and senate can be like the difference between new york

and los angeles. a scheduled an appointment with them. 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 don't feel i give up any above writers of the reasons why i ran for congress to make both of those bills happened. in this partisan environment, we all live and, working together to solve tough problems has somehow become a liability for an elected official. the purpose of this conference is to start a spark of 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 but abandoning our principles but by coming together and having a rational, adult conversation

about how we solve complex problems. and that is my challenge to all of you here. people who came together in good will from all over the country, from divergent political philosophies, very different regions with different problems, but came here because they care about their country, they want us to see us move forward, and be able to hold our heads proud as a nation that respect different opinions and yet can come together and in an intelligent way to solve tough problems. the challenge is stock getting any easier. -- the challenge is not getting any easier. money was spent against me in the last campaign. we know this is a tough challenge. we also know this country has never shied away from tough challenges. that is what your presence here today is a strong message that america can still do things the

right thing -- the right way and salt the challenges we face. thank you for having me. i hope you have a great time at the conference. [applause] >> thank you, congressman. now we'll hear from another of our citizens leaders. mr. ken suggs. >> thank you. >> i am reminded of a phrase. "i loved the country but i cannot stand the scene." that is kind of what this is about. bruce had the courage to come here and be bipartisan and which across in try to make things work. i am an attorney. let me bring something to your attention that is important in

this partisan world. 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 and judiciary forcefully integrating the school. these were judges who lived in the community and had tremendous coverage. our federal judiciary is rapidly becoming depleted because people cannot get appointed -- good people cannot get appointed because of the bipartisanship -- because of the partisanship in this country. we have to overcome that. we have got to overcome this meat versus you mentality -- this me purses you mentality. >> we have more reaction. "we must ask our politicians to

look forward degeneration. ask them, what have you done during your term in office to move america forward? have you made america a better place to live? provided opportunities? greeted a happier and a farm for all americans, young and old? thank you." [applause] >> our next speaker advocates for about 4 million americans. we're so honored to have the mayor on hand. please local mayor antonio theoragossa. [applause] -- villaraigosa. >> let me say how proud i am to see so many young people here today. i've had a chance to meet many of them last night. america will be on the right track, will go forward with

young people getting involved in the way that you have. let me say 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 the state capitals around the nation. that we need to do that. i remember when i was speaker of the california state assembly and the first thing i did, a democrat sat on one side of the aisle, republicans on the other, and i said, why don't we set them together? my caucus, my party -- i am a democrat -- were very upset. this said, we won the election. why do we have to sit with them? and i said -- and republican said, of course, why do you want to sit with us? are you trying to get information about our strategy? i said, no, i want us to sit

together because i want us to work together. i want us to figure out -- this weekend we all faced the same challenges, we had to take our kids to soccer game or baseball practice. we had challenges with our 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, the chamber, i said, i learned a lot in the six years i had been in the legislature. i learned that there are democrats i vote with everyday who i would not invite to my home for dinner, and there were republicans who i never vote with, that i would. people are people. i think we are tired of all of the partisanship, in no small part because we know that the problems that people face every single day are not democrat or

republican. they are real problems. as mayor, i am very fortunate that i don't have to be in sacramento or washington, d.c. fixing a pothole on making this city safe isn't it democrats or republicans. it is not partisan. it is something you got to get done. in 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. 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 buy partisanship and talking to one another, it is because we want to get california and america back on track. we want to take on the challenges that we are facing in

the united states of america today. but the other thing i think within this space of no labels that i think we ought to be able to talk about, is the idea of challenging our own orthodoxies. i am a democrat and a progressive democrat. i come out of the teachers' union, as an organizer for seiu for 25 years. i am absolutely committed to a collective bargaining. i am also absolutely committed to our teachers. but when you see in our public schools today that the most powerful defenders of the status quo of the teachers' unions, when you see that in our cities under city's crumbling financial pressure and tensions -- pensions and benefit structures are unsustainable, democrats have to be able to challenge those orthodoxies, just as republicans have to be able to challenge their own orthodoxies. and you see too little of that

going on in america today. [applause] you know, i said, i joked the other day because as much as mayor bloomberg has tried to take over the schools, i tried to partner with our teachers' unions, parents, and teachers, to turn around our schools, to set a high bar for the schools, to change the paradigm of a school system where 50% of our kids are dropping out and 80% of our kids are scoring at the bottom 20% tile. but when you challenge orthodoxy like security -- not saying we should throw it out completely, but that absolute security for transfers -- seniority for transfers, lay off, assignments, cannot be the only thing we look at when we evaluate a teacher. performance of to be important, too. [applause]

that, when in my schools -- and i have taken all the toughest, lowing -- lowest performing schools and los angeles, when i am using -- losing 55% of my teachers because the least senior teachers are the only one to go to these schools, we ought to be about to fix that problem and we ought to be able to not call each other names, you are anti-union, pro-union, but figure out how we fix that problem. when cities like mine have had to face a billion dollar deficit -- $320 million this year, when i make a clarion call, and say for the last three years i have taken a cut of 60%, what about the rest of us? what about we all share in the sacrifice, tighten our belts together so that we can provide police and fire services, that we can keep our libraries open. and 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 one hand that they want to cut deficits and debt and then push us hard to extend income tax to the rich and powerful, to reduce the estate tax. i supported president obama and that compromise, but i'd think it is important for us to acknowledge and recognize that you can't do both at the same time. that you can't go and declare -- go into three wars, as we have, and tell our children to pay for them. that is what we have done. the matter what you think about that war or those wars -- in the history of our country, when we have gone to war, we said to the american people that they have to sacrifice. so, i would like to argue that while, yes, we do need to work together, we need to move away from the vitriol, we need to reach out, democrat and

republican, independent, and take on the challenges that face america, we also got to talk straight to our own constituencies. we got to talk straight to the interest that tie our hands when we want to address the difficult problems that we face. these problems are of a great magnitude, make no mistake. but in the history of our great country, as you heard a couple of times already, we have always been able to take the great challenges on we have been working together. i want to thank the young people, i want to thank all of you for getting behind this effort. this is a conversation that can't just happen in new york. it has to happen around the country, it in kitchen system of in state capitals, in the caucasus, both democrat and republican an independent and socialist i guess is one of them, in the congress. we got to start having this conversation about what we are all prepared to do to all of our sleeves, to get things done, to

reach across the aisle and move america forward. thank you so much. [applause] >> now we have another citizen leader from our host, new york city. please welcome -- >> good morning. i am, like so many of you, tired of bickering and destructive, sometimes violent, always hostile, rhetoric. the rhetoric that keeps us but getting anything done. i grew up outside of washington, d.c., at a time where it did not matter whether you were democrat or republican. what mattered is you were american. country first. not as it has come to be defined, not as something that we used to exclude or to

separate ourselves from our fellow americans, quite frankly. country first meant a commitment to public service, and undisciplined, and net studying, and meant learning come in and being a citizen of the united states. and all of the rights and responsibilities that come with that. country first actually really, truly meant something. it meant, -- to a certain degree, dying to self, to put the values of america forward to move us forward. and so, i one of those people, to be perfectly honest, a little bit on the fence politically and if this is a movement that can remind us once again what it means truly to be an american, what it means to solve problems and move forward, then i am in. >> thank you. kiki mclean as more reaction

from social media. >> brenda from little rock, arkansas. she says the energy and money we spend fighting against one another causes damage to the people within our country and the mets are ability to help on global issues. let us find common ground, let us stop the stagnation and politics and then broke -- build momentum toward 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 gillibrand. senator? >> well, as the senator from new york, and what all. to our great city, our great university. i welcome all the students that are part of this conversation. i can't think you enough for the efforts you are undertaking what this conference. it could not have come in a more important time in our nation's

history and at a time of extraordinary crisis. not only do we have unemployment rate touching nearly 10%, we have a massive debt, a massive deficit, two wars and in national security crisis at every border. it is a huge time of enormous importance in washington as well we have seen it time and time again that people on both sides are measuring success by the amount of bills they blocked as opposed to the amount of solutions defined. we should be measuring our success on how many jobs were created, how many problems we are addressing it is really a time where we need leaders, leaders from the private sector such as yourselves, to really have this call to action to demand by partisanship, coming together and working on solutions and not a partisan bickering that has really become a staple of every political talk show on every evening -- evening news. i really appreciate your dedication to this. it really is a vision for

success. 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 faults on both sides of the spectrum, even tom coburn and i can come together, he wants to ban all earmarks and i like federal investment to create jobs, but what we need is transparency, when it comes to federal investment we need transparency, 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 wrote a bill for a searchable database and we are doing it with john mccain. the lesson i want to leave you with is 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 these problems could not be more important. like every advocacy group in this country, that ability to hold members of congress accountable is so important, it is really missing when it comes to this quality of working toward solutions, this quality of working together on what this country needs. so, i just want to leave you with a great appreciation for what you are doing and a great deal of hope that this is exactly the right direction for america. >> thank you, senator gillibrand. let us welcome another citizen leader, having traveled all the way from the golden state, san francisco, ms. martha desario joins us. >> good morning. i am from california now -- and fact, i live in marin county, and the politics there, if you're familiar with it, are as

low as it can be and i have to sayb tolue as conveyed and it suited me. but after the last election, vitriol, and hyper-partisanship, it really scared me. i see no labels as an opportunity to get beyond that and to move on and get real and face our very serious economic and environmental and health care challenges, to find solutions. i think we are on the crest of a wave -- and we like waves in california, to make a difference and to support leaders who will collaborate, who will work together, and who will help the vast middle to solve these challenges. thank you. >> thank you, martha. >> kiki mclean has more comments on social media. >> mary from iran, pennsylvania.

i am one voter tired of constantly being held hostage by extremists views on both sides. our countries problems are not insurmountable if we work together to find middle ground. we used to here extremist views only during election cycles but now political campaigning seems to be never ending, the posturing also never ending. it can't continue like this. >> thank you. ladies and gentleman, and its speaker has been a longtime fixture in the world of virginia politics, having represented the 11th district in the house of representatives for many, many terms. today, president and ceo of the republican mainstream partnership that gives a voice to pragmatic republicans seeking to put aside labels and work together. will you please welcome congressman tom davis? [applause] >> thank you all for being here today.

i retired from congress and defeated an unindicted two years ago. something i am proud of. committee chairman of government reform committee, chairman of house republican campaign committee, tayside goes, proud of our record. but we start to see have lake -- how labels and pledges were starting to get away. members knowing better the terrified to move because strong individual constituency groups out there might cost them the election. what we have seen, just to address the last comment made by citizens, what we have seen over the last decade or two is the parties have now sorted ideologically, we have seen a new media coming out where there is very little bending over the internet and you have fox or msnbc -- calling it cognitive dissonance, people turning in just to what they want to see to add to the polarization. the campaign finance reform bill and says in a case, money has moved away from political party and out to

political extremes. the money did not disappear. it has just gone out. what you saw this year for the first time is more money spent by interest groups in the political campaigns than the parties and candidates. this has sent chills, i think, down a number of political leaders who are now afraid to block these interests. what has been the result of this? for the last decade, you literally had no good news coming from the federal government to the american people. you had 9/11, two wars, that certainly have not gone as planned, you had katrina, you had this economic meltdown over the last couple of years -- the longest period of sustained unemployment since world war ii. that is what this political system has delivered. then you have to take a look at the deficit, and what does it mean for the future? borrowing this year, second straight year, 41 cents for every dollar we are spending.

that is just unsustainable. it can't last. but when you have one side lining up saying we will never raise revenue and the other side saying we will not cut benefits, it is not everybody, but a number of members signing of a different pledges, it makes it difficult to get to the bargaining table and anything. it is not solving problems. let's take a look at how that money is being spent. we take a look at the federal budget -- you have medicare, medicaid, both -- social security, federal pensions, debt service, which is artificially low now because interest rates are so low. utah led, 60% of federal spending is spent on retirees. -- you total that, 60% of federal spending as on retirees. that means not on education, infrastructure, research and development, the things that will make america strong in the future.

our global competitors are not doing the same thing. they are investing in the future. we are not making these tough decisions right now because, as you said, people are labeled, there are live in this test, pledges, ideological persuasion is that people who come to washington one thing to do the right thing just don't feel that they can do it. that is where you come in. we are going to add a voice to the metal. a call ourselves the radical center, if you have to, the people will look at these issues and care about results, as senator gillibrand said. we care about results. we did not care about the rhetoric. we did not care about ideological purity. i been through all of that in my political career. our political leaders have smart dedicated people. but at this point, they are not being propped up by people like us, but they are being propped up by people on the right or left. what we are doing today is so important for the future, to give our political leaders of the coverage. i can't thank you enough for

being here. i think this is the start of something big. i think we look back and you'll be proud that you will hear today to kick this off. god bless you all. thank you very much. >> thank you, congressman davis. >> we are hearing now from another of the citizen leaders. nate made it here from minnesota. no small feat with the whether you have been hearing about. >> i am here from minnesota with my family, my wife and my daughter. we come from minnesota where purple is not only the color of our home town rocker prince and are minnesota vikings, but purple informs our political conversation. not only diversity of red and blue but inclusiveness when read mixes with blue. i am here to pass on a civic legacy not defined by the shrill, angry voices of the far

left or the far right. we want to give you a legacy of moving a much more important direction forward together with no labels. i want to thank all of you because these are the folks you will be working with. i wanted thank you for what you will be doing in the teacher as well. [applause] >> you are our first no labels family. congratulations. we hope there will be more to follow. from the world of social media? >> chris darnell for which a call -- which a top, kansas. i am extremely frustrated to our countries shift to polarize politics. we 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 and after this next brief part of the program there is time for a leg stretch. perhaps this is most important of all. we have over 300 students having traveled here from 90 colleges across the country to be a part of this movement. [applause] you could argue 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 sexton, politico communications senior at uni, also known as the

basketball team that beat kansas. i am serving as the chairman of the iowa federation of college republicans but i am here today -- amidst finals and snowstorms, in an effort to the board -- avoid the hyper partisanship that has been bred by past generations and give my generation a chance to pursue american solutions ahead of partisan litmus tests. thank you. [applause] >> my name is alexandra, and i am a sophomore at the university of new hampshire. i am president of the unh college democrats. >> my name is nick maria, a junior at the university of new hampshire. leader with campus conservatives. last year i yearunh normal, the first drug policy reform organization on campus --

national organization for the reform of marijuana laws. i like no labels because like our founders we understand compromise is the fuel that drives the engine of american governance and renewal -- and is renewable. [applause] >> my name is kaeeer and i am a sophomore of emerson college -- my name is kerry velez. also part of the organization running start to get young women interested in politics. and i joint -- [applause] and i joined "no labels" so we can move forward, instead of backward. >> my name is charlie, senior at dartmouth college, an editor of "the dartmouth review," celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. i am glad to be here. [applause] >> i am shria massey at ohio

state university, a freshman. i was a originally considering the traditional avenues of political involvement on campus like college democrats and republicans, but i wanted to have a greater impact and also a enjoy the challenge of dealing with different ideas and working with different ideas. i have committed myself to "no labels" for the next four years and beyond. >> we begin our pledge by acknowledging that we are facing the worst job crisis since the great depression, and hyper partisan gridlock in washington threatens to leave us a less prosperous, less equal and weaker america. [applause] >> 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 a loss for the other party. as history has shown, our parties can work together in our common interests. >> today, we are here to take an oath -- i pledge to speak out against hyper partisanship that prevents americans from solving problems that are critical to our nation's future. >> i pledge to work with people whose principles are different than my own, and i will treat my peers with respect. i will listen to them, and as i listen, i will also think about advancing my own ideas. >> a pledge not to denigrate or disparage and a person because of his or her political beliefs, because i believe human beings are bigger than their political labels. >> i plant to demand solutions

from my elected officials, i will call my congressperson, write to my senators, and e-mail my mayor, governor, and state legislators until they listened. >> lastly, a pledge to do what is best for america. our allegiances life first and foremost with the united states and not a particular political party. our future depends on it. at this point, we all ask you to stand and join us in siting 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. >> the we have a round of applause for all the young leaders seated onstage? thank you all very much. [applause]

it is 10:25 a.m. and we will reconvene in 15 minutes. you may stretch. thank you. 'revolution"playing] >> the reason that it exists is that people always act rationally or virtually always act rationally, and if you were in legislature you would not want competition. the natural thing is to want to be able to go from election cycle to election cycle, move your way up toward being president of the united states, which i assume a lot having as

their ultimate objective and not running the risk of being unemployed and going into the private sector, scarcity bejeezus of them. >> no jobs. >> because of their actions, no jobs. so they do what you would expect them to do. they make sure you don't have competitive races. as long as they are the ones that set the standards, i don't think you can expect much change. interesting in new york where ed koch created an organization, got a lot to pledge, state assembly -- if reelected, you will do fair, non partisan redistricting. i hope that they do what ed forced them to commit to, but there is a long history say one thing before you get elected and the voice of the different afterwards. i would be shocked.

>> any way you could add a binding contract? >> know. and at a federal level, you would have to change the constitution. that is certainly not going to happen on a federal level. states would have to change state constitutions. in some places you could do it by referendum -- i gather in florida and california. some places, it would be debated on the courts. when we talk about fair, nonpartisan elections, it is not clear what the definition of fair is -- equal opportunity or equal results? >> fare in the title of your organization -- how do you define it and if you don't mind sharing a little bit how you define the problems and successes you enjoyed? i want to hear from both you and abel -- and talk about how some of these changes may have offered the nature of of the

political problems. >> florida has the distinction of being pretty much the worst 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 legislature is republican. that is due, in large measure, to the way districts are drawn now. i would say the elected legislators feel it is due to the fact that everybody loves them so much. but the districts are drawn in such a way that's however is drawing up the district put to the opposite party voters in a large numbers into a very small number of districts and then put their voters in two -- spreads them out over twice the number of districts.

so, basically that is the way it has been done in florida for years. this year, 63% of the florida voters in a year that was a very unusual year in florida for many reasons, some 63% said we don't want districts that are drawn up for purpose of favoring or disfavor in a political party or incumbents. that, i think, speak very loudly about the mood of floridians. these amendments say districts shall not be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor political parties or incumbents. we now have in the constitution along with that provision, another provision that says that minority voting rights must be maintained. it districts will now have to be compact. presently we have dozens of districts literally that go from 150 to 200 miles,

splintering cities into areas that have very little in common. districts will now have to be compaq and they will have to follow -- compact and follow geographically 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 totally unrelated to the district they are in. there is a lot of reason to think that with fairness in redistricting -- and this is supposed to take the rigging -- >> who is the arbiter of what a fair district looks like? >> it depends. i agree that the legislators think fairness is drawing a district that is going to protect themselves or their

political parties. this new cousins and a provision that we have in florida -- constitutional provision that we have in florida outlaws that paired -- that. 63% of them voted for these amendments. fairness means that a district isn't rigged, not set up either as a republican or democratic district. if, in fact, the district is riggs, you know what that means. it means if it is a democratic 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. if it is a republican district, the same thing. when you have a situation when there is no real competition of ideas in an election, who gets

elected? the person who is either on the far right, if it is a republican district, or the far left, if it is a democratic district. then what happens? when it gets to the legislature, they almost don't 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 their election to people who are on the extremes of their party, and that is who they have to answer to. >> you emphasized some of it. >> the point is well taken. when you have these districts drawn in such a way where it is so skewed for one party to another, depending on the state, you get what you ask for, that type of person, that model, if you will, get elected. as a former republican and not independent, i could speak with some authority at least as it relates to florida.

we are a state of almost 20 million people. 75% of our legislators, republican party in the house and senate. yet, we have 700,000 more registered democrats in florida than we do republicans. what does it tell you? the mayor is much better at math -- they did a very good job of it. >> you have been fighting a version in california. more with the actual mechanism of the primary process. tell us what you have been up to it. >> first of all, i do agree with the redistricting initiatives pushing forward and florida. in california there is 14% voter registration advantage -- democrat versus republican, and they manage to redistrict themselves and keep themselves in power and it is a majority democrats state and california.

we had arnold schwarzenegger who won in an open primary -- a special election. he would have never become governor in california under the close primary system. it would not have happened that i said all along, how do you should -- right now the system, the fox drawing lines for the hands. they have been pretty happy. i have been working on open primary for 14 years. i was a mayor, just like mayor bloomberg, and we had closed sessions and we've discussed pot holes -- not republican pot holes or democrat models. when we went to sacramento, there was a caucus problem. you walk into a caucus and it was how we focus, instead of health care or less taxes, how do we focus on growing the republican party and i am sure the democrats were focused on how to grow the democrat party and no one was focused in

growing california's economy. that is what proposition 14 is important. >> tell us briefly how is it the open primary alters the dynamic. >> sitting in front of a board that says no labels. i think it is a giant step forward. i wish it had been here a couple of years ago. because in california, in 19 days i wrote senate bill 6, which took it to the vote of the people. we amended the constitution. the people voted 55%, starting in 19 days, the people of california will get to vote for their elected officials, whomever they want, everybody is on the same ballot -- guess what? you did not have to put an r or d, your name, ballad entitled, and the top two vote getters, where the best candidates, get to run off and a general election. people get the vote for the

people with the best candidates with three qualities -- open- minded, reasonable, and pragmatic. >> how would the open primary been different in your situation, congressman castle? then i would be sitting next to u.s. senator elect castle. >> hard to say. an interesting question. funny, we only of one member of the house of representatives -- the federal redistricting. we do have state redistricting of the. with a democrat from tennessee, i have introduced legislation to do exactly what we are talking about here, to have fair redistricting -- throughout the united states of america. there are some incredible districts. my staff has been preparing for this, talking about the 17th district in the illinois, which i do not know a lot about, but apparently drawn right along a river and it is in and out, 10 yards wide, 100 yards why you're

in there, houses are excluded. that is the way unfortunately reapportionment occurs at the state and federal level. i am delighted to hear what has happened in florida and delighted the lieutenant governor has led the fight for the open primary situation. i was in a premiere in delaware -- sometimes i cry when i revisit this issue. i was in a primary in delaware and heavily favored to win, and even to win the general election and in the tea party came in and spent a great deal of money. it took advantage of low turnout of republicans. it was not an open primary. i would have been better suited to an open primary. i had mixed feelings. parties exist for a reason, so i can understand the argument that they should be closed primaries. but i could see now much more

clearly september 14 the possibility of open primaries. then i think he got a bit careful -- two things, open elections and than redistricting. a lot of the redistricting is there because they copied the u.s. constitution. the constitution as two houses, when it is proportional to population and one, every state its two votes, period, the matter whether it is populous or not, small, urban, whatever the case. a lot of people would argue that is the right way to do it and the founding fathers had that in mind. remember, the founding fathers when they all originally wrote the constitution, basically was male, white landowners are the only ones who had the vote. not the good old days -- that is where the history is. in america, ethnicity is a very

important thing. the courts would say repeatedly, if redistricting takes away the number of the seats of deafness, a, b, c, it is not fair. you cannot have it both ways saying we will not look at anything or we are going to look -- >> you bring up and interesting points about white male landowners, which is the ideals of the constitution laid out originally, obviously fell meaningfully short of that at the outset and over the past few hundred years there has been an ongoing moral and systematic progression to expand the basic premise of the quality -- a >> much more democratic and fair today than we used to be. >> without question. what i am saying is what is the next layer in that progression? having, as far as we have already come -- is it better fought in redistricting, better

fought and primary reform? you were talking constitutional issues -- >> when i first came into office i supported with a lot of money and attempted to change new york city's primaries to open election. we were resoundingly beaten. the city is overwhelmingly democratic so you think republicans would be in favor of it. no, they were not in favor of it, either. as a matter of fact, given the results it is hard to find anyone in favor of it. a since then, a lot of good government groups anguish have done and and i ask, where were you back then. if you want to have something that is totally open, i did not have a problem if it you can display r and d next to your name as long as everyone can put your name on the same ballot. our next your election in 1130 days, close to that, is going to

have six or seven candidates probably. it will be all democratic -- democrats are so overwhelmingly democratic. rudy and myself, not withstanding. 3%, 4%, 5% will put it -- put each of the two candidates in a run off and most people feel totally disenfranchised. >> i think redistricting is important and i do not want to degraded -- degrade it. even if you have a fairly districtsy -- if the of a midterm election where voter turnout is low or, you still have to go to the right to win the republican primary and go to the left to win a democrat primary. it does not take the partisanship out. if you put an open primary coupled with redistricting, now we are rolling. as mayor bloomberg talk about, you can put r or d -- we have

that in california, an open primary in 1998 were used all had to putt r and d -- what we did in california this year is we ask the voters, you know what, give the choice to the candidate to put the r or d, and that will pass constitutional muster with the supreme court and we can move forward. i think that is the game changed. coupled with redistricting. because politicians today -- think about it, you want to unite the republican and democrat party together, introduce an open primary initiative. they hate it because you are accountable to party -- now every elected official running for office better have a message for november because if it is only for june, you are going to lose because in california to democrats running against each

other -- one of the wind will be able to get independents and republicans. [applause] >> if everybody does not want it, it the incumbent political power structure does not want this -- is not what redistricting, this not want open primaries, can a line like this on a bipartisan plan to make it not happen, should it not mean that that should be at absolute top of the list of the problem? they are telling you what is most valuable to them. they are telling you that what is most sacred and where it to be a threat and would truly compromise the power structure and the american people saying we are not happy the way the power structure is functioning and it does not function and a fair and competitive way.

but nothing else, it is this like a scientific experiment to figure out what variable really matters. we found the variable that matters. at what point and what would it take, in your opinion, to organize not just in florida, california, and new york, but using a platform like the one being discussed here today with no labels, a coalition that can have a very clear, very easy to understand, very easy to understand, very easy to understand -- i am emphasizing that because without that you are doomed -- mechanism. >> you have to do what was the and florida. by advocating fairness, that is exactly what she did in terms of redistricting as it relates to congressional and state district in florida going forward. over and over and over again, market that in an effective way that talks about the and

announced that go to the ballot. you go straight to the people, not to the party bosses, but straight to the people in florida and in the overwhelmingly passed it not by 50% but by 63% because we have a higher threshold for amending the constitution and ford. in -- in florida. and the advocate no labels and you talk about the country before the party. you talk about the people instead of the party bosses. as i travel through florida, one of the most diverse states and the country and you talk about what people want for the future of florida and america, what they by and large talk about is they want people who are fiscally conservative, spend money wisely, as the mayor has done very successfully in new york, but also socially moderate, leave me alone. we are an independent bunch of people. if we provide good education with accountability, good defense on the national level that the congressman fought for, and just search for common sense, these things would have

been and america will be stronger for it. >> the governor points out several funds. we put together in florida a coalition of what used to be good government groups and they are almost obsolete today, right? but all of the organizations that fought for their districts were non-partisan and the supporters of their districts were non-partisan, obviously, since we got 63% of the votes in florida. but but -- but the campaign against -- and this relates to the no label concept -- the campaign against the two amendments was to try to label them as left wing, left- leaning, liberal leaning power grab is. i am pleased to report we really

had success by having a substantive amendment that actually says in its language, the voters saw when they went to the polls, which actually says districts shall not be drawn to favor or disfavor a political party for an incumbent. voters saw through that. but it was a very ugly and palatable -- powerfully stated campaign against, trying to label these non-partisan amendments and make them appear to be partisan in nature. >> to the extent to which you are able to model any sort of effectiveness, whether california with open primaries or florida with redistricting, what are the barriers to scale any sort of effective solution that may exist on a state or county level that then can be brought into and adopted in to a larger and larger sphere.

you are frustrated because you would love to do some of these things and you run into all sorts of barriers. what could be done to celebrate, amplified, or better understand what people are doing that is successful in this regard so the pressure to scale it into place perhaps more resistant to it, starts to division -- diminished. >> one thing that occurred to mirror -- may is it is not clear whether the average voter wants what all of us are advocating. if you look at what happened in the u.k., the liberal party was the darling of the press, everything focus the liberal party, and, yes, they were the kingmakers, but that camera in but they lost half a dozen seats in this last election. in the end when you have an independent candidate -- not always, but almost always -- it is the two major parties that get most of the votes. it could be that many people think the independent candidate would not win and what the lesser of the two evils, but it

is not clear the average person feels themselves disenfranchised or once a lot of the things we advocate. >> at the same time, if you look at statistics of the american view of politicians, statistics on income and a power structure -- >> throw the bums out, and then vote for them. i do not like the postal service but i love my postman. for a lot of it is name recognition. a lot of it is ethnic familiarity, solidarity. a lot of it is just lethargy. you don't bother to vote -- you help one guy or woman or another. i come back to how far the 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 lot better today where virtually everybody in

theory is and franchised -- enfranchised -- you can argue at the margins. in generally the most everybody has a vote. >> i want to change the tone for a moment. in terms of the funding of campaigns, and the fact that more outside money was poured into these campaigns this year than the candidates themselves. this has become a huge problem. i have the pleasure of introducing something called the disclose act last year -- [applause] well, it got me into a lot of political trouble. basically, citizens united case and the supreme court that said corporations and labor unions and even non-profits could contribute more directly to advocacy for candidates in this country. three or four or five of us

said, fine, and we introduce this legislation, two republicans and a group of democrats co-sponsored. basically it said if you are going to make these contributions you need to disclose who your chief executive officer is and your 10 largest contributors are. politicians do it anyway. political parties. so we felt they should do it. they brought it to the floor and it passed the house of representatives narrowly. there were two republicans voted for it -- i was one of it and a fellow who co-sponsored the novel for it but another did, and 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 out there. i think it needs to be addressed in any way we can. you have the outside groups coming in and getting involved, not even going through political parties or candidates. that is a problem. even in this room we have people

advocating the public financing of campaigns. small donations multiplied by something -- that is something we need to be considering in america today. we need to clearly deal with that particular problem. one other quick point that was made earlier today, too, and that is the influence of the political parties in the caucasus, particularly in washington, d.c. i did not know if i felt that as much in delaware. in washington, it is incredible the influence of the republican and democratic party. they will get you in a conference of the caucus meetings and say you got to vote for this, you have to oppose president obama because that will get republicans elected, and they will for the send out whips to put you in the position of the will to stand up and say, no, i am not good to vote that way, something that is lost. i say both parties. there are more political votes

-- doing anything that is meaningful, and then the complete choking when it comes to deficit reduction and dealing with some of the major issues -- environment and other things. there are significant problems with how washington in particular operates right now. >> talking about reform, congressman castle talked about it. nothing good can come out for a reasonable pragmatic person in a republican caucus. i just know that. you go in there and you start to listen -- we've got to do this and that, and no one is talking about the budget. republicans don't want revenues, democrats, they don't want to cut. there are three ways to balance the budget. you can cut, raise revenues, or you can borrow. if you do not want to do any of the three, no leadership. they use this labeling to stand behind the leader -- if my

leader does not want me to do that, we are getting nowhere. comprehensive immigration reform. nobody wants to touch it. my father crossed the border in 1963. his son is lieutenant governor. republicans should own the issue. they are afraid. that is why we need to open the primaries and redistricting. >> i will leave it on this. this country is based on a tremendous number of ideals tied to fairness and equality that have never -- as yet to completely manifest themselves. however, if you look at the amount of effort -- i was up at seneca falls i guess on friday or late last week. in addition to the town upon which -- "it's a wonderful life" was based and also with the first women's suffrage meeting occurred, and at that time women were considered property, it was ok to with them as long as the

whip was narrower than the width of your -- with of your thumb. those people worked against those types of oppressions, which is so much more violence is so much more president -- present, and it took them 70 years, from 1848 up through, again, their ability to vote. organization,s the panel, and this particular conversation about the electoral fairness and reform is simply the latest chapter in an ongoing contest that has been ever present between the desire of self preservation among all individuals and disruptive aspects of change that caused those trying to preserve themselves to find themselves in a threatened position. for that reason, it should not be as frustrating as many of us

find it to be, that this is finding as much resistance as it does. it is natural and conversation like this comes into a tremendous amount of resistance. i think it also goes to some of this ability narrative, because if you are accepting of the fact that resistance to this kind of change is a natural occurrence among human beings, then that frustration will not enjoying it to respond with a level of aggression or frustration if you understand those things and understand that there are obviously -- as you can see of this panel, and i can assure you a fraction of the people of this country pretty much in favor of the idea that exists here. i cannot think of five of you and of not only for being here today but gimme me the opportunity and honored to be able to manage a conversation with the five of you. it is cool. and i got to wear my sneakers. >> thank you very much. [applause]