are driving has no reverse gear. it must be recognized that a vote for unity would not be a guaranteed -- would not be a guarantee of no renewed conflict with outstanding issues, none of which have been resolved since the conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement in 2005. should china proceed energy sources are being compromised by american support for southern independence, there is a good chance this could drive a downward spiral inspile chinesen relations. given the wide ranging economic, political, and security ramifications of a new conflict in sedan, the current -- karen car bombs over yemen and airport pat downs pale as security issues compared to the ticking time bomb in the nile basin. thank you. [applause]

>> that was certainly scary. i think we have time for only a couple of questions. i want to be mindful of the next panel at 3:00 on yemen. perhaps we could take one or two questions, and i also encourage you, if you have a follow-up question and you do not get a chance to ask it, get in touch with a panelist directly. a question from this gentleman here. >> thank you. i'm with the canadian government. thank you for three excellent presentations. my question is i think mostly for jean-luc and dario. the french people were informed that the french people are to negotiate for the hostages with osama bin laden directly. could you give me your assessment of whether this

potential sea change in strategy from doing hostage-taking for ransom, versus doing hostage- taking for global jihad? could this lead, for the tensions within the group, focused on the regional agenda versus the focus on the global jihadi agenda? what does this tell us about the relationship between -- and also the level of difference of aqm congress and the senior leadership. thank you. >> well, the french prime minister has made a very strong statement about that. he said there is no way that the french authorities will do that. number two, it is almost impossible to negotiate with osama bin laden since we do not have a way to have a communication with him. so i think that was mostly

rhetorical coming from the aqm. after that, i think one of -- one lady has cancer, so the -- she has been provided with some medication, so this means there is some direct, whatever, connection. frankly, i do not know anything about that, and i do not want to know too much about that, either. but i think at the political level, that is the most stupid demand, frankly. a nonsense demand. >> actually, it seems to me a sort of desperate attempt to regain a bit of protagonist they

are no more in control of the affections in the south. moreover, if you want to give you the possibility, at least you should provide a telephone number, for example. i do not think it's easy in this kind of situation. >> this gentleman over here. >> this is for jean-luc and dario again. any indication of any cells inside europe engaging on a lower-level distribution on a consistent basis? >> well, frankly, there is a lot. a few weeks ago, a few days ago,

there was an american citizen arrested in barcelona for doing some stuff that he bought for -- but again, there is no membership card. we are not talking about the scandinavian political party or about the tea party, either. the only connection that can be for sure is who has contacted who in intelligence things. but in many ways the gia, the old name of the group in europe in the 1990's, is still more or less there, still remaining networks. the guys have recently a few years ago been freed, so these guys can sometimes have connections. so that is moving, but you can say by definition, they were in

canada a few years ago. you have a nigerian community in the u.s., so maybe it is also here. but that does not mean that they have threats capacity. they also have the self -- i do not believe in the concept, but let's say guys who are particularly sensitive to the aqm, so everything is moving between the gia and now at times. there was this guy who was condemned to rot in jail. now he is out, so he is probably under scrutiny by the french intelligence, but he is freed and working in a french public library. so that is --t,

so that is gray, fuzzy, but that is the way it is. >> i can talk about what is going on in italy because in the past three months there have been different allegations about the presence of cells collaborating with, in my city, with local criminal gangs. but still, the amount of information released from the public authority -- again, i think it is -- ok, this is the next presentation. if i decide to turn jihadi and failed to carry out an attack in

naples, and someone in the forum said he has been trained in islamic naghreb -- it's all so, i do not know, liquid defined. >> fluid. >> yes, fluid. it cannot see the borders between membership and non- membership -- you cannot see the borders between membership and non- membership. the intelligence services, they used to say on the most -- on a monthly basis. but still, they can be dangerous if there can be a sort of someone who can tell them what they should do. but i do not think there is this kind of problem right now in europe.

>> thank you very much. i'm sorry, but we are out of time. we have taken up your coffee break, in fact. please join me in thanking andrew and jean-luc and dario. [applause] >> tonight on c-span, at 8:00 eastern, a forum on african- americans in the current economy and the obama administration. marc morial and former president you price. at 9:30, q&a. the former member of parliament writes for "the times of london." after that, a discussion on terrorism threats in afghanistan and pakistan.

that is at 10:00 eastern. this weekend on c-span3's american history tv, joy beasley on the recent discovery and excavation of 200 year-old slave quarters, and of the congressional black caucus marking its 40th anniversary. with yvonne brathwaite burke. see the complete weekend schedule online at c- span.org/history. or you can also press the c-span alert button and have our schedule emailed to you. onpan's original documentary the supreme court has been updated. sunday you will see the grand public places and those only available to the justices and their staff. you will hear about how the court works from all the current

supreme court justices, including the newest justice, elena kagan. also, learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, airing for the first time in high- definition sunday at 6:30 eastern on c-span. >> you're watching c-span. every morning is "washington journal," a live program about the news of the day. during the week, watched the u.s. house and our continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. every week night, a congressional hearing on -- hearings and policy forums. you can see our signature programs on the weekends. "the communicator's," prime minister's questions from the house of commons. it is all searchable on c- span.org on our video library.

>> now, the launch of a new organization that describes itself as a movement to unite americans of all political affiliations. it is called no labels, and organizers say it will expand to all 435 congressional districts in the coming years. with msnbc's joe scarborough and former presidential adviser david gergen, and former senators evan bayh and joe manchin, this is about an hour. >> let's bring out our panel, shall we? >> say something. >> good morning, everybody. >> are you right here? >> there should be four of them. there they are. good morning, everyone. it's still morning, 6:00 in the evening for you. but otherwise it is morning. our topic is hyper partisanship

in -- our first panelist is david gergen. the director for the center for public leadership at harvard's kennedy school of government. he began his career in public service in the nixon white house back in 1971. as staff assistant on the speech writing team, becoming director two years later. is that not right? >> shorten it. >> he went to become director in the ford and reagan administrations, also serving in the clinton administration and adviser to the 1980 george h. w. bush campaign. >> you left out grover cleveland. >> good lord. we will go back there. and former senator evan bayh. during his tenure, he has written legislation calling on

congress to fully implement the 9/11 commission's recommendation, helping to close the tax loopholes that help companies set up p.o. boxes overseas and avoid u.s. taxes, and cast a tie-breaking vote to advance credit card reform. he also spearheaded the creation of a third way, an organization on developing common-sense legislation -- legislative solutions, in addition to funding the moderate democrat working group. he served two terms as governor of indiana prior to his election to the senate. >> we refer to that as "the good old days." >> joe manchin, right here to my right, elected -- [applause] elected to the united states senate to west virginia last month, and prior to his election he served as the governor of west virginia. during his five-years as governor, he led the effort to

pay down $1.7 billion in unfunded state liabilities and cut the food tax in half, saving west virginia consumers millions of dollars. [applause] under his leadership, more than 240 companies either expanded or have moved to his home state. he previously served in the west virginia house of delegates and as the state's attorney general. to my left, joe scarborough. >> all right. >> serving as a member of the u.s. congress -- is this the young republicans club? >> there are three of them out there. not here, not today. >> he was a member of the judiciary committee and the armed services committee, also part of a small group of republican congressman "the

national journal" said had a surprising amount of power given their youth and lack of years in congress. that is a nice way of putting it. his 2004 book "rome was not burned in a de" could -- predicted the collapse of the republican party. his recent book, "the last best hope" predicted that the democratic party's nasa's spending would not revive the economy. today he is host massive -- let's start at the panel. let's not call any names. david gergen, we will start with you because you have been around the longest, obviously. [laughter] >> your day will come. and that you have worked with president on both sides of the aisle, so is hyper partisanship

worse than ever, scale of one to attend? >> scale of 1 to 10, it is about 15. it is a lot worse than it was. i have reached an age, my son takes may -- my son tells me it takes me an hour-and-a-half to watch zero quote 60 minutes." i came to washington in the early 1970's, and the world war ii generation was running things. it was a very civic experiment, and almost to a person i found that they consider themselves strong democrats or strong republicans, but first and foremost, strong americans. so the country usually came first. richard nixon, for whom i worked, told me shortly before he died at one of his proudest moments in politics came early on in his career, about where joe manchin is now going to washington.

he was part of the world war ii generation that came back and took off their uniforms, and he ran for congress as a republican in 1946. that was a year big republicans -- that there was a big republican sweep that took the house and the senate. harry truman was really down at the polls. he saw in 1947 that europe was going to hell. he asked his secretary of state, george marshall, if he would have it under his name, which became the marshall plan. it was very unpopular. harry truman brought in a lot of republicans to help break the marshall plant richard nixon said one of his proudest moments came when the marshall plan came to a vote. he stood on one side of the aisle in favor of the democratic plan, and on the other side of the aisle was another freshman

standing up in favor, john f. kennedy. he said the important thing in american politics is that when the chips are down, we stand up together. that was the spirit of the world war ii generation, and that spirit has been badly lost in recent years. >> it has -- but i wonder if some of the worst of it is in the echo chambers, and that america does not reflect what we are seeing on television or hearing on the radio. there is a media component to hyper partisanship, and there have been worse days, have been there? >> i do not know. one of the most fascinating things that i have heard on our show was when pat buchanan and tom brokaw started talking in 2009 during the health-care debate about how bad things have gotten. i said you guys covered the civil rights struggle, 1968 when

chicago was on fire. that was as bad as it could have got, right? both of them said this is much worse. it is interesting now. when i talk to survivors of the clinton administration and the gingrich, risks -- and the gingrich congress -- despite how ugly things got in the 1990's, which talked-about how when the chips were down, we had to do the right thing. we balance the budget, grew the economy. did a lot of positive things together. i think that is before the hyper partisanship really got fuelled by a lot of the new media components. i am not saying that it is the

responsibility of blockers to be more tactful when they are in their basement eating cheetos at their mother's house, writing things about leaders. it is terrible getting cheetos stains on your mac book knowing what to filter out over the past 56 years, washington has not done a good job -- over the past five or six years, washington has not been a good job distinguishing between the crowd noise -- the ground noise. there is a media company that we did not have during the clinton administration. >> an hour show, if i may, has been kind of a breakthrough in the -- and our show, if i may, has been kind of a breakthrough.

it's not personal, and that is the bottom line. we haven't got coming senator and an -- we haven't outgoing senator and an incoming senator. >> still idealistic, but looking for a different role. >> well, tell us why. i would like to hear from both senators why you are here today, because this obviously resonates with you and is something that you think we need as we move forward. >> i have the perspective of someone who kind of grew up in public life by virtue of my father's service. i think we search in vain for a golden era of comity in american politics. it has always been rough and tumble, but there is no question it is worse today than it was before. my father tells the story in 1968, running for his first reelection, the republican

leader comes up to my father on the floor of the senate, puts his arm around his shoulder, and asks what he can do to help with his re-election. this would never happen today. so it was different in those days, and there are a number of reasons why things have changed. i guess my message is, and the reason i am here today, there are gathering challenges that will define the future, which is unaddressed, meaning that my children will inherit for me -- will inherit from me and america that is in some ways less than what we inherited from our parents. i feel a deep moral responsibility to not let that happen. [applause] the current political process is not delivering the results the american people want. the unfortunate part is that the vast middle, particularly where i am from, some other places,

they do not care what party you belong to, what ideology you subscribe to. they want practical progress, which can also be good politics. my party two years ago won independence. this last election, they lost independence by 14%. they want something better, and this organization can deliver it. i think we will make a remarkable contribution to public where frere -- to public welfare if we can do that. to all those of you who are yearning for a place you can go for a better approach, this is it, but we also have an inside audience. those that say i have the far left and far right, and if i state that out i will get shot from both sides. now there is a movement that will support you in doing the right thing. that is very important.

[applause] >> while i sit here with a sign that says "no labels" behind me, was i wrong to label you idealistic? we were talking about some things that are surprising about how separate the parties are when they try to work together. >> in the legislature in west virginia, i was in the house of delegates, became secretary state and then governor. i have been in washington for three weeks. november 15, as i ran for the uninspired seat of robert c. byrd -- at 12:00 on november 15, at 12:01 i resigned. so i had four hours of transition. the first week i was labeled as a conservative and a liberal. >> that was a good day.

>> i told joe my first observation during my first armed services meeting and committee meeting, and we're listening to the joint chiefs of staff, and i look around and i am thinking here is the chairman, then john mccain, second ranking, but then when have passed then we have all the republicans -- but then we have all the republicans on one side and all the democrats on the other side. in committees in west virginia, we all sit together, pal around, talk. i am talking to republicans and my friends on both sides. we start building relationships. this system right now, what i have risen -- what i have observed is designed to push us apart, not bring us together. it is who has the most money for what you can not do for americans.

they put party first, government last. i was going to put my country first, let the rest fall where it may. and you all have given us the vehicle to do it. >> we also want to talk about how we can get the two existing parties talking again. >> the tea party had a movement because -- in my little state, people do not believe you can spend yourself to prosperity, that you can just spend more money. things are tough, we're having a hard time, the kids are having a long time, but the kids are having a hard time, so we will go out and spend more money and it will be better. they do not believe that in west virginia. >> i wrote a column in "politico" a month ago that made a lot of my republican friends

very angry and a lot of my democratic enemies very angry. i made the overall point that nancy pelosi is going around saying elect democrats, the future of our democracy is resting on it. then you have republican leaders saying, and socialism, elect republicans -- end socialism, elect republicans. at the end of the day, there is not that much difference. the bottom line is we had a deficit commission that worked forever to try to pay down $4 trillion in debt. it got voted down, and then the next week and both parties got together and agree to a $1 trillion stimulus plan. what is really a second stimulus plan. this is what america -- you have seen it time and time again -- everybody is pointing and

screaming and yelling, calling out the other side. quietly, they are all working together to get us deeper and deeper into debt. it's a charade. it is a sham. >> david gergen? >> i think all of us are discouraged by what we see in washington, but there are examples where government is working and people are working across the aisles. it happens in cities and states. here in new york city, mayor bloomberg has made a lot of progress, especially in schools and a lot of other things, creation of jobs. [applause] i think chicago has been an extremely well-run city. we have two former governors sitting on the stage. both of use -- both of you had to learn to work across. i am sure it is satisfying to be a governor in some ways because

you can actually get some things done. >> the sitting senators who are former governors are the most depressed people on earth. >> they thought it was an upgrade. >> something that joe said, and i do not know what it's like in the senate, but i can tell you that in the house you get assignments based on not only the money you can bring it to the party, but also how loyal you are. it is kind of like the sopranos. you don't get credit for being loyal to the family 95% of the time. >> there are some institutional reforms that ought to be made involving the filibuster and other things. if i could change one thing, it would be caucuses. it is almost tribal. democrats have lunch together. we do not eat with the republicans. we have policy meetings where we never discuss issues with the republicans. in my 12 years, there have been three times that we have sat down to actually listen to one another.

the first was when president clinton was impeached. there were no rules. we gathered in the old senate chamber, listened to each other for three or four hours. finally teddy kennedy on the left and phil gramm on the right said to hammer this out. number two, three days after 9/11, the senators when they got back to washington gathered in the senate dining room. nobody was thinking like a democrat or republican. we wanted to protect the country. that lasted for about a month or a month and a half, and in the mid-term elections came along. the third time was immediately following the financial panic and collapse. i remember we were called down -- bernanke and paulson were sitting there. bernanke said we are 48 hours from a complete meltdown in the

financial system. it will take trillions of dollars in savings. we looked at each other, and the only question was, what do we need to do? it should not take a constitutional crisis, an attack on the nation, or a financial panic to have our government function the way the american people think it should. [applause] >> there are obviously a couple of reasons why we got to this point. joe, give incoming senator joe advice because you wrote a piece in "politico" -- >> i do not need to give him advice. the advice basically is be your own man. do not sell your vote. that is not just do not sell your vote for money from a lobbyist, it is also do not sell your vote to party leaders because i see time and time

again, they get a freshman, a separate them, and they surround them and say this is about a movement, about freedom, the president. this is about whatever. and you have got to learn to say no from day one. >> you put your finger on it. it is also about, senator, if you want that committee assignment, they look at caucus solidarity. that amendment we are bringing up, we might be able to find time for that, but you have to have the strength of character to go your own way and say this is inside tactic will stuff is not worth it. i will vote my conscience. >> that is easy to say, but there are a lot of different dynamics. what i was getting at is more personal. years ago you talked about how people on the hill interacted, went to church with each other. they knew each other. they were not just competing megaphones out there in the e

ther. isn't that a problem, david gergen? >> more important, they moved their families to washington. it was hard to talk badly about senator manchin if i knew tomorrow i was going to pick up my daughter from school and his daughter came running. i cannot call him a socialist if i have to eat dinner with his family the next night. that is a huge cultural disconnect. >> they talk about dating -- about getting this connected with your voters back home. in three weeks i felt like there was a disconnect. i went home this past weekend to try to reconnect. you do not have your newspaper, your local news, your day-to-day from constituent groups. you start getting caught up into the world that evan just described.

the bottom line is the best politics is good government. people want good results. what we ran is a retell government, and that is simply this -- -- we ran a retail government -- sorry you're having a problem, we will get right back with you. they do not have to react to the bottom line. most of the people in legislature have probably never been in business to where they had to go out and get a loan to keep their little business alive. they do not know the pressures of the market. >> david gergen, isn't what we saw this week giving the customers what they want? >> i believe a lot of what we see in washington is a reflection of culture, the political culture of the country. as i have said, i think what has happened is the world war ii generation has passed from the scene. we lost a lot of this sense of that civic culture that was

there, and to me the question is not only what the folks in washington do, i think the real question is what you do. especially those of you who are younger. my sense from teaching -- and i was just talking to david brooks about this backstage -- a number of us who have been exposed to the younger generation believe that if you represent a new hope to the country, you are not all hung up on the partisan games and a lot of you really believe in social change. many of your social entrepreneurs. we have 46,000 applications from seniors across the country. an enormous surge of people who want to go out and work to change things, and we have all of these veterans coming now from iraq and afghanistan who are deeply committed to this country. there is a culture of service growing up in the yen

degeneration that i think could save the country over time. i think you could bring us back to some sort of greater sense of commitment, that we are all in this together, we have sharp differences as we should. but at the end of the day you need to put the country first, and i think that is what is represented here on the stage. but we need a whole flood of young people coming into to politics -- coming into politics, if you do that, you can save the country. >> senator bayh -- the message of no labels, as it's time to come, or is it a flawed movement? and that i think it's time has come. -- >> i think it's time has come. they will catch on. most importantly -- joe, i share your concerns about the deficit, i really do.

we balanced the budget when i was governor, left the state with a large surplus. i was looking to vote next spring on rate is -- on raising the debt limit. nobody is going to want to vote for that. that might be the kind of vote that forces meaningful tax reform and spending restraint that will have the added effect of getting the deficit and debt on a good path. it may take that kind of event to make that happen. i think washington will finally catch up to where the country has been for some time. >> you are exactly right. there is such a fundamental disconnect from where washington is and where new york media is compared to where most american voters are. we have seen it time and time again. we have gone out with a couple of different books and probably given to the good speeches across the country, and it

shocks me that -- we give the same speeches at the 92nd street y that we give that pat robertson university. people laugh at the same lines, agreed time and time again. this country is a lot closer together than you would believe watching tv, and i will take three quick issues. are these republican or democratic issues? one, balancing the budget. most americans do not care how long it will take, they want it done. two -- most americans are tired of the fighting of the endless war in afghanistan. we have been there for a decade, the generals want us to stay there another five, six, seven years. it costs $2 billion a week. all across america, we have people saying let's rebuild our own country and stop rebuilding

other countries. the third thing is energy independence. i bring up these three issues. americans want their government -- and we have been saying this for two years -- they want this government to invest in energy like there is a sputnik moment. it is happening in china, it happens among our competitors, and we will be left behind. does that, joe, fit neatly into a republican platform or a democratic platform? no, it does not. if you brought up some of those things to democrats, like we have to balance the budget quick, you would be mocked. if you brought up getting out of afghanistan with a lot of republicans, neocons would kick you out of the congress. >> you have to set up priorities. you have to have a vision were

you want this country to be and how we are going to get there. if you talk to different spectrums of liberals and conservatives and democrats and republicans and labor and business, they all want vision, but you will find out that everyone agrees on something. once you find that common denominator, you go in and say how can we get there. then you have moving -- then you have everybody moving in the same direction. it does not matter left or right, it is, do i have a vision of where we can be? if we do not get together, we cannot sit it out at all. >> what you are doing in west virginia is fascinating, and we were talking about it backstage. you have got the endorsement of the aflcio and -- of the afl- cio and the chamber of congress. -- in the chamber of commerce. you got any room and you said

let's find common ground, let's build a better west virginia where commerce drive and the afl-cio -- it is a revolutionary concept, and get it is so basic to most americans. >> i would give my legislative plan. i would look at them and say the last time i checked, we both have the same constituent groups. we are both serving the same people. we can work together. energy security -- this nation, if you do not put security at the highest level, the only way you will be secure is to be energy independent. here we are right now, paying money, buying products, which is oil, foreign countries who are using their money against us to wreak havoc. that makes no sense in west virginia. the state should be energy independence. >> i was in the white house with

president nixon went opec -- i wrote a lot of the early speeches with president nixon and president ford waving the banner that we were going to be energy independent. that was almost 40 years ago. we were 30% dependent on foreign oil, and we are now 60% dependent on foreign oil. those speeches were very effective. [laughter] i am very proud of what i contributed to american public life. the point is, there is one area after another where the partisanship and the special interests have blocked our capacity to deal with the problem. here we have been almost 40 years trying to deal with the energy problem. you bang your head up against it. we still do not have a comprehensive energy policy. i was there when president reagan got a report about the terrible state of k-12 schools.

he barnstormed the country for school reform. it bunch of republican governors went out and really pushed on education reform. evan bayh was one of them. yet here we are some 30 years later and we still have not fixed our schools. if we are going to get serious, what is happening now is that all of these problems -- joe scarborough used the phrase "gathering of problems" -- they're all coming down at once. we either have to deal with them now and compete with china, or we are going to surrender this -- to surrender these problems and go down as a great nation. it is not just because we are tired of what is going on, it is because the country is on the edge. if we do not deal with these problems now, and conquered them, we will condemn our kids to a worse future. i do not think we have much

time. >> so what is the way forward? joe, you are writing for "politico" today, talking about two parties. you have two parties that look very much alike in terms of the way they follow their own policies, and on spending. you cannot see much of a difference. what is the way forward? is there a third party? >> i think it is inevitable. i heard your numbers that you gave before. i read numbers were nancy pelosi in 2006 with her democratic party won independence with a complete rejection of republicanism. just four years later, republicans won the same independence by 16 percentage points, a swing of -- i think

that is still 32%. a swing of 32%. among independent voters. it is inevitable that if both parties continue -- and, evan, i'm interested in what you think -- if both parties continue doing what they have been doing, ignoring the challenges of energy, the deficit, growing the economy, of bringing our troops home, it isn't it inevitable at some point that third-party candidates start winning, breaking this 150-year hold that republicans and democrats have had? >> i think that is what is most likely is because of the state of the economy and the unsustainable imbalances you mentioned on debt and energy, is we will have a sustained period of churning where the parties

will be voted out. however, there is still a material chance that one of the two political parties will get it and will change what they are doing and absorb the feelings of this movement. a lot like when ross perot ran. suddenly deficit reduction became popular because they got it. there is a movement out there, people are voting based on this. maybe we should get with the program. >> how did we go from barack obama being the candidate of change to 2010 when john boehner became the speaker of change? .t's mind-bending >> it might make you cry. >> i guess my point is that i think there is a chance that out

of -- i wish i could say it was out of devotion to higher ideals, but it is more likely to be due to self preservation and political success -- one of the two major parties will get it and absorb some of these feelings and have a platform that will embrace dealing with some of these issues. the practical bearing -- you have a couple of independents in the senate -- but the practical barriers to having a national third party are so substantial that it is pretty difficult. more than likely one of the two existing parties will get it. >> david gergen, do you agree with that? >> may i say one last thing? but for this vote on the debt ceiling, for the credit markets reacting with stifling

interest rates if we do not get that together. >> i think an independent party is possible, and i think evan is basically right. the history has been that when these populist movements grow up, one party rises up and brings it in. the republican party has tried to embrace the tea party the best it can, the tea party is a movement, not a party. the question becomes whether in this effort to revive the center of american politics -- and we have a vibrant middle class, to o -- a lot of middle-class people are going down or way up. most of them are going down. the issue becomes, can you get something that has enough spontaneity to it so that people show up at various town halls and in various places where you

raise your voices. the politics right now, the voices are from both ends of the spectrum. they are going after dick lugar, for goodness sakes, so they will go after oren hatch, of all people. >> look at this last election. blanche lincoln in arkansas, $11 million spent against her because she was not there for some test votes. that was a clear message to moderate democrats that if you are not there down the line, this is what will happen to you. look at bob bennett from utah. look at my castle. -- look at mike castle. he is a statement. he would have won that election with 20%, but he did not get through his primary. that is where a group like this serves a real purpose. >> exactly. [applause] >> a comes down to the crippling

debt that we carry. most people understand that we cannot carry the kind of debt we are carrying and the nation. my grandfather was an immigrant with a fourth grade and immigration. but he was worldly in his overview if you will. he would always say if you are inclined to want to help people, keep yourself strong. i said, what do you mean? he said i do not just mean strong physically and mentally but financially. he would show me an example. he said how about old charlie over there. i said he would give you anything he has. he said the only problem is, charlie does not have an extra shirt to give you. that was emblazoned in my mind. i'm standing there taking that 04 governorships saying, "keepers of strong." indebtedness will make cowards out of the decisions you make.

we are making our decisions now, and we will continue to make them. >> it all comes down to the crippling debt we are facing, and what in the road happened in the past week? because it all sounds good until you are about to have your taxes increased. >> i think you are looking at the $700 billion by extending any of the taxes, right? >> my biggest problem is -- and as a conservative, i love tax cut. i do not think the federal government should take 40% to 50% of our money. but when you are $14 trillion in debt, if you are going to extend tax cuts, the bush tax cuts, and you are going to do all of these other things at a cost of $950 billion, and you are already $14 trillion in debt, you had better pay for it. this is where both parties come

together and say we have got to pass this, it is a national emergency, we have to get people back to work. barack obama said two years ago, a national emergency, we have to do this to revive our economy. it is the same thing that we heard george w. bush and republicans say about their tax cuts. we have got to get americans back to work. it was also defense spending. that is fine. we have all these priorities, but the only thing that unites both parties right now is that they want something for nothing. that they want a free lunch. that they do not have -- [applause] they do not have the political courage to say if we pass it we have got to pay for it. here is the reality. at some point, when joe is in

the united states senate and becoming -- i think you will be there for six years at least. at some point in the next six years, we will understand that if we do not start saying we have to pay for it, we will become greece, ireland, or, worse, california. [laughter] >> the stimulus runs out in 2011. all the states got stimulus money, and it has kept them afloat. if the tough choices are not made on each state, state by state, you will have many states that cannot meet the general obligations. >> no doubt about it. to put this in perspective, we have the deficit commission get together and work for months to try to figure out how to spend $4 trillion from the debt over

the next decade or two. it was to have the of a lift, so after they adjourned, that we can they added another $1 trillion. >> i want to come back to you all. here is the situation all of us agree on. really tough choices are coming up on spending and taxes. everybody who has looked at this has said that the only way you can get the finances of this country in a better place is that you have got to both cut spending and raise taxes. the question is, there will be a big question about the ratio. but you have to do both. the problem is, if you are a democrat and you are asked to vote on spending cuts, there is a real danger that they are going to say that you betrayed the party in the next primary.

that is the problem that oren hatch -- that orrin hatch is going to face. if you put the country first, you will die. if you do not put the country first, you will survive. that is an impossible place to put political figures. what you need here is something that gives them some sort of support, that salutes them for doing something courageous. the system now has gone the other way. [applause] >> i think it was abraham lincoln in one of his inaugural addresses who said we cannot escape history. so we have one or two choices. we can make these decisions ourselves and do them in a way that is best for the american people, or we can wait for outside forces to force them upon us in a time where they will be more difficult, more

painful, and largely beyond our control. those are the two choices we have, so it is best to take the ours ourselves and seize own destiny. my best guess -- look at great britain. you have a conservative party and a moderate party together in a coalition government. they have come up with a very aggressive package. if you can do the revenue signed under the umbrella of tax reform, making america a good place to invest, save, and grow the economy, there is an upside to that. if we make the -- if we wait for the markets to impose it on us, it will be all pain, no gain. >> politically, leaders in washington have to follow governor manchin's approach. i am dead serious. when you were governor, none of the things that we were talking

about -- balancing the budget in 10 years would be extraordinarily difficult. figuring out how to raise taxes, cut spending, rain in social security, medicare -- these are all third rail of american politics. you touch them and you die. you have to get everybody in the room talking and saying this is where we are. these are the challenges we face. china is destroying us on light speed rail. china is going to own the next century regarding energy if we do not invest money across the globe and start investing in new energy sources. the way you do in rest virginia -- in west virginia is the way we need to do in washington. >> it works for us. we wanted to cut the food tax. it was a big part of our revenue stream. so we said we will cut it one point a year.

that was $25 million. that's a big chunk of money for us. everybody said cut it all together all at one time. when your hemorrhaging which finances, we could not make it. if we start dipping into the rainy day account -- because the first thing a politician do is -- the first thing a politician will do is read the piggee bank. so the first indicator is when your savings or rainy day account starts dwindling, that means you raid the piggybank. we have never been willing to do it on a larger scale. >> did the white house and the democrats miss some major opportunities this week with this tax deal? >> basically, it was kind of a

wish list, what it was looking to me, on both sides. they missed an opportunity to get down to the finite of this is what we actually need, these are our priorities, and this is the pain we will have to feel. i got so excited when they said a no labels meeting. then i heard about the purpose of this. unless you all take it state to state and expand on this and you have real input and sit down with your elected officials, if you let this fizzle out, god help us all, because it might be the only chance we have to bring everybody together. >> we are going to take a few moments for some final thoughts. what i would love to hear as we wrap up is, what is the way forward and how everyone here at no labels -- and anyone

i will start in order of seniority. [laughter] david -- >> look, i think we're might be at what is called a strategic inflection point for the country. we're going to go down is a country during the business the way we are doing it, are we are going to change the way things go down in politics in this country. we cannot just keep doing what we are doing. we need a psittacine engagement in what i would hope to less what we need is a citizen engagement. i hope we have a launch pad where you go to put real pressure on the political class to fix these problems and have the courage to fix them and give support to those or brave enough to take the right steps. the second part of that is to prepare yourself from this point

to get into the political arena and change the underlying culture. if we can change the culture, a lot of other things will follow. and we can still save the country. if you go to the sidelines now and just leave it, our future is very cloudy. if you get into the arena and really fight, we still have a shot. [applause] >> i am the new guy in town as far as in washington. i have met all the senators, and they are all great people. they are there for the right reason and want to do the best they possibly can. something is driving this that makes them do things that would normally not do in everyday life. the pressures of the 24-hour media may be, the pressures of always chasing the dollar, trying to get your campaign and good enough shape to defend yourself. there's an old saying that you better tell your story before someone tells one on you. i have seen the pressures from

the outside turning good, honest, hard-working people that come from grounded backgrounds into a political animal. it does not seem to take that long here to do that. so you might be the calming voice, if you will, in the ability to keep us all more grounded, and it needs to be done. >> i think he is right. a lot of this has to do with the 24-1/7 news cycle and the fact that conflict drives ratings. -- a lot of this has to do with the 24/7 news cycle. and this is so important. even with what we do every day, we had an idea several years ago that we were going to do some the radical on cable news. we were going to allow people to talk. even though we had debates, we were always going to respect what they had to say. but it was going to be a think house for ideas. and it worked. but like all of these guys up here, and i can talk to them

about it but i know it is a reality, there is the internet. you read articles about you or if you see your child reading an article about you, you go -- do not read the comments. because of the hatred in the vitriol toward people who are trying to find a common ground is remarkable. you would not believe what is launched against people who are trying to keep the conversation going. these guys, i know, have dealt with it. i certainly know i have dealt with it. and you get discouraged. these books tours i was talking about, we would go out on them and people would come up, and they will not say thank you. people would come up and hug us. you find that time after time after time after time, and you think, my god, there are normal people out there who do not live

in their mother's basement eating cheetos in their underwear while their blogging about what a horrible human beings we are. [laughter] i cannot state this enough -- all of these guys can put up with 100 people screaming at them at a town hall meeting. if they see five people there in orange shirt saying, hold your ground. and this has nothing to do with ideology. it has nothing to do with politics. it has everything to do with civility in keeping calm and carrying on, and that is the one thing we have forgotten how to do in washington, d.c., and the one thing that this organization has to do to mind the gap. the other two british references. i'd better stop now. [laughter] [applause] >> three quick things. number one, the whole notion of

compromise, a principled compromise seems to have gotten a dirty name on both the far right in the far left. joe is right. you are shot at from both sides. we would have the united states of america if our forbearers have been willing to compromise. we almost did not have a single country. read the history of the constitutional convention. small states against large states, north versus south -- it almost fell apart. but they decided we had more in common than we did that divided us. so they formed a single country. that is the kind of spirit we need once again. that is number one. it is not a four-letter word if you have principled compromise. it is an essentially american. number two, i have been on the intelligence committee for 10 years, and i hope that is not an oxymoron -- [laughter] but i want to build on sending

david said. we are at an inflection point. on the intelligence committee, you're privy to information you would not ordinarily have access to. when you see and read what the chinese leadership's says when they're by themselves and we're not around in the cameras are not around, they really do think we are a declining country. they think going forward we will continue to be a military power because of our nuclear arsenal, but because our inability to deal with our imbalances and energy independence, they think america will be less and less significant with each passing year on a global stage. that has profound adverse implications for our huge butcher -- for our future in a host of ways. we must not let that happen. and number three, i would simply say -- i am sometimes ask, you know, what do we do to make things better? and the far right in the far left. i could give you the names of at

least half a dozen republicans that the country would not be well-served if they were not reelected and continued in the u.s. senate. i could give you the name of lots of democrats, same kind of thing. what needs to change? if you see people out there who are being excessively partisan or ideological, do not support them. support the same candidate, regardless of party, to go to washington, d.c., to strike as principled compromise is, to deal with these imbalances so we can continue to be a great republic. that is when needs to happen. drawing the raging center, in contrast to the extremes of the two parties. the last story i will tell, harry truman gave a speech and said that in the united states of america, it is not the politicians to run the government. in the united states of america, it is the people. the politicians, we're just the hired help. tell the hired help what to do. that is what will ultimately

turn this around. [applause] >> if you can believe this, there's someone by the name of joe who just wants to make one other point, and it is not him. >> i want to share the evidence. rick warren gave a speech one time, and i was in the audience. he said that the audience is getting more involved in his congregation as far as politics, the right wing. they said, are you on the right wing or the left wing? they kept talking about the different wings. he said, i kept thinking about a bird. if ever had just a right wing or left wing, what would it do? it would be going in circles. he says i want that byrd to have both wings, going straight. i think that is what we are here for today, and we're here to say thank you for starting this no labels, and let's keep it going. >> thank you very much for a great conversation. [applause] thank you for having us.

we appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [applause] >> this evening on c-span, interviews with outgoing members of the house, including the wisconsin representative, chairman of the appropriations committee. that is at 6:45 p.m. eastern. and the republican representative from the arizona talks to us at 7:25 eastern tonight. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a forum on african-americans and the current economy and the obama administration, with the national urban league president and a former president. at 9:30 p.m., "2 n/a." -- q&a."

after that, a jamestown foundation discussion on terrorism threats in pakistan and afghanistan. that is at 10:30 p.m. eastern. >> you know, the senate is often called the most exclusive club in the world. but i wonder really if it is so exclusive. if someone from a town of 300 people and a high school senior class of nine students can travel from a desk at the that small school to a desk on the floor of the u.s. senate. >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library, with every c-span program since 1987. more than 160,000 hours, all on line, all free. is washington your way. >> watch "book tv"all this week in prime time. tonight, with your phone calls and they look back at the year in books. also from this year's national book festival, the former first

lady on her memoir. then, tony blair, the longest serving labor party prime minister, on his memoir. "book tv" in prime time, all this week on c-span2. this3 weekend on this's "american history tv," the recent discovery in excavation on 200-year-old slave quarters, and it as the congressional black caucus marks its 40th anniversary, the never report televised oral history by a former congresswoman on the work of the caucus and her efforts on behalf of homemakers and working women. then, richard and steven ford share their memories about the only man to be vice-president and president of the united states without being elected. see the complete weekend schedules online at c-span.org/ history, where you can also press the c-span alert button and have our schedules e-mailed

to you. >> and now, the author of a book titled "white women have less wealth," from today's "washington journal." this is 45 minutes. continues. st, mariko chang, is the author of "shortchanged: why women have less wealth and what can be done about it." thank you for being with us this morning. guest: oh, it's a pleasure to be here. host: u're joining us from boston. wanted to mention that. you opened your book in the chapter called "the women's wealth gap" and you talked about the president signing into law the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. what's the impact of that law? guest: oh, an absolutely monumental piece of legislation. however as important as it is for women to have equal pay in the workplace, income and equality is really just the tip of the iceberg. wealth is much, much more important for women's economic status and it's also much more unequally distributed. just to give you a general idea, the top 1% of the

population owns about 34% of the total wealth. but the bottom 60% of the population combined own only about 4% of the total wealth. host: what is it that contributes to that? is it wom making different investment choices? is it the fact as you write in your book that women are sometimes taking care of families of a single mom and may not have as much disposable income to invest, what are the reasons? guest: right. well, primarily t reason that -- the tremendous wealth gap exists and for women they only own about 36% of the total wealth of men. it's not necessarily because women are making radcally different investment choices or -- radically different investment choices or spending money differently. in fact, research shows that women and men spend about the same percentages of their income on noneential items, although the items might vary.

however, research shows that the real causes of the wealth gap are the fact that women don't have access to the wealth escalator and women are more likely to have custody of children and, therefore, to have to make their incom go farther supportinmore than one person. in terms of the wealth escalator, what we find here is that the wealth escalator are things that translate their income into wealth more quickl just to give you a couple of examples, the first would be fringe benefits. now, this was an incredibly important part of the wealth escalator. it would be 401-k's, paid sick days, and these things actually put money in the pockets of people directly and help them build wealth. unfortunately women are much less likely to have access to the wealth escalator so, for instance, with the fringe benefits they're less likely to

work in jobs with fringe benefits and they're also more likely to work part time and part-time workers have less access to the wealth escalator. host: dr. mariko chang is our guest. she is the author of "shortchanged: why women have less wealth and what can be done about it." the numbers to call if you'd like to join the conversation, republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. and independent calle, 202-628-0205. and dr. chang wrote in her book that women may make 78% of what men make but they own only 36% as much wealth. the comments about two basic reasons forhis. persistence. men have greater access to the wealth escalator which translates into wealth at a faster rate. and women are more likely to shoulder the burden of single parenthood and have less disposable income. when we look at congress and

recent legislation and attempts to pass laws, the paycheck fairness act failed in the senate earlier this year. what would that have done? guest: excuse me. yes, this is ironically two years after the passage of the lilly ledbeer act. the paycheck fairness act is needed in addition to the lillyledbetter act. the reasons we need this type of lislation is because first of all employers can still discriminate against workers or fire workers for discussing their pay with other workers. and that prevents people from gaining information about what people are paid at their company. and secondly, a lot of people don't realize that women are not offered the same compensatory and punitive options when they're suing for sex discrimination in pay as

people who are suing for racial discrination in pay. so currently women don't have the same protections razz people who are suing for -- as people who are suing for other types of discrimination. host: texas, our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morng. how are you doing? host: good. caller: i've always listened. this is my first time calling. i'd like to ask a couple of questions, if i could. since you're talking about the disparity in income and wealth, i was just wondering, do you go more into as far with women the cultural breakdown of that wealth and if you could speak on that as far as like black women compared to other counterparts? and then also, how is the new ledbetter act, if i'm not mistaken, how will that affect

that as well? guest: yes, i'm really glad that you asked about cultural differences or racial differences. that's one of the main points in the book is that women, our disadvantage with respect to wealth, but those disadvantages areot uniform across racial groups. just to give you an idea for some of the most recent data that have calculated for the racial wealth gap f women of color, black and hispanic women have about $100 of median wealth. so that means that the typical black or hispanic woman has only about $100 in wealth. now, that doesn't mean that they only have $100, let's say, in the bank. what it means is when you take all of their assets together and then subtract the debt, that balance is about $100. now, that difference is tremendous when you compare them to black and hispanic men but also in comparison to whites so that $100 figure represents that black and

hispanic women have only about a penny of wealth for every dollar of wealth that's owned by their same-race male counterparts and only a fraction of a penny of wealth that's owned by white men and white women s there's a tremendous gender and racial wealth gap combined. host: mariko chang writes younger women are more disadvantaged than their older peers. by race and ethnicity, more than half of all single hispanic women living in the united states are wealth poor. they have zero wealth or the value of their debts surpasses the value of any assets. in contrarks 26% o single white women and 36% of single black women are wealth poor. how shocking were these numbers for you? you work in this field researching this. were you surprised when you dug into the figures to realize there was such a difference there? guest: i was absolutely shocked, and i think it's because we are really used to thinking about how well women

are doing in terms of income. and so even though we have by no means closed the gender income gap, i was still shocked at the tremendous magnitude of the gender wealth gap. and so i was also shocked as to why, you know, as a society and researchers very went become aware of this spatially -- especially with respect to racial differences, there is documents documenting racial wealth gaps. so i felt inspired and felt it was very important for us to draw attention also to the gender aspect of the wealth gap. host: let's go to syracuse, new york. ray on the republicans line. good morning. caller: hi. i don't believe your guest is at least from what you've shown to this point, taken a real intellecal and rigorous look at this. for years it's been shown over a over again that the high

levels of illegitimate births in the black and hispanic community relative to the white community, of course on directly as to how many people in those races are poor. so the issues seem to be choices people are making. in large part on whether to be married and whether to have children and when to do each of those. so i just don't see -- she hasn't mentioned that yet, but the quote of statistics that you just read indicate that. host: let's get a response, ray. guest: right. thank you very much for tha comment. and i think that a lot of people do believe that the wealth gap, especially between blacks and whites, has a lot to do with the fact that black women or other minority women are much more likely to be unmarried and to have children outside of marriage.

and that no doubt does contribute to the wealth gap. i would totally agree. however, i think we should decouple the situation from i guess people i guess making deliberate choices to reduce their wealth because what we see is that even when black women, let's say, and white women or black women and white men, you know, are single and not married and working full time, there's still institutional structures that are tagged ontohings like their employment that make it less likely for women to build wealth. so, for instance, black women in particular might beorking just as hard but the types of jobs that they have or other factors that affect their employment mean that they're less able to tap into let's say the fringe benefits that other workers are able to tap into. host: mariko chang is an independent consultant helping universities diversify their faculty, and she conducts original research and program

evaluation. up to 2007 she was an associate professor o sociology at harvard university. her webse is mariko-change. independent calling from new england. caller: information very sobering. my cirmstance is i'm a meal and raised three sons by myself. early on when they were toddlers i was getting the standard deduction for children, $500 or $600. it never corresponded to what it actually cost to raise a child. it seems that if you're -- i never made more than $50,000 a year so i didn't accumulate a lot of wealth, but the circumstances of the blue collar world and what you have access to and what it costs to raise children is brutal and there's economic consequences. you know, we haveoliticians

constantly talking about family values and they're constantly nunesing a tax code to make sure that corporations and -- have every possible conveniee for themselves. we have to get back to a family-oriented, child-rearing orienting society. guest: yes. excuse me. i'm getting over a cold so my voice keeps going. but my hat is off to you. anyone that's trying to raise children by themselves is, you kn, doing a tremendous job. and as you plentioned, there's not a lot of support -- mentioned, there's not a lot of support out there for people like yourselves because children are very, very costly. your point is exactly one of the pois that i'm making in the book. however, you happen to be a man doing this. and usually it's women who are doing this. they're raising the children and they can't take advantage of any wealth-building opportunities because their

incomes simply don't go as far as if they didn't have children. so anyone who's raising children on their own, whether it's a man or a woman, is usually in this situation. however, usually the way our societys, it does tend to be women more likely than men who are raising the children themselves. host: one of the chapters of your books likes at the ways that women and men invest money and save money. women are ls likely to own assets that are considered more financially risky but also have the highest average rates over time, stocks, investment real estate and business assets. women are often caught in a financial catch-22. their lower disposable incomes put them at a disadvantage for building savings, and their lack of financial safety net means their small ernest eggs are subject to depletion in crisis situations. because of these two factors, they cannot afford the risk and the longtime horizon necessary to secure higher rates of return on investments. guest: yes, that's absolutely

true. in fact, women, as it turns out, are not necessarily always shying away from high-risk ventures, although that's part of it. part of it is that they can't afford to invest in risky investments because they need to have that money as a safety net. interestingly, there was a study that showed that when women do invest they actuall do just as well or bter than men because then we're likely to buy and hold over the long run. so women are absolutely able to invest and can do a very good job at it. however, ey're less likely to be able to afford to take the risks of investing that men can take simply because they have higher savings and more opportunities to do so. host: stuart on our democratics line. bridgeport, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm an attorney and i've had a few observations having done about00 divorces in my career

thus far. i see a certain pattern with the women. they tend not to have very much demand on their men and they don't choose very well who's goin to be their spouse. and they wind up in a divorce court and excess -- in excess of 60% of the time. you can't be in a situation where you have the two kids at home to raisend you have the added cost of childcare to measure against your income. plus, it's limited how much money the wife can -- and mother c get from the former spouse. guest: yes. in fact divorced women are in a particularly difficult situation with respect to i guess retaining any kind of

maril assets. especially the types of assets like human capital that really help you build more and more wealth over the long run. so even if you equally divide assets at the time of divorce so that the man and the woman end up with an exactly equal share you'll find that over time the women are less likely to hold on to that wealth or build that wealth as quickly because they are taking care of the children. and also because if during the marriage they took some time out maybe or putheir husband's reer ahead of theirs, they find that they have much less earning ability. so even if things are equal at the time of divorce, what you find is that years later women really are not at the same point that men are at with respect to their wealth and they fall in far behind. host: and mariko chang, you also look at married couples. you write that althought's often assumed that husband and wives have equal ownership of marital wealth, there is a complicated story.

what's so complicated about it? guest: right. we have two general viewpoints about how marriage a wealth might be combined. one is that there's one person who makes all the financial decisions. this is kind of the older model, let's say, of the man being the head of the household and making all of the decisions. or we have another model that we assume that married people own wealth equally and control wealth equally. i did find in my research that there were some couples that fell into one or -- one category or the other. however, what i found was that the majority of couples actually adopted a different strategy where the man and the woman both held onto their own pockets of income and wealth and then devised ways to meet common expenses. so, for instance, they would have their own checking account, their own savings account and then either contribute equally or in proportion to their income to common expenses. and this is ironically i think

grows out of ideals of equality . and women wanting to contribute to household expenses and being able to contribute to household expenses. and it's also seen as a way of being fair in a sense th, you know, each person then contributes to common expenses but they can spend their leftover income however they want. so it also tends to avoid a lot of conflicts about, you know, who's spending money on what. however, where it turns out to necessarily not be so fair or equitable is that if women are earning less and still contributing equally or in proportion, they have far less left over to do -- to spend as they please. and so that's something that we would totally miss if we were just looking overall at women's sort of marital wealth. we are missing the picture of how much money, how much wealth do they really have control over?

you know, how much say do they really have in the total marital finances? and we're showing that they actually have a lot less than what we would assume. host: let's hear from antonio, independent caller in tampa, floda. hi, there. caller: how you doing? ma'am, i don't know. maybe i don't understand what yore saying. what i'm trying to understand is i don't think it's a choice by a woman to be on welfare. i don't think that's their choice. and i don't know about the opportunities really being there. d another thing you're talking about -- i know men and women are equal as human beings but maybe our roles are different and are not supposed to be equal, if you understand what i'm trying to say. i don't know. it's just what i have to say. guest: right. yes. thank you for the comment. i don't think that women are choosing to not be wealthy. i think that women want to be wealthy just as much as men want to be wealthy. however, there are structures that are in place that make it

easier for men to build wealth than women. so it's not necessarily that then are choosing or women are choosing to become wealthy or not becomeealthy. however, i think it's entirely possible and if you look at society men and women have adopted some different roles in society. whether that's become -- because of socialization or biology or economics, you do see that men and women are taking, you know, somewhat different roles. and in fact, what i argue is that women' roles -- women's traditionally held role of being a caregiver should just be as equally as important as a breadwinner role. it doesn't mean that women have to become caregivers or men have to become breadwinners but that the caregiving role should just be as awarded financially as other roles inociety and that we're currently devaluing the caregiving role when we really should be honoring it and providing women and other

cagivers with the economic resources that are commensurate to the important job that they're doing. host: that republican caller in winston-salem, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is -- i'd like to know if she has -- mrs. chang has run across a situation concerning women not being allowed to work in the united states, and then, also, if she could talk about some of the other institutional barriers that she's encountered. guest: sure. in terms of women not being allowed to work in e united states, i guess i'm not sure exactly what you're referring to unless it's perhaps an immigration status or something like that. although historically there were a lot of laws that prevented women fm working in e workplace in certain jobs or with certain types of employment and that' no doubt, you know, very, very important.

but in terms of some other institutional factors, another really important one is actually the tax code. so, for instance, the fact that certain types of income are taxed at a different rate than others. so capital gains income, let's say, is taxed at a lower rate than earnings. and there are many rationals for that. however -- rationales for that. however, what we've learned is women don't own those fipes of assetlike stocks, investment real estat women are much less likely to own those type of things so they don't benefit to the same extent that women do from the lower capital gains rate. so even things like the tax structure are really important, not only for helping people to build wealth but helping people to hold on to whatever wealth they're able to build. host: chandler, arizona. penny joins us on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i really thank mariko chang for really doing all the research because it really speaks to something i always talked about with my family. speak to how wealth has just never been historically transmitted from generation to generation and particularly the black community. an earlier caller talked about how minorities always having babies and not getting married and that's why we're poor. but my fick situation, i didn't even get married until i was 30. i had my masters in education. i planned and invested in my life before i started my family. i did get married. i have three children. they're flourishing but i was the first one to be let go after 15 years as a teacher. and there are still some institutional, racial ideologies that really still perpetuate this situation. and historically we have not --

we had 400 years of slavery. i mean, my great grandmother was born a slave. there was never transferred from generation to generation. in the last three generations we just don't do well. whatever we build does not get transmitted to the next generation. we're constantly starting over and over and working against the ways. here i'm almost 50 years old and i still have nothing. thank you. guest: thank you. yes, thank you so much for bringing up that point. you're absolutely correct that one of theeasons why wealth and equality are so important, especially with respect to the racial wealth gap, is because wealth is translated across generations. so because certain families for very historical reasons, such as blacks, were not able to acquire wealth to the same extent, let's say, as othe groups. that inequity that happened perhaps generations ago is still affecting minorities today because they inherit less

wealth than, iuess, the typical nonminority. and so people don't always think about that, but even in terms of your education. statistics show us that minorities are much less likely to be able to afford things like college. they're less likely to have parental or grandparent wealth or sings to help them through college. .

fourth we talked about how women make 78% of men's salary but unknown only 36% as much wealth. women under the age of 25 working full time now are 95% of what their male peers earned it a more than a quarter of women in two or more families and more than their husbands.

and in major cities, women aged 21 to 30 are out earning the men their age. women out- earning men, is that the generational shift, and will the trend continued anbroaden out? guest: i am so glad you raised this. we have heard uplifting media stories about how young women are earning more, earning more college degrees, in many cases out-earning male counterparts, and that is absolutely the case. i went back to the data and looked at people under the age of 30 who were working full time, who had no children, were not married, and you expect the differences between men and women would be minimal. there would be acting about the same in the labor market. what i found, very surprisingly, is that there was still a tremendous wealth gap between men and women.

when i restricted to that young group of unmarried people, men had median wealth of about $7,000-$8,000. women had negative wellmeaning that they owed more than they had in wealth. that is putting us into a very important trend, that women are graduating from college with a lot of debt. this is something i poked into the data to find out why it was that women had so much less well, negative falls, and a lot of that had to do with college loan debts. women are being saddled with much more college and get. they have lower incomes when they graduate d are less able to pay off tt debt. growing trends for people to finance their education with loans have an interesting impact on the gender wealth gap between men and women, because

even if they are earning as much, or roughly as much, they have less wealth. with respect to earnings, i want to point out that when men and women are at younger as, the earnings differences are generally lower. even if you start with men and women having roughly equal income, because of the types of jobs they are in and other factors, when you look at them years later, manso -- men's incomes increased much more dramatically than women's. host: i have a piece, "paycheck fairness act -- good riddance." she argues that it may have been about equality but it is not about fairness. she poses a couple of scenarios.

what if a woman -- we will call her and jane -- gets paid less becae she does not do as much hard negotiating as john might? she raises a couple of other scenarios where someone might come in at a higher salary, a man might, because they got paid mo at their prior job. how do you balance out the personal responsibility aspect of commanding -- of demanding more money and paid versus a law? host: the law does not penalize employers for the types of things she is mentioning. the law allows for men and women to be paid differently, let's stay on job history and other factors that are important for job performance, like education, age, those types of things. the fact that men and women are

paid to public does not automatically -- the fact that men and women are paid differently does not automatically mean there is discrimination. when you have men and women with equal qualifications and job history and same performance evaluation, everything with respect to the job and employment is the same, and they are being paid less. the legislation is much more concerned with differences that are not a result of job-related factors. host: chicago, illinois, ronnie, independent caller. caller: gd morning, ladies. how are you? host: good. go right ahead. caller: i am at 57, and i was amazed at how political mails make critical decisions for the mails regarding reproduction. -- for females regarding

reproduction. do not agree that the problems your book has issue with -- do you not agree that the problems in your book hasssue with is that the reason these things happen is political? voting, election day -- those who make the decisions are politicians. until we train our children to be conscious of the things that affect our lives, the government will keep us more concerned and for the public off regarding race, jobs, education -- we seem to be getting worser. until those things change and we train our children, do you not age that the problem is political? the politicians made these decisions and are causing these problems. would you not agree with that? guest: i do agree that what

happens with the politicians and election day is extremely important. as women, as men, as sons and husbands and fathers and daughters, we must all take our financial and, i guess, our voting and legislative ability very seriously. we need to pay attention to what is happening in politics, we need to see how well olbermann is serving us. if we are not happy -- how well our government is serving us. if we are not happy with how they're doing, it is our responsibility to go to the polls and educate our children about the issues. i agree that there is a personal responsibility there. however, we cannot overlook the fact that corporations have influence on policies, and the fact that there are so many politicians who are not women and not thinking in terms of a woman, those things absolutely matter as well. it is not simply that people

need to get out and vote more, but in terms of who has influence over politics and the influence of corporations and other wealthy individuals -- that should not be overlooked as well. texasbernard writes from -- guest: that is one of the things that i talk about i the book. women are less likely to become entrepreneurs than men. entrepreneurrship is rising dramatically for women, and that is something i'm happy to see, because entrepreneurship and wealth are related. it is one of the avenues that available to everyon if you look at the list of the wealthiest americans published every year by "forbes," you will

see that of course inheritance of wealth matters, but many of the most wealthy people acquire their wealth through entrepreneurship. even though women's break entrepreneur -- women's rate of entrepreneurship is growing, it is not as large as men's rate. we need to support wittman's entrepreneur -- women's entrepreneurship as well. host: the wealthiest americans. talk to us about why these names are important to you and what it says about wealth accumulation. guest: there are interesting things when you look at the list of wealthiest americans.

what jumped out to me is that there are so few women on it. even though we hear these stories about women out-earning their male counterparts and they are having these wonderful opportunities they did not have in past, the wealth inequality is a very entrenched. when you look at the top wealth holders, it is a very male group. we do not see many women in the group. far fewer women than even i would have anticipated, knowing as much as i do about the gender wealth gap. it does not change much over time. if you look at the list of the top 10 or top 100, it is a fairly stable list, all the people moved in and out -- althgh people moved in and out, but the ratio of women to men has not changed much. it shows how entrenched the gender wealth that is. host: charles, republican in florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

i want to comment on bill gates and his not finishing college, and he is in entrepreneur. he is married. all these people are married to women, usually 20 years younger. i have heard that women control most of the wealth in the country. this lady who ran for the governor of california at spend tens of millions of dollars. there are politicians all over the country who are women, great politicians. i worked for the ceo at at&t, and they are good seo's. i never see discrimination. i've always heard that women control the money because men die earlier. thank you. guest: sure, and i don't want to apply that there are not a lot of wealthy women out there. meg whitman, who i believe you are referencing, has tremendous wealth from entrepreneurship.

but there are not as many to to finance a political campaign as there are men. there are some cases where women in have a lot of wealth. for most people, with noho -- widowhood is not a financial windfall. maybe a select group of women with a lot of wealth. they might increase their wealth with widowhood. but for most women, it has the opposite effect. it drains their resources. even couples who have managed to build a sizable nest egg, oftentimes, because the man is less fortunate to pass away first, they have exhausted a lot of their financial resources with medical bills, home care, that type of thing could by the time he passes, the ball has

decreased dramatically -- the wealth has decreased dramatically. one in five widows live in poverty. there are some wealthy widows out there, but for most women it is not a financial windfall, and by the time the man has died, they have much less wealth than you might have anticipated. host: what is one piece of good vice you have either for women interested in accumulating wealth, or politicians looking at how legislation can balance the dynamic? guest: sure, sure. with respect to women, one of the things they can do early on, or at all ages, is to educate themselves about financial matters. men and women should all be doing this, not just women. also, people can really pay attention to whether or not they are "on the wealth escalator."

when they get a job, does the employer offered 401k benefits? are you participating? are you participating to the maximum you can? you need to pay attention to those things. we are always focused on income, how much is this job. me, but there are other important benefits that are equally if not more important. how will this help me build wealth over the long run? there are things that the government can do. first, the united stas is one of only two industrialized countries without a national paid parental leave. of 47 developing countries provide at least 12 weeks of paid maternity leave at 100% of wages. that is something other countries are doing that we are not doing. also, if we think in terms of the social security, and this has tremendous impact on people

in retirement, we see that women receive a far lower social security benefits than men, and one of the reasons is because of lower income, but also because if women spend any of their adult years out of the labor force in gauging and caregiving, children or parents or other relatives or even a spouse, or they work part time, those years are counted negatively against them, because years of low or zero earnings are averaged in. women receive far fewer benefits when it comes time to retire. in other countries, what they have done to make things more equal and really value the caregiving work women are doing is provide caregiver credits to women or men who have lower earnings because they have left the labor market and are working rt-time, to be engaged in caregiving. they are given credit so that when they retire, those years of

lower earnings don't count negatively >> the senate is often called the most exclusive club in the world. but wonder if it is so exclusive if someone from a town of 300 people and a high-school senior class of nine stevens can travel from a desk in that a small school to a desk on the floor of the u.s. senate. >> search for a farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the seas and video library, with every c-span program since 1967. more than 160,000 hours. all on line, all free. is washington, your way. >> this evening on c-span, interviews with outgoing members of the house, including wisconsin representative david

dubie, chairman of the appropriations committee. that is as 6:45 p.m. eastern and the republican representative from arizona talk to us at 7:25 eastern tonight. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and former african-americans in the current economy and the obama administration, with the national urban league president and the former president of their group. and 9:30 p.m., "q&a" with a british journalist. he writes for the times of london. if after that, a jamestown foundation discussion on terrorism threats in pakistan and afghanistan. that is at 10:30 p.m. eastern. >> watch all this week in prime time. tonight, your phone calls and a look back at the year in books but also from this year's national book festival, the former first lady, on her memoir. then, tony blair, the longest

serving labor party prime minister, on his memoir. "book tv" in prime time, all this week on c-span2. this weekend, on the "american history tv," the manager of the national battlefield on the recent discovery an escalation of two hundred-year-old slave quarters. as the congressional black caucus marks its 40th anniversary, and never before televised oral history by a former congressman on the work of the caucus and her efforts on behalf of homemakers and working women. then, richard and steven ford share their memories about the only man to be vice president and president of the united states without being elected. see the complete weekend schedules c-span.org. ad/history, where you can also press the c-span alert button and have our schedules e-mailed to you. documentaryoriginal

on the supreme court has been a newly updated. sunday, you'll see the grand public places and is only available to the justices and their staff. and you'll hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice atlantic taken. also, learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, airing for the first time in high definition, sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. now, officials from the bush and obama administration's talk about their experiences as women in national security. michele explains the obama policy on afghanistan. hosted by the harvard kennedy school of government, it is about an hour and 15 minutes. minutes. >> good evening.

it is an honor to welcome three remarkable publicervas who are also great role models for students on how thinking individuals can have impact on issues of war and peace. president obama was last week in india. he praised the founding leader. ghandi' observation that is seared in my soul, i [unintelligibl our guests tonight demonstrate in their lives the fact that hard-headed analysis is not

incompatible with an empathetic haert. our speaker is the third ranking official at the department of defense. to the conflict in pakistan, and nuclear weapons, china, haiti. it of an issue where military forces are taking action and michelle is a person responsible for formulating the policy in place. we are proud of michelle who was

a research fellow here. st before joining the obama administration, issued the co- founder of washington's newest think tank in the security arena and. she is also a graduate of harvard college. michelle will speak to us about about some of the major national security challenges we face today. she brought two remarkable colleagues. paula certification from 2001- 2009 under george w. bush.

see had - -she had responsibility for many issues. agee is now an adjunct fellow here at harvard. professor at thesso school. she was a security advisor for iraq and afghanistan. if you are interested in how individuals can make a difference, meghan sock a situation that looked inevitable

that the u.s. would lose and came up with an alternative policy that leaves as in a much better place today. we have a terrific line of people tonight. we are especially proud that michelle has come from washington. we are looking forward to what she has to say. [applause] >> thanks for the warm welcome. it is great to be back here at harvard. i was an undergraduate year. i was later a fellow at the kennedy school. i've been a fond memories of an

event like this to getting up very early in the morning to row to discussions and debates with mentors. one of the things i've always cherished about harbor is the sense of history. says harvard is not shy, this is the oldest university in the united states. graduate have profoundly influenced the nation and the institutions from the colonial era to the present day. the involvement of harvard students in our nation's military began very early before we are even a nation at all. they fought in the american revolution all the way through the end of the war.

in the civil war, 55% of the class of 1860 spot in the northern navy -- fought in the northern navy. this university by virtue of its own history is a fitting place to talk about war, the sacrifices of war, and the purposes of war. about what to specifically talk to you about america's current wars, our fight in afghanistan and paramilitary presence in iraq.

current u.s. troops is nearly 98,000. they fht as part oa diverse coalition that includes 47 other nations that work in partnership with afghanistan's allies. it includes not only traditional nato allies like france and turkey but nowhere pardners like malaysia and the united arab emirates it brings the total strength of the international coalition in afghanistan to 140,000. afghan forces are taking the

lead in more and more operations. these costs have led many to wonder why we remain in afghanistan and how we can hope to achieve an outcome that is worth the sacrifice. as president obama said at west point, i am convinced that our security has a place in afghanistan and pakistan. but the president explained that this is no idle danger. as we have seen, been it is true that terrorist threats can come from any number of visitors around the world.

the are a number of factors that make the border regions a dangerous source of terrorism and instability. obama has made a commitment to defeating al qaeda and denying them sanctuary in the country. one of the factors is the region's history. leadership has prepared for terrorist attacks of the last. that includes a tax on london ttacks oni -- a ta mumbai.nd new b

there is nowhere else in the world lesseps -- with such an established record of international terrorist activity. it could be shortsighted for us to assume that afghanistan would cease to hold any attraction for al qaeda and associated networks. it to be equally shortsighted to ignore the relationships between afghanistan and the neighbor pakistan. the border between these two countries is more than 1,500 miles long. that is the distance between boston and dallas b.

the geography and ethnic makeup of the border region means they are truly can joined bur. their fate is intertwin. we have to address both cited the border. -- sides of the border. as the work with afghastan to increase flexibility, we are also working to help pakistan deal with the insurgency. as president obama said, we will strengthen pakistan and the targets that threaten our country. we cannot tolere a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and passions are clear.

we also made clear that the united states will no longer make the mistake of being as narrow as a have in the past brit. there is a growing middle class. we seek to help foster democratic development. our efforts against violent extremists depends member on the success on attaining -- maintaining the troop presence in afghanistan. removing or reducing this would ease the pressure on al qaeda.

the potential consequences are quite high. this is one reason why thear has drawn support from some many other countries. this is not just american fight. this is a regional matter. what happens now in afghanistan and pakistan has a broader ramifications be no -- ramifications. the actively seek nuclear weapons. the administration has conducted a review of our progress.

the purpose is to assess the implementation of our strategy. they have the right leadership in place. it will take time. there are tangible signs of hard progress. we are makingteady gains in regional command south. an american brigade supported a mission outside canada are -- kandahar. markets have reopened.

children are going back to school. it is totally impossible a few years ago. we have extended our operations beyond the river valley. the progress is and it should be shown -- is because of our troops. i know this does cause disturbances. it calls for a plan whereby the afghan presence decreases and -- increases and the nato presence decreases. that is precisely our aim.

it will take time prevent -- time. ese are good examples of what we can achieve. they afghan local police approved by president karzai has shown good early results. it connects the central government to rural areas and help separate insurgent from the population. this was a long contested area of insurgents. locals got off an insurgent sell -- cell.

attacks by insurgents in the area was consistent throughout the summer and early fall. this is just one conversation about the reintegration can affect the lives of the local population. as of this past july, the army exceeded the growth forecast three that had it time. we expect this in the local security forces to shift the momentum in the government's favor. we need in afghanistan that is fully capable and free of

unwanted foreign involvement. these gains are real. there is a long way to cool and afghanistan. we have seen what happens abandon afghanistan. it is not a mistake that we can afford to make ain. we seek neither to cupy afghanistan nor leave it prematurely. it is grounded in mutual respect. we look toorge a lasting friendship. this is a good point to mention

july 2011. that is when we will begin u.s. troop withdrawal and afghanistan. i will talk about what it means and will not mean. it will mean the beginning of some combat troop reductions where and when conditions allow. july 2011 when not mean the end of our treatment for afghanistan or even a reduction of operations from the three operations. -- reduction of operations. they will provide for their own national security. president karzai will reaffirm

our shared desire by the end of 2014. we envision a long-term nato commitment to continue acquiring and revising afghanistan nationals. we also have a commitment to build the civilian [unintelligible] with a yardy increase the american civilian contingent by more than threefold -- we have already increased the american civilian contagiony more than threefold. we hope to improve the life of afghans. we see a similar long-term commitment for our back -- iraq. whether not you thought the invasion was a good idea in the first place, it is vital that w

end it responsibly and that we continue to support them as a stable and democratic country. they sacrifice a great deal to achieve as much as they have. we are close to consolidating and entering a new phase in our relationship. on decemr 1, our initiative shifted from a combat mission to an advisory assistance mission. this has been made possible by the security situation. they have made great strides.

we have been allowed to draw down our troop presence. the security tuation has remained quite stable. it is at the lowest level since 2003. this suggests that the iraqi security forces are stepping up and providing internal security. the nature of the threat to al qaeda and other extremist groups is not what it used to be. the high-profile attacks are sporadic and not systematic bu. they are no longer setting off a chain of richard leaders -- retribution. divisions are inevitable in

society driven by conflict. iraq has taken a major step forward. there is widespread acceptance of the system. iraqis are seeking to advance with in the system rather than support those who would tear e system down. over the first few years, we have drawn down 100,000 forces. the irving the foundation for long-term security relationships predatory -- relationships.

i would like to include on the role you can play. i talked about the university's impressive history. the timeline ended about the middle of the 20th century. some of these universities have significantly cutack. this estrangement between the military and some of our finest institutions has deeply negative consequences for all involved. secretary gates recently said that today are voluntary military is well educated abroad the diversity that is representative of the nation as a whole.

the burden of the wars is borne by a very small slice of the american population. 1%. is less than1n certain segments of our society are bearing even more this portion of shares of the sacrifices. there is a risk of developing leaders that politically, culturally, and geographically have less and less in common with the people they are trying to defend. in not be good for our military or our nation. those most underrepresented are those that have most benefited from the three dams -- from the free dance. if you think i'm talking about

you, you are right. i'm asking you to consider serving in the uniformed military or elsewhere. many of you have an interest in security policy. i'm asking you to think be on the well-worn path of think tanks and policy offices. i'm asking you to think about directly contributing to the united states military. i have some knowledge of such people who have chosen such a course. my husband is a cornell grad phillips -- graduate and has served as a navy captain. why not consider a similar path? that is my challenge tonight. that is not something for

everyone. the national security challenges before us are truly daunting. we need smart and educated men and women like you to find so way to help. thank you. [applause] >> paulo will stay with -- paula will say what she agrees with their does not agree with. >> let me say how pleased i am to be here this evening with such a distinguished panel. i have known them all and worked with them. but we began by saying -- let me

begin by saying the policy overview that michelle laid out i think is a very sound and realistic one. it is one that is rooted in our national security interests. i will start with that. another thing that struck me is that at the end of this week [inaudible] what came to my mind was the issue of afghanistan and a section of that summit and where we are looking at where the next steps are. i do think the summit is an excellent opportunity to register our strong cmitment.

a number of our allies are looking at taking an alternative course. even though they may be taking an alternative course, i think this does provide an excellent opportunity to lay down the markers of our strategy very clearly and definitively and it will still appeal to o allies. our security alliance is critical. it can encourage them to move forward and still provide support for the situation on the ground, which, again, is afghanistan. many are already involved in this capacity. i think they can continue to be involved in a very critical way.

for long-term stability, it is essential to have a sound foundation of civil society, economic growth, and a fodation that tackles corruption. and i think the summit provides an opportunity to galvanize support from those that can help in this capacity. i wanted to underscore another thing she mentioned. she tked about pakistan. i do think our policies toward pakistan is essential and key in the dynamics of the evolution. i think she laid out very

clearly areas that we need to be focused on in terms of pakistan and the administration has focused on economic ways of entering pakistan and helping them and providing incentives s that we are in sync with our strategies with the eradication of those forces. we are players. the alliance is players, but all the countries in the region also have a role to play. that includes pakistan in this case. finally, i would say that, with regard to iraq, let me transfer

over the same points that made in afghanistan. when i look back on ack in terms of the evolution and the development, i do think that the combination of hard power and soft power makes a difference. i am a very strong proponent of soft power. in this case, when you look at where iraq was and where it is now, i do think that the kind of assistance that has been rendered, let me pick out a different sector, not only our allies, but, by the way, public- private partnerships. so many private partnerships, non-governmental organizations have played a very key role on the ground in iraq. institutions, organizations, like the national endowment for democracy, the national democratic institute, the international republican institute -- i can go on for a

whole variety. i can complement somebody sectors, whether it iseld, basic public services, political training, all of these areas have mattered. i wanted to mention someone who is now affiliated with harvard and has been a strong supporter of this kind of an agenda, the former ambassador to afghanistan, said lead to what -- sahid jewad is here in the audience. >> thank you. >> let me also begin by think telling -- but taking all of you for inviting me here tonight and imichele for being here tonight.

i would like to begin by endorsing your final officer list. our classrooms are filled th students who have served in a variy of capacities and are eager to find ways to serve going forward. i am sure many of them here and elsewhere will heed your call and i look forward to that. again, let me mention three things. the first is that the u.s. role and the importance of psychology -- when i think about wt i have learned in being involved in iraq and afghanistan over the last year, when the united states brings many things to these theaters, it brings litary power, financial resources, technical expertise, diplomatic hat. but one thing i certainly undervalued was the importance of studying a psychological environment. what i mean by that is that we are looking -- the international

community, broadly speaking -- we look at them to make very hard decisions about their future. we cannot make those decions r them. but we can help create a climate in which it is easy for them -- in which it is easier for them to choose a decision that may not be one that is personally aligned with their sectarian group or their tribe and prioritize as a nation. -- and prioritizes a nation. we are asking people to make decisions that could be very costly, not just financially, but primarily in terms of security and their future. if the united states helps to create psychological merman for them to make those decisions -- -- psychological environment for them to make those decisions, at the end of the day, what does it

all added to? does it add up to a psychological environment in which afghans, iraqis, and others can take the risk that we want them to take to create a better society? that is certainly one of the issues behind the timeline that secretary for elaborated on. -- secretary fornoy elaborated on. the second is building on the sock power issue. in our classrooms, many of us have talked about the importance of the civilian side of the equation. we're all very well trained to articulate that point as 80% of non-military and 20% military. in reality, i think we all know that our civilian side still falls short in many ways despite very serious effort on the part of the obama administration and

the administration for the cilian side. i want to build that into our conversation, the apartments of keeping at that, either by your own personal service, but also to our congress in recognizing that allocating money for the civilian efforts is as every bit as important as the military side. certainly, the civian side and its ability to partner and work in a whole government approach, the military approach will be a key in the success in afghanistan, but also a key in consolidating the good things that happened in iraq in the last two years. if you talk to iraqis now, they're concerned about a lot of things, but one thing is will they be able to maintain a strategic relationship with the united states? we have an interest in seeing that that relationship has many, many dimensions, not just the military dimension.

lastly, let me just conclude with a bigopic. i will say two things on it. the whole issue of what are the lessons from iraq to afghanistan -- we could spend months discussing it. i can tell you one area that i worry about people drawing lessons and another area where it is right to draw lessons. reconciliation, in some ways, we talk more about reconciliation in afghanistan. we recognize that that has to be a key component. i think there is a danger that we have the iraqi experience in our mind. if we look at what happened in iraq, reconciliation was very much a part of impved security environment in polics that both of my co-panelists described. but a lot of those people came into the political process without the iraqis in power having to make maj changes to

the constitution or the political order. it was not so much a negotiation where people had to make really hard decisions about what was fundamental to the new iraq and what was something that could be given away. it basically was insurgents and others accommodating themselves to the new iraq. that is not irreversible, but that, in some ways, suggests that reconciliation in afghanistan may be easier than it probably will be paired in afghanistan, there will be tougher conversations and tougher cisions made about what is something that could be compromised and something that is not. i think there is a lot of room for drawing good lessons on the issue of transition. we talked about how the combat role in iraq shifted to supporting and training role in iraq and how that has been. that actually masked what was in

fact a very sophisticated abolition of the relationship between the united states and the iraqis, particularly on the military side, but not exclusively. the move in the u.s. was the front line actor, one where it became a supporting actor and now a behind-the-scenes actor. it was one that was much more gradual, constantly taking assessments about is it possible to move forward? we have to move back? it took a lot of calibration. as the obama administration thinks about transition in afghanistan, something that is on people's minds, they are thinking about a model that will reflect the kind of sophisticated sequencing of both

civilian and military relationships. let me stop there and turn it back to our chair. >> can you tell us how it works in the pakistani peace? >> we have been investing in trying to develop a full- fledged strategic partnership with pakistan. we have had strong areas of cooperation on counterterrorism. one of thehings that few americans know is that, over 30,000 pakistanis have actually died, either in the military or civilians who were targeted, in dealing with these militant and

extremist groups. they are paying a heavy price. we believe that the more we can inst in pakistan, reassure them of our commitment to their stability, their economic and democratic development, the more they will be able to shift their strategic calculus in a way that buys and stability in the region and does not adopt some of their historical approaches to sort of hedging their bets, if you will turn the strategic partnership -- if you will. the strategic partnership is beginning to pay dividends. that shift will not happen overnight. we will continue continue investing in the cooperation to try to find me and more ways that we can cooperate to bring greater stability to the region. >> let me invite the audience to

join the conversation. we have two microphones on the ground floor. and there are two microphones here. the rules are that you stand up by the microphone, introduce yourself, put your questions succinctly. we only have three speakers tonight. we have a great opportunity for about 20 minutes to have a serious conversation. >> my name is eugene hogan. i am stating for a doctoral degree at brandeis university where i am studying nuclear proliferation or ways to prevent it. since tonight's topic is women and war, alice hoping to -- i was hoping to ask about challenges and opportunities that women face in public

service. the challenges and opportunities for women in america, especially in the area of national security. thank you. >> i would start by noting how much things have opened up. my first tour in the pentagon, i remember hosting a lunch for senior women in the pentagon. all nine or 10 of us sat at one table. now, if i issued a similar invitation, we would burst out of theining room. are we where we want to be? no. is it much improved? yes. what really gives me great confidence and inspiration is that there are a couple of generations right behind us. the women who are now serving as deputy assistant and at the

office director level, recently out of graduate school, several years of work experience, they are coming into leadership roles. there you see tremendous talent, gates wide-open, and i think lots of progress in terms of creating openings and opportunities for women. >> i think that's the situation has really opened up very widely for women. there are lots of opportunities. i am going to give a flip side to this. i remember when, as an ad -- as an undergraduate, i decided early on that i would go into international affairs. the fact of the matter was that there were not a lot of women who were going down that path. maybe some of the numbers at that time did not match up beuse some were not going into the foreign service. some were not going because that was not the educational path

that they pursued. i went as an undergraduate to the school of foreign service at georgetown and did my graduate work here at harvard. one of my professors, a huntington, he was very big on internships. i became an intern at the national security council. there were lots of doors opened up if you wanted to go through it and have the expertise. i will add to your question and said, bically, i think i have seen a market shift where a lot more women are pursuing careers in this path where they had not before, at least during my time and in the beginning of my career. but i think there are a lot of opportunities afforded now. >> let me put in 1 foot note and see if megan will speak to this. advertising, remembering sam

huntingtons intellectual contributions with one of his students and the usual suspects, thats november 30. megan, would you comment on this? >> yes. i have benefited from women in generations before mine and i did push some of those doors open. i have been very thankful for that in my career. this is a slightly different angle. there's the question of whether women should go into middle eastern studies? should they look to work in national security in the middle east? i would wholeheartedly say yes. i have found this to be a very fruitful and interesting and gratifying place to build relationships and to work with other people in other parts of the world. it could be from all kinds of things i have found, especially as a midwestern woman, being

able to sit with the men and being able to sit with the women. i also get to see both sides of a society which has sometimes been closed to only one sex. >> maybe i could pursue a little further. after the invasion of iraq, it was part of the first wave and it was hard to do with the politics of iraq. it was two years before you were working in policy. there were difficulties in putting the government back together again. you went back there for several months. tell us a steady to about why it is difficult for women to do this in iraq? >> i found that advantages were much greater than the difficulties. when i think about the ability to be effective in the middle east and in iraq a

afghanistan, i think about the key factor being the ability to build relationships. i think you have experience that in your different forms of service. that is the key thing. there's a people who say that women are better than that -- better athat than men. i don't get into that debate. but that was the key thing. having those relationships, some of them come from growing yourself at a great point of uncertainty. when i look at some ofhe relationships that i built with iraqis letter of -- with iraq is that are important to me, they got a great start because i arrived before a lot of the iraqis returned from exile. we were on the ground together. those days were both terrifying

and inspiring. whether you're a man or woman, an american, an iraqi, any of this has more of a bearing on gender. that has been my experience. >> thank you so much, ladies, for coming. number one, the important correlation between poverty and terrorism -- i remember working in the northern frontier province. i believe much terrorism comes out of poverty in many of these area the only social services presented are from groups such as the period after the earthquake in pakistan, i remember the relations between america and pakistanis improved quite a bit. they are very appreciative that we were one of the first responders, our government, to the tragedy there. i wanted to get your insight on the role we're playing their to

eradicate poverty. also, on behalf of my colleague here, an officer in the army who is returning iraqi veteran, she was surprised that the lack of investment on women and children in iraq. there were doing a good job at educating the men and job skills training and what not, but not for the women. she fears for the future security of the country in this way. i wanted to know, for you, what we're doing as a government to help the women and children in iraq. >> and take the last part? i thought, as you were asking your question, my first visit to iraq was because there was a conference, the voices of women of iraq conference. starting in 2003, many women in iraq were trying to organize and

reh out and they had set an agenda forhemselves as to what they wanted to achieve and how they wanted to achieve it. i have to say that i was very impressed, first with the fact that the word definitive about what they wanted to achieve. it really ranged everything from educational opportunities that they wanted to further and solidify, although they had some educational opportunities. at the same time, even to the area of sports and their ability and desire to participate in sports. over the past years, i think there has been a vigorous campaign and outreach fundamtally through government funding many ngos that are on the ground a that are specifically working with the ministries, the women's ministry, with the various

women's organizations, legal organizations that have been set up, even garnering support for wometo run for political office. i remember meeting a number of iraqi women who had never had anything to do with politics and were actually having the opportunity to come forward and to be able to do this. i will say that, in my view, a lot of the good work is done by a lot of grassroots organizations who are on the ground, who are working very closely with iraqi wen, and trying to advance their goals and objectives as they have set them forth for themselves. at the state department, a woman has been designated as the ambassador for women's issues at rge. we have worked with her over these years, both when she was in the private sector and now in government. this has been one of the priorities that both the

government and private-sector lives have been established. >> i want to address your question about poverty and terrorism. we do not find a strong correlation between economic background and those who choose terrorism. i do think there is a correlation in the un governed and under-governed spac or places that tend to be more ground for safe havens for extra mr. oups. when you look across the fox up, parts of yemen, sumatra, the have deep and abiding grievance these between the and power groups, disaffected or disempowered groups, where you

find only limited access for certain portions of the population to a basic services where government is not -- gornment is seen more as predatory than services. you have another group come in and inside an extreme ideology and gain since thesympathy. what that has told us ishat you need to take a look at government in a very integrated approach to fight terrorism. admiral wilson says that you cannot kill your way to victory in counter-terrorism. you have to drop some of e conditions that create fertile soil for terrorists to take root. >> good evening. i am hoping to take advantage of the broad title of this evening's top. i was very happy -- >> i would like you to introduce

yourself. >> i am writing my thesis on governance and its impact on the army corps of engineers on afghanistan. i think this is a place where you have an audience that is very devoted to public service and we have a lot of students in the room. we have a lot of different interests. professor alison has obviously gone less concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. what are you most exted about it? you have each gun much bigger perspectives than these current conflicts. what is the next big thing? what else should we be putting our time and energy behind in the school of government? >> i will pick up on that. one of the areas that i think is really important and worth looking at is what is happening

in the arctic. we have witnessed in the arctic a warming trend. as a result, you have passages that are being opened. on one hand, this has commercial opportunities. but it also has a race for resources and other ramifications, in fact, for many countries, including our own, that border the arctic. actually, i think that there will be number of challenges. the united states has not signed the treaty. we we should be -- we should be a signatory for the law of the sea treaty. there will be a lot of interesting challenges as well as debates and discussions over that arena, which will loom larger. for those looking for new research topics, would say to take a look at the arctic. it has energy ramifications,

commercial ramifications, environmental ramifications, and questions of sovereignty. >> i would agree wh that. i would also nominate two more -- asia is a regional one. when you look at our economic prosperity and interest, the changing power dynamics in asia, the rise of china and the rise of india, the reconsidering of international norms, commerce and trade, i think issue will be a focal point for our strategic interest for the next several decades. the other one that i haveeen talking about and that i am trying to recruit people to is cyber. cyber is a completely uncharted conceptual territory. it is like what the nuclear domain was before. most of our inherited friends

fall short war are completely -- inherited frames fall short or are completely misleading. thinking tough how we integrate cyberspace and are thinking about cyber and terms economy and national security, it is very important. >> that was a very good question. >> good evening. i am a mid-career student here at the kennedy school. in january 2011, it will mark the 20-year anniversary of the collapse of the somali government. thank u for the insights into iraq and afghanistan. my question for the panel is what are the prospects for u.s. engagement or in engagement in

the somalia situation? i would love to hear about that. >> we are just completing a view of our smaller policies. it is an extremely complex and vexing situation with great humanitarian consequences. we are redoubling our efforts to work with the transitional government to support the u.n. force and to increase the capacity to provide greater security forces. we also will be seeking to engage the other somali autonomoust or commissariea areas. it is an extremely difficult set of columns.

frankly, our lerage is limited. but we want to try to build capacity and the will of those who are more able to leverage the situation, make a difference on the ground, and help to make them more effective. >> we spoke a lot about the conflicts and iraq and afghanistan and we have not yet shifted gears about other issues, like proliferation with iran and north korea. seeing that the obama administration ran on a platform of increasing diplomatic engagement and talkingith adversarial states, i was wondering if you get to comment on why we have not seen more of a push for diplomatic engagement and other things as well, such as sanctions. we have nothing any new initiatives.

secretary of state clinton, at her confirmation hearing, there was a lot of talk by many about pushing for moves like trying to the open an interest section, more cultural exchanges. i wanted to know if you have any insight why these things have not been happening. >> i will take the first if you will take the second. on the non-proliferation front, obama came into office with a very strong desire and effort to engage iran on its nuclear program. the fact that it is out of compliance with the non- proliferation treaty and a number of u.n. resolutions and problems with the iaea, the engagement was quite serious. it was largely robust. however, the fact that we made

such an effort at engagement and it was in good faith, it allowed others in the international committee to join with us when it came time to push for sanctions. you had russia as a very strong supporter of sanctions. china and others, that you -- that is part of what is making -- the eu, that is part of what is making the sanctions effective. the fact of our engagement made to the international effort stronger. in other areas, whether it was reinvigorating the nonproliferation review conference, convening the national security summit, the non-proliferation area has been a long line of diplomacy for the administration. but we could do more. >> if 5 heard the second part of your question as to what i take away from this, something that i

think all three of us in our comments have referred to in a way, in your opening comments, you referred to that. that has been one of the challenges. i believe secretary gates has been very direct on this issue as has secretary clinton -- about the need for not only addressing our defense and military-related issues, but looking at the integration of these components and how critical it is and putting resources into the diplomatic side, which involves many of the soft power elements that we have discussed. i would simply say that i would start with the fact that there still needs to be a vigorous redressing of that issue.

i know that the state department has emulated the talk apartment of defense with this quadrennial -- has emulated the state department o defense with this quadrennial review. right now, the percentage of the moneys is very minimal. i think most think that it comprises a substantial part of our budget. it does not. >> michele was commenting on this that lost it. do you want to say more on that topic? >> one of the things that i think that those who sve in government find in this day and age is that it is difficult to find a challenge that you can effectively address with just one instrument of national power. what is needed is a much more whole-government approach and integrated approach.

yet, what we find as a nation, as we invest in one instrument, we put the military on steroids and everything else is on life support. i think that a strong military serves our national interest fundamentally and very well. but it does not serve our interests in not being able to deploy civilians in an expeditionary manner to seek diplomacy and economic assistance. they can prevent situations become a conflict situation or can help them come out of conflict and gain political objectives. the politics of this on capitol hill are extremely challenging.

it is much more difficult to get resources for the civilian side of the house than the military side of the house. yet it complicates -- that amounts complicates our ability to achieve our objectives. the transition in iraq is a case of point. the military part of the transition is well-founded. the civilian part is not. it is a real challenge for coherent policy going forward. >> we have time for two final qutions. this gentleman and this lady, thank you. >> numbest de, shalom -- namaste, cholon -- i am on racial them. i study women and war. that is why i'm here tonight. i would like to submit that to address the issues of psychological and garments and civility -- psychological

arguments and civility, the initiative of nonviolence would be a way to go forward. but because it would be a people movement. a. people move that would be political. it would be an interaction of government and the people. in particular, right now, on the west bank, there is a documentary coming out and the people of israel that together with the people in the west bank and they promoted non- violence with women leading the way. so there is some sength. if women take the lead in the movement of non-violence, the we have the empathetic house that you alluded to in the beginning. then we also have a mobilized

people. when obama took office, he reached out with the olive branch in his first television interview. he said, we're not enemies to the islamic world. to get to my question, if there was a movement -- i have been working on a global strategy of nonviolence if anyone interested with an initiative called "a call to women" -- if there was a call to women, not only in the united states, but there is evidence in afghanistan of the women getting together -- with the government be open -- would the government be open to the movement of nonviolence led by women and with the work together? >> think that there are -- over

the course of history, there have been many times whe grass-roots movements have come out of civil society and have been very powerful proponents of positive change. our own experience is the civil rights movement, the experience of the nonviolent movement in india's formation -- there are many examples of this in history where there is initially difficult and the productive dialogue with a society. -- with a society and government. it is hard for me to speculate and know exactly what you are envisioning. but a dialogue with a civil

society on how to move on a wide range of national security issues is a positive thing, especially in a dramatic -- especially in a democratic society like ours. >> tony shays was undersecretary, one of the early people opening some of the doors. >> now i am just a lowly professor at fletcher. [laughter] michele, i credit you with being the parent of pdd 56 and the whole concept. we worked on this a bit together here at the kennedy school. the concept of civil military planning, it now seems to me to be more important than ever under the kind of irregular warfare and the kind of strategy. what kind of power can you put

behind it or are you putting behind this concept? that really goes to the question and discussion just prior to the last question on the shortage of resources. but in the government, in the planning phase, knowing what'we failed that in iraq, what are you planng to do? >> there have been several iterations. is something that we actively use. there was one plan developed in iraq -- i am not sure when they started, but i was there by the later stages -- and it is also being used in a more pro-active

way as we contemplate potential future crises. we're trying to bring together people to think through them and hold government, approach, identify, everything from strategy to resources and so forth. i think the planning phase has come a long way. what has not come with it as fully as we have been discussing is the resourced ching to fully enabled the civilian plant. >> unfortunately, we have come to the end. let me say again what an honor it is to have such great public servants here and how much we especially appreciate michele for taking so much time out of

her incredible schedule. thank you. [applause] i forgot one thing. , admiral mike a mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs ostaff, will be here. >> the senate is often called the most exclusive club and the world, but i wonder if it would be so exclusive if somebody from a town of three other people and a high-school class of nine students can travel from a desk in that small school to a desk in the u.s. senate. >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators in the c-span video library, with every c-span program since 1987, all on line, all free.

it is washington, your way. >> this evening, interviews with outgoing members of the house, including wisconsin representative david obey, chairman of the reparations committee and representative john shadegg. at 8:00 eastern, a form on african americans and the current economy and the obama administration with the national urban league president former president. at 9:30, q & a with matthew parris, who writes for "the times of london." after that, terrorism threats and pakistan and afghanistan at 10:30 eastern. i>> watch ""book tv" all this

weekend. that is live. also, from this year's national book festival, former first lady laura bush on her memoir, "spoken from the heart." then tony blair on his memoir, " a journey." >> this weekend on c-span3, american history tv, the manager of the national history battlefield of the recent discovery and excavation of 200- year-old slave quarters. and never before televised history from a congresswoman on the work of the caucus and her efforts on behalf of homemakers and working women. then richard and steven ford share their memories about the only man to be vice-president and president of the united states without being elected.

see the complete schedule on line at c-span.org/history. >> c-span's original documentary of the supreme court has been at newly updated. sunday, the grand public places and those available only to the justices and their staff and how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice, elena kagan. also, recent developments. the supreme court, caring for the first time in high- definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now the use of children as soldiers, with an activist from liberia who has argued for the disarmament of 20,000 children. also, a filmmaker who has dealt with the topic. from case western university, this is one hour, 30 minutes.

>> good afternoon, i am dot maver. welcome to the international center for ethics and excellence here at case western reserve university. we will use a question and dialogue in sekhmet throughout the week. you are in for a treat this afternoon, as you will hear from panelists, many of whom have worked with or have been child soldiers. we are all in this together.

i want to remind us of the purpose and opportunity of this unique and historic summit. it is a weeklong event that the transform how we respond to, and engage in, and recover from conflict. might i submit there is a significant difference between violence and conflict, and many panelists. the week have addressed this. it is our responsibility to deal with conflict wisely and responsibly before it escalates to violence. in the words of the director of the center here at case western, but at this peace and war summit, we will address the greatest challenge that faces humanity, the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. at the national peace academy,

we are defining peace, taken right from the earth charter, and simply put that means a living in right relationship with self, others, and the world around us. let me introduce the panelists. i will begin to my immediate right, your immediate left of me, with eric howell, a writer and director. and we just screamed his film, hort narrative, "anna's playground." he has experienced every aspect of motion pictures, joined the screen actors guild in 1992 as a stunt man an actor, and that experience propelled him into stunt coordination and directing.

his feature credits include several movies. he has directed several award winning short films, and his latest film that we just screamed recently won the cleveland the international film festival and top honors at 15 international film festivals and for academy awards qualifiers. it is all about how war impacts the humanity of our children. therese is a renowned advocate for children's rights throughout africa. she is a pioneer of african literature as her novel, "essential encounters," is recognized as the first novel written by a female altar from sub-saharan africa. other major publications include

one of the first sociological essays to analyze by racial couples and her novella, "colors of tears." she also served as the adviser to african governments on the status of women. she is an associate professor of french and studies in the department of maundered languages and literature and founding director of the ethnic studies program at case western reserve university. he received his doctorate at the university, and has taught in cameroon and the state university of new york at albany. among his fiction and critical essays, "the skull," " beyond the lilies liake."

and the story you will share it is as a child soldier in cameron. part of it. kimmie weeks has worked to alleviate poverty and human suffering in africa and around the world since he was 14 years old. he was born in liberia in 1981 and when he was 9 came face-to- face with civil war, human suffering, and death. but over the years, he has formed partnerships and led organizations that have helped thousands of students in west africa, lobbied for the disarmament of 20,000 child soldiers, and provided health care and recreation supplies to children. he will be sharing his story, but he investigated and released a ground-breaking report on the librarian governments involvement in the training of children as soldiers and as a

fault result of former president of liberia, charles taylor, made attempts to assassinate him until he fled liberia and was granted political asylum in the united states. he established the youth action international, supporting the needs of families living in post war countries. in 2008, their programs that benefit close to 150,000 people in six post war african countries. he is the recipient of the 2007 award honoring people under 25 working to change the world and in 2007 the president of liberia at ellen johnson presented him with the highest honor, decorating him knight grand commander in the main order of african redemption. he is the youngest recipient of this honor. a fun fact, his photo and a

biography was on that 20 million bags of cool ranch doritos. [laughter] i love that, kimmie. we were interviewed many years ago together for peace. he helped establish in 2007 and is a doctoral research candidate in in a special study at the university of tokyo, where his research focuses on "from bullet to ballot, the politics of peacemaking in nepal." he is the recipient of many fellowships. he is the founding executive director of the asian studies center for peace and conflict transformation aspect. he is one of the founding members of the global alliance

for ministries and departments of peace. and in 2005, he found that a pulte peace initiative instrumental in the -- he founded the nepal peace initiative. he also works at the international peace researchmani association. manish has worked focusing on peace education with unicef, save the children. professor roger cram as an adjunct faculty member and director of fascicle -- and director of special project hiram college. ithree of his courses at hero college are children of the dump, diversity through debate, and human trafficking. they offered the heroes of peace remarkable conflict

resolution skills and a methodology for peaceful. peaceful. in 2007, he took 14 students to nicaragua to work with the children living on the city dump, and to south africa, working with children with aids and has presented some of his findings at or three peace summit in windsor, ontario, and has presented workshops through that part of the fence and u.s. air force. he has also appeared in "people" magazine, good morning america, cnn, and the discovery channel. but he is not on any bags of doritos, correct. [laughter] yet. a would like to take moment, the panelists and myself, and invite you to listen with all bust as each of these panelists is about to share from

the initial question that will be posed here, but in fact they each have deep and moving and educational stories to share with us. i have invited them to tell their story to open the panel through the context of this question -- what can we learn from this challenge that we face regarding child soldiers about how we educate for peace? so, how would you like to set the context as we begin focusing through the lens of what can we learn from this challenge that we face regarding child soldiers, about how we educate for peace? and i invite all of you to listen and note as the esteemed

panelists with the story share, what are the gems that relate to peace education that will help us create a world that works for everyone? we are all participating as you set the context about what can we learned from this challenge that we face regarding child soldiers about how we educate for peace. i will ask who would like to start, and will put pressure on the person to your right. professor cram. >> sure. everybody in this room wants to help others and help children and educate the world and promote peace. that is not the issue. the issue is how. about 15 years ago at here run college -- at hiram college, i

was faced with this same question as i was teaching school, how do we make a difference? don't just tell me about the problems and the world, tell me of what can be done. i did not know how. but i decided to study and start a research project on people around the world that have proven they know how. magnificent people at their best. what were their thoughts? what resolutions did they use? what values today employ in their decision? and i thought from here, maybe i could get some help. some of the people we analyzed were obviously mandela, desmond tutu, gandhi, eleanor roosevelt, but. t. washington, alberta

schweitzer, the list goes on and on. we only researched heroes that had solved the problems peacefully. no military heroes that killed more enemies than the enemy killed of them. we did it research peaceful military heroes. by the time we were through, we had hundreds of solutions that these different people had performed to resolve their conflict. what we did not expect is when we started putting them into groups. there are only 14. out of all the hundreds and probably thousands of ways to solve a problem peacefully, with magnificent people are at their best. nelson mandela had a bad day. we did not research him then. we researched him at his best.

and we were absolutely amazed at what we found. and we try to employ these 14 values and the resolving issues and problems for the people around hiram college. they worked so magnificently, we started studying children heroes. children heroes? let me give you an example. a little boy named ryan. he is 7 years old, in kindergarten. his teacher comes to him and says, you know, there are people in africa, and little villages, who don't have any water. lewe need to start to raise mon. maybe we can raise $70 by vacuuming rugs and washing dishes for your parents. well, ryan thought the will

cost $70. he went home and told his mother, i have to raise money. i have to raise $70 so i can put a water well and africa. his mother, being very wise, allowed him to do this. he raked leaves and shoveled the driveway and washed dishes and vacuum drugs for seven, eight months. now he has $70, but he is in the first grade. he took the $70 with his mother back to his kindergarten teacher and very probably held it up and says it here is $70, now you can put the water well and help those children in africa. and the children -- and the teacher looked down and him and said, ryan, water wells cost thousands of dollars. and he looked at his teacher and his mother, and then he said, i just have to work harder. and he did. and he went to every first grade

class in the entire school system and told the kids to go vacuum and rake leaves and washed dishes. in two years, he had the thousands of dollars, and he sent it to africa. but he wanted to see his well that he put in. now he is 9. he went to the newspapers and asked for help to raise enough money so he and his mother could go see the water well. within a year, he had the money, and the village in donna heard he was coming. there is a little dirt road leading into the town. as they drove the truck into the town, for over a mile, both sides of the road were lined with kids from that village, clapping as he came in, for the whole mile. this kid is 9 years old.

now he is 18. he has put in over 365 water wells in 54 different countries. now you know why i research children. now you know what the values that they use were the same boat as all of the heroes -- or the same as all of the heroes. there was perseverance. you never give up. most perceived failures in your life are not failures at all. they are successfully completed stepping stones towards a goal. let our kids know this. they don't fail when they fail at tests. they don't fail when they fail a class. just keep going. some people finished in 50 steps. some people finish in 100 steps. just one more minute, i don't

want to halt the time, but a classic example of this is thomas edison. when he was working on the light bulb, he spent time on 1,384 filaments. the little park that glows. none of them worked. he was the laughingstock of the scientific community. who could ever think of creating an electric light? as he walked down the street, people laughed at him and he was written up in scientific journals as a buffoon. 38th filament worked. he became a hero. >> a reporter came up to him and said "thomas edison, how does it feel to have failed 1,384 times? he quickly answered, i never failed once. creating the electric light was

a 1385-step process. that is how we need to look at the process to get going. the children the of the world are my heroes, and they are doing that. >> thank you. i trust you are listening not only through your ears and your concrete mind, but through your heart, and you are taking in some of these concrete values. you name date couple of them -- empathy, cooperation, responsibility -- what else did you hear? perseverance was named by roger. responsibility. as we are able to name these and inculcate them through our education and culture, we learn to live together in a just and

peaceful society i said to the right -- society. i said to the right, which brings us full around the circle. i think so. >> how to educate? i came into this subject -- this subject found me. i did not find it. i come to you as a filmmaker. the beauty of being a film maker is i do not have to answer any questions, i just have to ask them. there is a panel of people might know how to answer them. for me, the key to -- >> i think you're mike is off. >> it is it? >> i do not have to repeat that, do i? for me, i started with a riding experiment and discovered that 2000 kids were killed or injured in war every day, not to

include gang violence and everything else that is going on in the world. what i realized in my short film "anna's playground" i had a tool that could be used. that tool does something very specific. my approach as a filmmaker is through the hearts, not through the head. i think being in an environment which a learning it environment, is very interesting, -- a learning environment, it is very interesting, because- -- my film is not fact. it is not a documentary. it is absolutely contrary to that. it is fiction. it is the difference between empathy and sympathy. i think that is what i want to

bring to the table and how i want to educate with what i am doing -- create empathy. it is easy for us to watch and hear stories about what is going on in all of these different areas, and it is easy to put our head around that, but my hope is to put people's hard around the humanity of children, no matter what the political situation or the context of the situation. it is about creating empathy and connection with those of us who are blessed to live in this country. while we are surrounded by her violence, we are extremely fortunate to live in a club of america. it is difficult to get past the head and into the heart. everyone in this room is an easy audience because you are all well-versed in it. i think reaching people who are not as well-versed is how i see

connecting an audience to how they are effected by children living in violence. and, during my process of actually shooting the film -- we shot the film in minneapolis, the largest amount in community in the world outside of mogadishu. i have two quick and it notes that show directly how being in -- anecdotes that show directly how been in minneapolis, we are connected. in the film there is a rocket propelled grenade prop. my designer was going up the elevator with a somali gentleman and his immediate response was "is that real? he said it looks just like the one i used to shoot people with

what i was a boy. that was a very frightening story, and it was amazing to have this man share his story with us. then, it got more personal. after three days of shooting, my translator had not been on set. we had a translator to connect with the local community. as we were filming, he came up on the third day crying, and apologizing to me for not being there. of course, i was upset, because i am the director and everyone is supposed to revolve around me. i was taught a very quick lesson. he apologized because his 16- year-old nephew had been recruited and taken from the minneapolis neighborhood along with 24 other somalian youths and brought to mogadishu to

fight in the civil war. he was dead a week later. i think most of those kids are now dead, and this is right here, in middle america, where we are being effected not just by the violence in the inner cities, but by every kid living in violence around the world. so, my hope is to educate through the heart with empathy, rather than statistics and, i guess, through love, through the heart. that is really what my approaches. >> thank you. has you share that, i'm mindful for those of you the war at the panel today, so many of the researchers this morning mention education as a key to a just and sustainable peace. so, to live.

therese kuoh-moukoury? >> [speaking french] >> excuse me, will you translate for us? >> when i listen to what everyone is saying, i am a little bit confused because my personal experience seems to be a little bit different. [speaking french] >> i can only link my experience to my country.

[speaking french] >> as far as the other countries are concerned, i have to read. i rely on what i see in documentary's. -- document carries. -- document carries. [speaking french]

>> coming back to cameroon -- i must say cameroon has gone through a number of conflicts. even now, i cannot say that cameroon is not at war at the moment. [speaking french] >> in 1945, we have the for social upheaval. it was almost a civil war. [speaking french] >> it was asking for rights. >> [speaking french]

>> they were fixing the colonial army, but they had branches and crops, and when they started running away, the military started shooting at them. [speaking french] >> women and children, then, run to the only refuge there could be, the churches. what happened was when they went into the church they were faced with another gun. this time, it was from the priests themselves. >> [speaking french] >> from that moment, i became convinced that war is not a good thing.

>> [speaking french] >> 10 years after, there was much more organized rebellion, much more organized terrorism, if you will. >> [speaking french] >> -- sorry. these are things that touch me, also.

ok. she was not in cameroon then. she was in france. she met a student, a woman going to france to study, and she met a young man who said i headitness to my father's exposed in public places, if you will. >> [speaking french] >> from that moment, again, i've become much more convinced that children must be agitated against war. -- agitated against war. -- agitated against war. -- educated against war. >> [speaking french]

>> what is happening now is all women organizations in cameroon have taken the responsibility of educating children and and how luring them against war. -- and powering them against war. >> [speaking french] >> specifically my organization. >> [speaking french] >> and every time that i write, i have the responsibility to write against war to end to as

much as possible. -- against war, and do as much as possible. >> [speaking french] >> so, in one of my novels, that the court and better just talked about, [speaking french] >> [speaking french] >> there is a character.

>> [speaking french] >> zimba could not get married. >> [speaking french] >> because her fiance was killed during the war. >> [speaking french] >> in another piece of my writing and talking about one character who went to war but came back, with half a foot. >> [speaking french] >> these are things that when

you are a child, you see someone with half a foot, have a hand, these are images that impact a child. he never go away from those memories. you live with those memory -- you never go away from those memories. you live with those memories. >> [speaking french] >> so that is my contribution, my call -- let's work together for peace. >> thank you. i'm mindful, as you share, therese kuoh-moukoury, something betty, the mother of peace education has said. she says, aligned with what i feel in my heart, "the general purpose of peace education is to promote the development of authentic planetary

consciousness that will enable us to function as global citizens and to transform the present human condition by changing social structures and the patterns of thought that have created it. this transformational imperative must be at the center of peace education." i'm mindful of that through your writing. thank you. gilbert? >> it seems trouble follows you almost everywhere. for 60 years i have said i'm not going to talk about all of these problems. today, i am forced to do it. it started in new york. i was invited to talk to a class. when i arrived, it was a

surprise. they said talk about your life as a child, so i did. >> we are grateful. >> in 1955, the upc movement, the first organized movement in cameroon was formed. for those who had connections outside, they were obliged to flee outside of the country. those who could not had to take to what is called [speaking french] >> if you are called this in cameroon, if you are played, if

you will. after having organized from 1945 until 1955, organizing the people ideologically and preparing them for the fact that colonization is not good. suddenly, they are forced to go into hiding. at that moment the french army decided to eradicate opposition. from 1956 until 1957, and from 1957, it was my area. the tactic was clear. the french army had the duty to totally eradicate what was then considered communist. my village, my kingdom, was that the center of the upc

moment. everyone asked simply what every human being wanted it, my piece of land is my piece of land. it was not generalize. it was the some of the previous ones who were sent to france to have this education, but the vast majority of us were to work our farms that for occupied. war was general. unfortunately, for me, my father was one of the many changes. the king does not take part the king does not choose side -- the king does not choose sides.

there is no neutrality in war. the french prime minister to attend a middle -- a metal on my father -- pinned a medal on my father. i cannot forget that night. as my father was walking back home, he said i have eaten, let other people eat. that night, the liberation soldiers came and killed my father on the grounds that he expected the metal he was on the side of the army.

the french army -- award generalize. we had bombing all around. the kingdom was totally destroyed. that night, when i went and saw the corpse of my father, he was cut into pieces. when i saw him -- when i saw him, -- the answer is don't cry, but we cry. we buried my father. we had to go somewhere. you had to flee. i was asked to go to one of the [unintelligible] i saw all of these men and women dressed in khaki. they were singing songs, and i

heard the song the other day. when i've looked at it, i say so, we are really at war. if i had gone to the side of the so-called army, i would have been killed. i decided to be part of [unintelligible] we fought. that was not -- that was just for a short time. independence came in the 1960's. since we had to independence, for most of us, war was not part of our history. i will go quickly. i am not the only one. we are so many of us. our role was to carry songs or messages. [unintelligible] we were finally given