second and third generation. their kids, their nephews, they are all in this big family up there. host: that's it for our friday morning program. thank you so much for being with us. "washington journal" will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. not forget about president bush's interview with students on "q&a." thank you for being with us. guest >> a full day of live programming is coming up for you here, on c-span.

first, president obama is here in washington, and plans to speak at the families usa health-care conference we will have that live for you. coming up at noon, our focus will shift to the defense forum foundation where john bolton will speak. he will discuss national security challenges, and possibly considering a run for the presidency next year. a little bit later, the congressional black caucus will look at recent recommendations. academics and economists will take part in the check. this sunday, we will spend an hour talking with former president bush about his life and his new book "decision points." here is a portion of the interview. >> you do not mention scott mcclellan.

he went out and wrote a book that was somewhat critical. why not? >> he was not part of a major decision. this is a book about decisions. it is not a book about personality, and gossip, or settle in scores. i did not think he was relevant. >> see the entire interview sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span "q &a." coming up, we'll hear president obama on health care, until then, your calls on egypt. from organizing more mass rallies.

we would like to hear from you with your telephone calls aut what the protest mean for here -- us here in the u.s. states, and whether there is a role for us. the phone numbers are on the screen. also, urgent from the associated press. police used water cannons on egypt's democracy leader. it suggests that police used water cannons against egypt's pro-democracy leader and his supporters as they join the latest wave of anti-government protests after friday noon prayers. police used batons to meet some

of his supporters who surrounded him to protect him. we would like to specifically invite arab-american viewers. to help us understand some of thcontext of the stories, that would help all of us learn. let us begin with a telephone call from miami. ron on the democrats' line. caller: thank you very much. the problem with all of the arab countries surrounding israel is set up all of these puppet governments, and what they have done is gone and the interest of israel and not the people. host: what do you see as the interest of the people? caller: they want a democratic society. and all of these regimes that the united states and israel support are there to only protect iael. please, watch democracy now, amy goodman and mosaic news from the

middle east, linktv. host: fred is a republican from fairfax, rginia. is there a role in the u.s. now that young people and others have taken to the streets and places like tunisia, egypt, and yemen? caller: i am from the middle east. what i am suggesting is the united states should not ask why, because aching for 28 years is a king -- a king for 28 years is a king. you did not have to go any further. they have to change -- no matter if they promised change. that, 9/11 iso going to happen again.

those poor people, they don't have any hope. in the information ministry that they have, theyet the people scared. host: the whole issue is about the rights of the public, including the ability to speak, more democracy, sense of authority and the economy. we are asking you, what should the u.s. do about the arab protests? today is called a day of rage in egypt. we've got some video that we will show in just a couple of minutes that has been posted and widely available in yahoo and the ddge report and other places. michigan, this is tom.

yoare on the air. tom, go ahead. caller: yes. i think the american government shou do nothing about what is going on in the middle east. there are americans living in all of these countries. i know somebody who is living in beirut and studying arabic, and that is what she does. she travels and studies arabic in different places. there are a lot of people like that who are americans living in the middle east right now. i really don't think it is our part to get in the middle of anti-government protests right now in the middle east. even with the oil that we import so much of it. i don't think that's a play a factor in what our -- that should play a factor in what our country should be doing. host: some say there is an opportunity for the united states -- to support democracy

movements. caller: you know, spending the last 25 years living in and around detroit, you need to muslim iraqis as well as chaldeans and when we invaded iraq, everybody that i knew who had family members living in iraq, whatever their ethnic heritage, said the same thing -- they didn't want democracy there then and they don't want it now. host: thank you so much. sam on twitter has the same ideas -- the next cal on the egyptian protests, tunisian protest and also in yemen -- kevin, independent. caller: how is it a democracy when we are trying to go over

there and for said in a way? it doesn't really make any sense. i have a brother who served in afghanistan and a dad who served in the military. is our government thinking about the u.s. families here? we have enough problems on our own soil. why are we always going abroad? guest: thank you for your call. this video message, if you go to drudge report or yahoo, this is getting circulated around the internet, showing recent protests, including one young man described as being shot in th streets as the protests continue. we will watch that and take our next telephone call from michigan. this is leah on the republican line. caller: i am delighted to call. my thought is that, regarding the conflict, we absolutely have to treat this with a kind of reverence for human time -- despite the anger, it is a

natural phenomenon. it is important we remember here that there is an historic significance of place in the middle east in the way the countries relate to one another going all the way back into history. i think there has been an exchange of trade and culture in the area. i really think the united states needs to take eight steps back and -- take a step back and understand and a separate way that everyone is affected. host: thank you for your call. we will leave the video now from the ipad, associate press video, it is available at yahoo and other places. next is a call from minnesota. derek, independent lin caller: how are you? host: fine, thanks.

caller: thank you for c-span2. it is fascinating to see all of this happening and see it spread. the united states should just let it happen. host: what are the risks and rewards for the united states if we just let it happen? caller: the risk for the united states, looking from a historical perspective, the way in which the united states interfered in countries like iran and iraq and the masses we had to clean up later, i think -- messes we had to clean up later, i think it is a chance to let the people around the world to determine theirwn destinies and to create future positive relationships with arab countries around the world and prevent things like terrorism from continuing to happen. i think this is a pivotal moment potentially into the relationship between the united states and countries in the middle east. host: here is a story frothe

"no york post." thousands of protesters burned fires, threw molotov cocktails in the worst unrest in hosni mubarak's 30-year rule. this is a statement from hillary clinton, secretary of state -- we believe strongly the egyptian government has an important opportity to implement political, economic, and social reforms in response to the legitimate needs and interests of the people. tennessee. james, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: those people over there, from everything i gathered, they just want democracy. and the government isorrupt the united states is sponsoring their government, more or less.

they just want an equal chance at life. they have to be pretty -- to go in the streets and risk their lives. we havto realize these things, there are things going on there -- just like hear what the government. we should already have jobs and infrastructure. host: thank you for your call this morning. a viewer who called themselves dirty water writes this -- in the washington post, all of the newspapers, front-page story and many pages inside about the turmoil in the arab nations. yemen, here is a story -- amending the end of the government that ruled for more

than three decades -- demanding the end of the government.

that is reporting from yemen. talking about what the united states should do, if anything, about arab protest now and three countries. james is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. this looks like it could be quite an opportunity for the west if we handle it correctly. certainly in the past we have supported regimes, at the time -- is supported regimes. at the time our reasons were probably rational. we have to be careful about how we handle this. i suspect- do not have enough knowledge about what is going on in these states. i hope the state department will look very closely at this. i think a light hand is probably going to be necessary. but i look for this as an

opportunity, and i certainly pray that it is. host: shris -- chrisnbama writes -- in "the washington post," here is what up front page story says --

next is a call from tulsa, mike, and independent. caller: i think the united states should stay out of is. this is an oppressive government on its people. and these people are fighting for freedom. also, i am a little ashamed o vice-president by an's support biden's's so put -- support of the government, the egyptian government. i heard comments on the news and basically he is supporting this government. these people have a right to protest, they have a right of freedom of speech. this government essential is a dictatorship, i would say almost on the verge of communism. and yet our government is making

comments of support. it is not right. we should stay out of these people's affairs and let them decide on what type of government they want. host: our next comment, and then a who is a democrat watching from -- anthony who is watching from los angeles. caller: my opinion is, and the opinion of most people, is of the united states should not meddle in the affairs of egypt or yemen, but i think the united states will, because of the fact of the suez canal. the united states do' i believe the europeans will. host: where does that leave us, anthony? >> , that leaves us, the people of america, really with nothing to do -- caller: that leaves us, the people of america, really with nothing to do. we know the suez canal is of

vital importance to the united states government. host: thank you for your call from los angeles. american hero tweets -- the front page of "the new york times" is filled with stories about this. olmert says h and of that were near a deal in 2008 -- he and abbas were near a deal in 2008.

you can read more from that in "the new york times." the lead story -- below tha a story about aljazeera and its role in this. galvanizes arab frustration. below that, on the wikileaks cable show --

jonathan, you are on the air. caller: you know, american- backed, the emphasis on american cutback in countries because of the oppressive governments is unwarranted, in my opinion. i mean, we cannot snap our fingers and change the world. the world is full of all present government. we have to deal with what we have at hand. i think we should support moderate democratic forces the best we can. i think this is a gre opportunity, a very troubling thing that is going on in the middle east. you talk about protest going on in lebanon. i would hope it would spill over intoran. the people are becoming more affected by modernism and becoming more aware, more

educated, and they are seeing their oppressors more clearly and they don't like a. i think it -- they don't like it. i think it is great what is happening and we should support the proper forces. there are people like the muslim brother heard -- brotherhood in the egypt that stance to take the reins and we should do everything we can to prevent something like that happening. because that would be tragic for the people of egypt and for us. host: "the new york times" story this morning -- we have been telling you that this is more economic and authority versus individual rights. they have protested against rising prices and stagnant incomes --

next phone call is from boulder, max, democrat. caller: several things. first, the suez canal, it is in our best interest to deal with whoever will be taking over egypt. we have to deal with the people that we do not even know who is in the lead of these protests, so we definitely want to talk to them if they do overthrow the government. this islmost indicative of what is going on in our country, is we are polarizing between democrats and republicans.

growg up and becoming aware of my political beliefs, is when reagan in cited -- incited the people that the government is an enemy, those were treasonous words. that is why we of timothy mcveigh and protests -- have timothy mcveigh and protests and people killing their own congressman. this is downright atrious. to get back to egypt, egypt has a ruler who has been there 30 years and he is probably a stick in the mud on policies and people want to will mobilize a more progressive -- in more >> we will leave "washington journal" at this point, and go

live to president obama. this introduced by families usa executive director. this is live coverage, here on c-span. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause] >> yes we can. yes we can. yes recant. -- as we can. >> i think some of the applause was for you. [laughter] >> mr. president, we are very honored by your willingness. >> thank you, mr. president. [applause] >> to join us here this morning.

as you know, so well, numerous president's over many decades tried to secure health reform legislation that would move us toward high-quality, affordable health care for all americans. you, mr. president, actually achieved it. [applause] [applause] >> i think they like you. [laughter] >> we are so deeply indebted to you for this historic accomplishment.

through the president's bold and compassion -- compassionate and vision, together with his strategic practicality, president obama achieved what eluded his predecessors. the affordable care act will provide peace of mind and real security for america's family. we all know our work is not yet done. that is why all of us, from the many states represented in this room -- we are committed to working toward the effective, state-by-state implementation of the affordable care act, and we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the president to make sure that no one, absolutely no one, takes away from america's families the important benefits and rights of the affordable care acts.

[applause] -- affordable care act. [applause] >> so, my dear colleagues, please give your warmest welcome -- [applause] [laughter] leader, ourtion's very good friend, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you so much. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. everybody, please have a seat. thank you, not only for the

generous introduction, but the wonderful leadership and sharing some of your applause with me. [laughter] >> to sell and take four founding families usa, we thank you. kate, fourl and found in families usa, we thank you. for all of you that believe that change does not come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up, thank you. [applause] >> on tuesday, i gave this little speech, here in town. in the state of the union i outlined my vision for an america that is more determined, more competitive, better position for the future -- an

america where we out-innovate, out-educate, out-build the rest of the world, where we take responsibility for our deficits, and reform our government to meet the requirements of the new age. that is what will be required for the new company's of the 21st century to set up shop here, in the united states. that is how our people will prosper. that is how america will remain a place where each of us is free to choose our own destiny, and make of our lives what we will. for most families, that freedom requires a job that pays the bills, covers your mortgage, helps you look after your children. it means a chance to send those children to college, save enough

for retirement, and it means access to quality, affordable health care. [applause] >> that as part of the american dream. [applause] >> that security is part of the american dream, and that is what brought me here to this conference four years ago this week. i looked younger then. [laughter] >> i did not have as much gray hair. even before the pains of this historic recession we have just gone through, four years ago, that was still on the horizon. our friends and neighbors were already dealing with the anxiety

and the cruelty of a health-care system that just did not work for too many american citizens. we believe that we could change that. we believe that we could finally guarantee quality, affordable care for every american. even though i had not announced my candidacy for this office, i join you that day in a promise that we would make health reform a reality by the end of the next president could go first term. [applause] .-- president's first term [applause] >> that was our commitment, and together, that is what we did. that is what you did. thank you for all of those years of work to help make it happen. if i could not be prouder. [applause] >> since i signed the affordable care act into law 10 months

ago, americans already have more power, greater freedom, stronger control of their healthcare. this law will lower premiums. it is limiting costs. it is raining in the worst abuses of the insurance industry with some of the toughest consumer protections this country has ever known. this is making a real difference for families across this country as we speak. now, it is no secret that not everyone in congress agrees with this law. [laughter] >> as i said on tuesday, i believe that anything can be improved. as we work to implement it, there are going to be times that we say this needs a tweak, it is not working exactly as we intended. here is a way of doing it smarter, better. we might be able to serve the families even more. i am willing to work with

anyone, republican or democrat to make it better, or to make their health care more affordable. i have suggested we begin by correcting a legitimate concern in a flaw that placed a necessary bookkeeping burdens on small business. i'm open to other provisions. here is what i am not open to, and i said this on tuesday. i am not willing to fight again the battles of the last two years. i am not open to efforts that will take this law apart without considering the lives and the livelihood's that remain in balance -- in the balance. families usa, we are moving forward. [applause]

>> already, small business owners are taking advantage of the new health care tax credit that can offset as much as 35% of the cost of covering their employees. we have small business owners like jeanine of spokane, washington. she always tried to do the right thing and cover her workers, but she explained we are a small business, we care about everyone that works here, but over the last 12 years her premiums had tripled, and that was eating away at her profit margin. but, today, that new tax credit that was part of the affordable care act is helping her cover for workers, and in 2014, she is going to be able to pull off with other small-business owners to shop for the best premiums for her staff, just like larger businesses do. as we speak, americans are here

in rolling in programs that allow affordable coverage for folks that have been shut out of the insurance market because of pre-existing conditions. people like gal bryant, who was diagnosed with lymphoma was working full-time as a teacher. because she was sick, no insurance would cover her. as she put it, if she was scared of death -- scared to death. not of cancer, but how she would pay her bills. she thought her and her husband would have to pay everything they had saved to pay for her son's college education in order to afford treatment. she was the first person to sign up for a program available under the affordable care act, and today, she is doing great. by 2014, no insurer will be able to discriminate against her or any one of the others up to 129

million americans with a pre- existing condition. [applause] >> they will have more affordable private insurance options through state exchanges that promote competition and transparency, and better deals for consumers. parents of children who suffer from a pre-existing condition can finally breathe a sigh of relief. awn ofs like d jacksonville, florida. she is self-employed. she buys insurance on the open market. her son has an eye condition that demand frequent surgeries. in the past, insurance have excluded benefits from her plan. as her premiums soared, she called around last summer, after the affordable care act had taken effect to find any plan

that would cover her son. she found a company that is offered -- offering her a reasonable rate, but she ask what is not covered. the insurer says no, you are covered. everything is covered. dawn says i am not being clear here to read what about my son? -- here. what about my son? the insurer said we can no longer exclude pre-existing conditions for children. [applause] >> a imagine what that felt like. imagine the relief that comes with knowing the treatment for your sick child no longer has to threaten the dreams you have worked a lifetime to build for

him. you are not going to have to make these heart-breaking choices. that is happening now. millions of young americans can stay on their parent's plan until they turn 26. millions of older americans are receiving better access to preventative services and more affordable prescription drugs. we have torn down the barriers that existed between the american people and their doctors. inside your network, you can see the primary-care physician, the pediatrician, the ob/gyn of your choice, and you can use an emergency room outside of your network without your insurer sticking you with extra charges. every american can access preventive care, to get and stay healthy for free. all of misinformation about the new choices and the new rights available to you is available to you in one simple place, health

care.gov. you can log on, type in your zip code, and compare prices. right now, you could do that. this was all before we set up the exchanges that will allow 30 million americans to get access to care, and allows small companies to finally get the same deal big companies get, in people being part of a big pool that gives them a better deal across the board. now, as important as what is happening right now is what is not happening right now. you may have heard once or twice that this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget- monstrosity.tros that is how it has been portrayed by opponents. that does not match up to reality.

this thing has been in place for 10 months, all right? [applause] >> so, let's look at what has happened over the last 10 months. not only has the economy brown and added jobs, -- grown and added jobs, but small businesses across the country have already chosen to offer health care to hundreds of thousands of their employees, many for the first time. that is something, regardless of politics, that we should all celebrate. [applause] >> estimates from the business roundtable -- now, this is not some left-wing organization -- it is an organization of all the largest businesses estimate that it could save employers

anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 per family per year. that is money businesses can use to grow, invest, and higher. that is money workers will not have to see banished from their paycheck. that is good for all of us. i can also report that ice is safe. -- granny is safe. [applause] >> in fact, granma's medicare is stronger than ever. if she was one of the millions of seniors that fell into the doughnut hole last year, she received a check or soon will to help her afford medications and a new 50% discount on brand-name drugs as a part of the new affordable care act. [applause] >> finally, because it is

absolutely true that we have to get a handle on our deficit, that the debt we are carrying right now is unsustainable if we do not take action, it is important for us to be clear about the truth when it comes to health care reform. health-care reform is part of deficit reform. [applause] >>, we know -- we know that health-care costs including programs like medicare and medicaid are the biggest contributors to our long-term deficit. nobody disputes this. this law will slow these costs. that is part of the reason why non-partisan economists, the congressional budget office, has said retailing this law would add one-quarter of $1 trillion to our deficit over the next decade, and another trillion in the decade after that. they are not just making this

up. once more, repeal would send middle class premiums of, would force large employers to pay that extra $3,000 per worker, and shift control to the insurance companies. i have repeatedly said i believe our system of private insurance is strong and viable, and we needed to be. it saves lives. it employs large numbers of americans. and, by the way, it is still making pretty good profits. but just as we are a people that believe in the power of the individual, the promise of the free market, we are also a people that believe from our founding that we aspire to protect one another from harm and exploitation. [applause] >> our task -- has always been

to seek the right balance between the dynamism of the marketplace, and also to make sure that it is serving people. sometimes, that means removing barriers to grow by lifting rules that place unnecessary burdens on business, and other times it means connecting common sense, safeguards, -- common- sense safeguards like these that ensure our american belief that hard work and responsibility should be awarded by a sense of responsibility -- sense of security and fair play. that is at the heart of this reform. if that is why we fought so hard. if that is why we have to keep on telling people around this country about the potential of this reform and what it means for them and their families. that is why we are not going to fall back. i do not want to tell students we are building them off of

their parents health coverage or seniors their medicine as out of reach, or ginnie better taxes gail oing back up, a orgai the shares to choose between her home -- that she has to choose between her home and your health. i do not want that for our families. that is not who we are, and that is not what we stand for. if we do not believe that people should have to -- we do not believe that people should have to hope against hope that they will stay healthy, or hang all of their fortunes on a chance. we do not believe in a country like ours that one in eight of our citizens should be that vulnerable, the matter how hard they are working. we believe in something better.

so, the time for fighting the battle of the last two years has now passed. it is time to move toward. these efforts -- strengthening our families, getting our fiscal house in order, allowing small businesses to grow, and individuals to strike out on their own free from question -- s.ushing crost as vital as this reform is, as committed we are to getting the implementation right, to win the future in this new and changing world will require more of us. i believe we are up to the test. i think we can create the jobs of the future by fortifying our lead in innovation, including investing in biotechnology that could deliver new cures for crippling diseases. we could fill those jobs by guaranteeing all of our children have the best skills and

education possible. we could convince the businesses and industries to take root here by building a new network of infrastructure. we can bring down our deficit by taking responsibility, just as we have done in our own lives, to cut wasteful and excessive spending whatever we can find it, and we can restore our people's belief in our capacity to meet this moment by reforming our government so it is smarter, more nimble, and equal to our times. if we can do all of these things. all of you believe we can do all of these things. think back to where we were standing four years ago. think of all the hard work and the heart you put into a cause that you believe in four years -- for years. think of the feeling you had a moment your efforts paid off, the feeling when your faith was rewarded. [applause]

>> all of you are a reminder. you are proof of the fact that we are a people that can change our country for the better. if all of us summon that spirit now, so all the hardships, the ups and downs, the twist and turns, i am absolutely convinced that our best days still lie ahead. i could not be more proud of you, families usa. thank you for your extraordinary work. thank you, ron. let's keep on going. thank you. god bless. [applause] ♪ [applause]

♪ ♪ box president obama speaking at this event hosted by families

usa. republicans continue their efforts to repeal the health- care bill despite challenges of a passage in the senate. democrats have laid out their strategy and face in the republicans' effort to repeal, including a counter-hearings, and personalizing the law's benefits. if you can read about it in an article in -- you can read about it in an article in "cq" at cq.com. ♪

♪ ♪

♪

[applause] >> we have more body vans coming up on c-span. in about an hour, john bolton, who was also considered to be running for president next year, will talk about security challenges. it is hosted by the defense forum foundation, live, again, starting at noon eastern. also, the congressional black caucus deficit commission will look at how the recession is effecting a minority communities. they recently formed their own coalition of economists, and today they will convene panels to broadly discussed the implication of proposed budget cuts on the hon. populations. live coverage starts at 1:30

p.m. eastern. this sunday, we will spend an hour talking with former president bush about his new life and his new book. here is a portion of the interview. >> you are through will -- you are through with politics? define that. >> i do not want to campaign. i do not want to be on talk shows giving my opinion, second-guessing the current president. i think it is bad for the president -- for the country to have a former president -- president criticizes predecessor -- -- it is tough enough. plus, i do not want to do that. despite that i am now on tv, i do not want to be on tv. >> it is about over. >> it is, but i tell people that one of the interesting sacrifice -- i did not think you sacrifice, but to the extent that you do, you lose anonymity.

i like the idea of trying to regain anonymity to a certain extent. being out of the press is something that makes me very comfortable, and the summit liberating, frankly. >> see the entire interview sunday night at a o'clock p.m. eastern and pacific. >> the 2011 chicago moret -- my real debate. >> the top four candidates are seated in no particular order. rahm emanuel, carol moseley braun, gery chico, and miguel

del valle. the format we have agreed to is casual. no time limits, but we will cut you off if needed, so that everyone has time to be heard on the topic. we encourage you to question and respond to each other. the debate is just under one hour. we will start with questions on some of the bigger issues our city is facing. bruce has the first question. >> let's talk about the news of the day. >> just a couple of hours ago the illinois supreme court ruled that mr. emanuel would it remain on the ballot. is that the right ruling? >> i am a lawyer and a former prosecutor. i do not question the ruling of the courts. the ruling stands. the fact is that the field has not changed. we are still in this and are trying to get our message out. i want to talk about job creation in chicago, getting our schools fixed -- i am talking about the issues that affect real chicagoans.

>> mr. chico, is this a distraction to the campaign? >> no. i am not challenged anyone in my career, including rahm. i am had been privileged to serve as chief of staff for the mayor, president of the school board where we brought our schools but from the brink, parks chairman where we built parks for our children. i will not do what ron emanuel has done which is proposed the single largest sales tax -- >> do you think politics was at play in the appellate court decision?

>> the good news is now that we have the supreme court decision, it is final. a flea this will be the last question for all of us about it. that decision is -- i have always said that the voters will make the decision on who will be the next mayor. i think that what is facing the city is a real debate not about my presidency but about what the residents of the city of chicago care about which is our schools, our streets, and our economic finances so we can attract businesses rather than seeing companies leave. we can keep those corporate residents appear in the city of chicago. >> we are going to talk about a lot of great ideas you all have over the next hour.

none of them will get done at the city does not resolve its financial crisis. we are looking at more than $15 billion in underfunded pension obligations. the city has got to more than $1 billion in just a few years in a parking meter money. we have debts on top of the pension obligations. how are you going to answer this crisis? will you find cuts or will you raise revenue? >> we have to begin by looking at the entire budget. we know there is waste, fraud, inefficiencies in this city's budget. we need to look at each department. we need to conduct audits. the popular term is a "forensic audit." we have to look at each line line by line and immediately began to cut back those deputies that report to the deputies, those patriot's petitions that have existed in the city of chicago that are protected by the aldermen and other folks -- we have to send a

strong message to the voters that we are going to reform government and we are going to start by getting our fiscal policy in order. that means collecting all of those unpaid water bills because someone knows someone who works at city hall and do not pay their water bills. we will take the surplus dollars in tip money that should have been going to the district in the first place. we created to meet debt districts in the city of chicago.

we have to change the way we pick up garbage, change it to a grid system. we are going to have to patch together a budget to get us to this difficult time. there is more than $1 billion in revenue that we had in 2007 when the recession started. we will get that revenue back as the economy improves. there is a lot of sacrifice that has to be made. it has to be made by those who have been able to get by because of their political connections and because of the big fat contracts they got from city hall. contractors will have to reduce their costs. a lot of pain for a lot of people will be necessary. >> the city will have to come up with a $550 million property- tax increase. >> we will have to go back to the general assembly and get a amendment to that all that will allow us to wrap up over a period of years. the property tax is the most unfair tax that we have. of years. >> even if you run to the legislation, you still have the obligation.

>> i was just getting to the other part. for the employer contribution, i am, that we get the unions back to the table to talk about increasing the employee contribution. i, as an employee, will not agree to that unless my employer contributes to that fund. >> we have budget probls and issues to resolve, but i would not go so far as to call a crisis. that panics people. we have to do several things. we have to grow the economy, balanced growth, take into account job creation in the neighborhoods, not just downtown. we have to use what we have -- we have to put what we have to better use. use the efficiencies in the way city government operates.

if we modernize some of the back office functions, it is timated we could save almost $80 million just by doing that. then there is what professor simpson talked about as the " corruption taxpayer "it is $50 million a year that goes to kick to the commissioner and talk to another deputy. it is difficult for small businesses to get started in chicago. if we roll out the red carpet to them, it makes it easier for them to get started. we can give the medium-sized business is the kind of support they need. we have great assets here. we have all kinds of assets we can bring to bear to help stimulate the growth. continued growth, innovation, and exporting from the city -- we can re from the ashes of this recession. >> i believe this.

i am the only person on this panel this evening that as bua municipal budget together. i have but 16 of them together. each and everyone has a surplus. there is no doubt you have to overhaul the city government operations. you got to have a plan first. we have exss of management in our cd system that has to be eliminated. we have -- we have access management i get are city system that has to be eliminated. the city clerk's office has come irrelevant. in addition to a number of cuts we will have to make as reshaping downsize the budget, we will have to adopt best practices. propped bill pay debt. right now, we do not pay our bills on time and it cost us money. you have to grow new entrepreneurial sources of revenue. i have talked aboutdvertising.

bring the 14,000 lots the city owns that pay no taxes back under the tax rolls. i will not tax people and get a whole new way as mr. emael has suggested. we are talking about imposing a sales tax on barbers, child care, car washes, you name it. >> let me answer your first question. i believe you have to go to the budget and asked of the metal question -- and as the fundamental questions. i propose we spend $500 million on health care in the city. a comprehensive wellness plan white the private sector. if you centralized procurement

across all functions -- the corporate fund as well as the other funds and centralize it, $40 million -- $40 million in savings. i have laid out specific ideas addressing exactly that to make these statements and change the way you do business in the city government. also, residents pay water bills, businesses pay, the nonprofits do not pay. they do not have to pay the same rate, but didn't we subside them in the tax code, they can also pay to make up the difference. those are specific ideas with specific numbers on how to solve that problem. >> you were opposed to taxing the nonprofits in the editorial building. >> no, not at all. i was the first candidate to say no to taxes, number one.

as for the nonprofits, the water and sewer subsidies we currently provide is one that does not make sense anymore. i think we should end the subsidies. >> she did in the editorial board agree on that point the that right now residents pay, small businesses play, nonprofits do not, and that is not fair. it is not the same rate, but there is a big hole there. i had the same issue on sales tax. i propose a 20% reduction in sales tax. we have the highest sales tax in the city. i do not think it is fair for a single mother with two kids who is trying to buy school supplies to pay higher sales tax to people probably do not pay. people who rent a limousine do not pay. think a single mother or a family buying school supplies should pay less and the retail

merchants will report a 24% reduction in tells tax. it will provide $200 for working families while -- i think a 20% sales tax cut for the city with the highest sales tax in the country, it is time to give working families a 20% cut in the sales tax. >> it is not a 20% cut. it makes no sense to call this a luxury tax if the way it is described right now as far as i understand it is to arge the same single mothe for child care. to charge the same single mother to take your pet to the grimmer to get clipped -- 9% more. i do not understand it. >> can i say one thing? when we were at the wttw, you

said you're for cutting sales tax. here, you're taking a deposition. that's ok. i proposed exactly how to do it. a 20% cut in sales tax, becau i think a working mother should not been paying more than a person who rents a limousine or a corporate jet. >> here is a place we will have to spend a lot of money. discuss how to get rid of crime in the city. >> if i may, it is not just a matter of taxes. it is a matter of fees as well. we pay more to park in downtown chicago then they pay in manhattan. we are faced with giving away the right to collect those revenues for the next 25 years. i think that -- first, no n taxes. take a look at how the policy decisions that have been made before and correcting some of that can move the city in the direction of balanced growth so

that making men and women can be encouraged to stay in chicago, refit -- -- riclocate here to the city. >> yo're saying you would reverse the parking meter >> absolutely. it was a bad deal for chicago in every way. they -- the city sold $100 million. that is what the inspector general was worth $3 billion to $5 billion. i think we need to renegotiate its, bring the parties to the table. there have been two lawits. if we do have to pay it back, we will have the benefit of the revenue coming to the city. right now, it is revenue from the parking meet -- right now, the revenue from the parking meters do not come to the city. >> there has been a very

oppressive climate created in the city of chicago as a result of all the fees, tickets, red light cameras, and the parking meter deal. there is a need to review the entire revenue structure in the city of chicago and to make modifications. we give people big issues over two tickets. we need to collect our revenue, but it is time for us to be sensitive to what is happening in the neighborhoods where people have had it up to here with the city. it is time for us to do a total revamping of the revenue structure. that means all the fees, all the fines -- and come up with something that makes sensehat allows us to be able to implement our wls, but not in

anmpressive -- not in an aggressive way. we see people coming into the clerk of this -- office with a hardship cases and we give them the cold shoulder in the city of chicago. we need to be more sensitive while at the same time maki sure we watched that bottom line. we cannot continue to stand and raise revenue on the backs of the middle class who are trying to survive. it is tough out there. because it is tough out there, government has to change. >> miguel is right. people feel nickeled and dined on the taxes and fees across the city. i have proposed a 20% reduction in the sales tax for the city.

i he also proposed eliminating the employee a head tax. the number-one reason some plants are not competitive is because of the head tax. i have also opposed the way we tax natural gas and utilities. the fact is, people across the city filled nickeled and din med. we can provide sensible and balanced tax cuts for the working families. it will help companies and people -- help companies add people. >> an elegy modified the chicago police department? . -- >> was to put more officers on the -- mr. cco wants to put more officers on the street.

>> i think the number one issue on the minds of people is public safety, without a doubt. yesterday i proposed a crime and safety plan. standing with me was a woman by the name of gloria patron. she had lost her 13-year-old son to gang fire. she was struck six years later. i promised her i would do everything in my power to bring the right amount of policto our city so per side -- so her son or any other child would not have to get through that again. in 1993 we brought 1000 police officers onto the force. i think i am the only person who brought officers to the force. >> you cannot take credit for what mayor daley did. >> i recommended it.

we let our manpower drop down to a point that is dangerously low right now. we have ravaged our caps program. we are using one-man cars. we are not able to havthe right amount of foot-patrols. we can hire 2000 police officers i get a budget of $6.50 billion. that amounts tobout 2.5% to 3%. anyone who cannot modify a city budget to come up with 2000 police officers, which is the number-onessue for people in the city, should not be mayor. >> i helped president clinton paed the assault weapon ban -- the brady bill. the simple strategy for 1994 which was novel than about putting more police on the streets and getting guns off the

streets. i know how to find 1000 additional officers. second, a comprehensive after- school program. two-thirds of juvenile violence occurs between the hours of 3:00 and 6:00. we have to prosecute the gun laws we have on the books. i think jerry reese needs to go. the philosophy should not be about adding me bureaucrats to the central office. it is about understanding the beat officers are the backbone of the police department. my father was a police officer for 25 yearsn the city of chicago. all but also like to know it that the after-school program is essential. i was down on the south side pd

i was preaching -- on the sell side. i was greeting visitors. a young man stopp me and said, ", like to show you something." people out a contract. he said, "i started my own after school con -- after-school program. the parents sign a contract involving them in our academic life." that is the academic approach we should be taking. >> this is not just about adding more police officers. it is about building communities. you do not build commuties with a program here and a program there. you build communities by addressing the issues that are confronting them on a day-to-day basis like unemployment and the lack of a quality education. we need community learning

centers at each school, which is what i have opposed, where the entire family is engaged in learning and building communities. when the school because the anchor of the neighborhood, small businesses are developed. we still have small businesses that cannot get started because they are waiting for the city council to approve a permit. that takes two months. you can have a three-point plan or a four-point plan, but if you are not organizing committees said that they become strong communities, you will continue to have public safety problems due out the city of chicago. we are not headed in the right direction right now. >> my brother is a police officer as were my uncle and my father. i was a former federal prosecutor myself.

law enforcement cannot just the top down, it has to be bottom up. you have to do with prevention. -- you have to deal with prevention. i have uortunaly have to take the bla for the three strikes and you're out. if all enforcement -- what we have now is a deart of attention to prevention. a lot of these young people are hanging out on street corners in getting into trouble. my grandmother used to say, "i do not like e devil's workshop." we are not giving these kids anything to look forward to. they do not have music and physical education in the schools. that gives rise to the sky high dropout rate we have in our

city. they also do not have jobs to look forward to when they leave school. >> the chicago unemployment rate is 9.5%, much higher in some neighborhoods. when wal-martanted to bring jobs into the city, the city council existed and block the expansion of wal-mart. >> the answer comes not with the giants like wal-mart, but with dr. been worse. if we encourage entrepreneurship in the communities to create jobs these young people can take, wheat will be able to adjust the balance growth issue for our city as well as give young people opportunities. if the giants want to come in, they should come in. you cannot have people worki for less than minimum wage and expect to have the help the city. it costs $5 an hour to park at the movies.

it is $4.50 to take the bus to go somewhere. people have expenses that the less than minimum wageill not cover. we cannot have a tale of two cities. we have to have a city that works for everybody. that means job creation, focusing on neighborhoods, focusing on under aartnership and innovation. >> i think you -- i think to become a small business friendly city, we have to concentrate on job creation. we have not released that created an entrepreneur will spirit that can lead to innovation, that leads to the development of new products, and can happen because chicago has done that before. our history shows that. we do not have that kind of climate in the city of chicago. what we talk about? changing the residency rules that allow police officers, firemen, and teachers to live

outside the city of chicago. we are training the city of the middle class that is needed to provide balance and economic growth throughout the city of chicago. we need our role models in our neighborhoods for our kids. we need teachers. weeed firemen. we need police officers. we the city employees. we needed to keep their tax dollars here. the contract dollars are paying their salary. >> i think after 40 years we may entertain the tic of residey in t city. i think the city is strong enough to do that. i am not worry about losg the middle class. this is something that rahm and i can talk about. the issue of jobs is absolutely critical. i was at a press conference yesterday in a small coffee shop with three people. right next to it was a sandwich shop with five people working in

it. that is a jobs. 80% of business in chicago are small businesses. just this morning, i was with a group of hardware store owners. there was a guy he wanted to open a new hardware store on the north side of the city. he was waiting one year for permits. that is unacceptable. that is outrageous. we can change this. i put forward a jobs plan that calls for a recent court -- we orientation a city hall to get it behind businesses that want to expand. we are losing opportunity after opportunity. we he 14,000 parcels of land in this city that they never taxes. we should give those away if necessary to bring companies and jobs on to those parcels. we need to write down the rest for a short period of time to bring people to these abandoned storefronts, picks them up,nd

give small businesses going again. it is important to realize that a 3, 4, 5, or 10-person company really defines what chicago is. >> within the first two months if i am elected mayor, i would call not only the big box stores, but regrets street store owners into the office. it is cheap economic development. it is good, stable jobs. i have taed to walgreen's where they are bringing in fresh tertiaries to their sales in parts of the store. there are parts of this city where if i was on roosevelt, people are driving all the way down. that is crazy. i wi bring them in. i would like to them the facts of life. there are areas of the city that should have pressed restores. target, wal-mart, the the other

stores like walgreens -- get them investing in those neighborhoods and economic development. number two, the university of chicago is an example. they are talking about a new biomedical program. let's move that forward and give them exactly what they need out of zoning. there are other companies that want to turn it into a biomedical campus to bring the types of jobs necessary to chicago. the university of chicago's research facility can bring the -- can be a leader in the biomedical space. >> must talk a little bit about schools. >> i am the only person on this panel that has actually started a small business. i started -- we are talking law

firms. that is a slightly different conversation we can talk about law firms if you want to go there. [laughter] my little company is in a food desert. i have an organic beverage company. i know what small businesses have to confront try to do business in the city. it is very difficult because of all the different steps and changes. our city government all too often operates like a criminal. you do not know where to go. >> how would you be as a steward of the city? >> given that we are coming to a recession and i get a business going -- i can my employees. i did not fire anybody. i think we could do a lot with a little. >> what we're taxes consistently late? >> because of a strike to keep a small business billing that was

a start up in the middle of the recession. there are other novels of this panel who pay property tax -- there are other members of this panel that pay tir property taxes late. i created a job in the inner- city within organic -- in the inner city at the start of a recession. we are still in business. hopefully we will be able to grow now that the economy is turning around. >> i paid it was late. i moved to washington to work as president obama's chief of state. out of 24 times, i was on time 23. >> mine was when i started my new company. there was a reason for it, but they were paid. all my taxes were paid would never supposed to be paid.

i paid penalties for paying later than the first day for payment, but i paid the penalty and i was able to balance my company's budget and we are doing fine. i started a business in the inner-city in a food desert to try to get attention to the food supply and the toxic chemicals in our food supply. i was on a mission. that mission, so far, has been successful. >> he made $320,000 in 14 months. you had an accounting scandal on your watch. did you earn the money? >> first of all, i was aointed as vice chair to the housing authority. secondly, that was the reason that president clinton appointed me over 20 other people. third, the report that you talked about does not mention me at all.

the reason i was on there is because we were doing innovative things in the citof chicago. that is why i got the appointment. >> you have an advertisement that says politicians should not get rich off the backs of people. >> $320,000 is what they pay at the time. >> do you feel bad about it? did you earn it? >> i was the vice chair of the chicago housing authority. we were doing something invative here. the reason i was asked by president clinton is because he wanted somebody's approach on that as it related to freddie mac. >> mr. chico, -- >> i did not hear an answer to your question. >> you were one of the main rtners at a law firm. had you explain what happened to the farm and the role you played in its collapse? if he could not manage that, how

can you manage t city of chicago? >> i am not happy about what happened, but there is a vote of about 57 partners to close our business. we welled up our affairs and moved on. i did too. i started my business after that with two people. in the middle of that same recession, i have grown it to about 40 people. i am very proud of it. >> if i may, i have in my career never profited from public service. i have no government contracts with my little company. i took no government loans or anything like that. let's be honest, most of your clients are people who do business with the city of chicago. you have gone from one government -- one revolving door to another. quite frankly, rahm, youave gone from one government appointment to anoth. there is a difference in public service for the benefit of the

public's versus public service for the benefit of your own pocketbook. that is the distinction in this race. how d.c. public service? is it something to profit from personally for yourself, your friends, or your family? or is it something you allude to the trust of the public as a whole? that is a distinction that should not be overlooked when you talk about my small business versus a business that depends on people doing business in the city of chicago. >> each time i have been asked to serve as the mayor's chief of staff, school board president, park board president, i stepped up and never has there been a suggestion that i did anything but pursue the public interest. i just want to state the facts. >> you had 89 clients that either lobbied the city arts discussed business with the

city. will they step back -- that either lobbied the city are discussed business with the city. >> is a duet long memory for this kind of thing. >> -- you seem to have a long memory for this kind of thing. >> weill start with then empowered inspector general. right now, the inspector general is to water down. we should just have one. i proposed that -- i propose the and it to no bid contracts. we do not need banking and lawyer contrast handed out to people. i said i would and the revolving door practice that people find so wrong. if he worked for the city where you are appointed for the city, which you leave f two years, you'll be unable to do business with the city of chicago. >> i said clearly i would not accept of late -- campaign

contributions from businesses contrasting with the city. that is the only way we will be able to separate money from politics. it has to happen. we are known as the state of "pay to play." we have millions and millions of dollars that had been brought in by rahm and gery. they influence the decisions that will be made at city hall. that this the neighborhoods at the real disadvantage because they will not have their telephone calls returned. the telephone calls will be turned to those who've contributed millions and llions of dollars to these campaigns. we need to level the playing field so that neighborhoods pilot have a voice in the election, where we have to except the fact that it will be business as usual in city hall and we will noget the kind of reforms we need. you are not answering the

questions about the connection between politics, campaign contributions, and contracts. >> the polls show you trailing the other candidates. how would you be able to stay in this race? >> i just talked about the distinct disadvantage in have because i am sending a bit that -- i am is sending a message to the voters that i am ready to reform chicago politics s chicago government. i am talking directly to the voters. thank goodness we had these kinds of debates. we need more of them because, otherwise, the voters would never see me. if they receive the fancy 32nd spots that rahm emmannuel can't afford any fancy -- that rahm emanuel ancan afford. we have to do it the old- fashioned way. it is time to put the people

back into the definition of liability for the candidate. that means being out in the neighborhoods. it does not mean raising millions and millions of dollars and having a campaign that will cost $12 million. >> we gave you a chance to ask each other questions. we learned a lot for the questions as well as the awer. >> i think i will just wait. thank you. [laughter] >> mr. chico? >> i have a question for rahm. this does concern me ever since you propod it. that is the single largest sales tax we have ever seen. i am very concerned abo that because i care very deeply about the working men and women throughout this city. i cannot see handing another 9% on common services -- barbershops, child care, pet clippings.

i do not know how you can do that. >> what i propose is that the wttw -- a 20% cut in sales tax is a 20% cut in sales tax. i believe a burnley says we are talking about wking families that a mother who is buying school products or clothes for key is to art school is paying the highest sales tax of any city in the country where people who rent and shorter private jets, limousines -- are not paying anything. i do not think that is fair. for a working family, it is a cut of about $200. ford motor co. is thinking of a third shift.

they put it as the number-one reason they are at a disadvantage. i propose another change i reform of taxes. as the price goes up, you pay more. it forces energy efficiency. i would note that the retail merchants on sales tax support this proposal. it would be a big win-win situation for the basic, rking, middle-class family. that could change where you actually have a tax code because finally some of th people coming in and out of this city would actually pay the corporate tax. they would hire the people and pay a sales tax. we would see worng families get a 20% reduction in their sales tax. they deserve that.

the people that i sleep -- >> that is not a cut to go from 0 to 9%. >> i have a question for gy. i talked to someone today to was laid off by at&t. the individual said they are going to go back to school at a community college so they can get new credentials and be able to find another job. when you were with the community colleges for a short time -- it was about seven months -- you proposed eliminating the development of courses in training those for community- based organizations. i would say there is not eugh to offer that service, but in the process of eliminating the delopment of courses, you are looking out a huge population that is in need of a second or third chance to be able to

transition to college-level courses that will allow them to be more competitive out there as they are struggling to find employment. why did he propose that? >> it is simple. as the government, we have to take fresh looks at things. we felt that 100 students beginning to pursue sac's degree, only seven ever got one. it told us there was something wrong with what we were doing. we never ever wanted to lead a student behind. what we wanted to examine was how we were providing the service. here is what was happening -- and i agree with you. many students do need developmental courses. we want to help them. what was happening in the situation we saw was that students were burning through basic recovery courses and their pell money ran al. we wanted to see what we could do more effectively to help people.

there is a wonderful committee- based organization that does a better job of its nursing program that we did at the city college. i think that is important to allow for community organizations, which i know you come from, to let them have a role in educating our kids. >> because i developed one of those programs at the community level and spent 20 years in dealing with education policy, i know that the capacity to do what you are proposing is not there. those students are going to be let out on the streets. >> i think that is a bright line. the attitudes toward privatization of education, both elementary, secondary, and college level -- and there is an attitude that says we are going to privatize the community

colleges instead of keeping them public institutions that are open to everybody. we are going to have a charter schools instead of focusing on the neighborhood public schools. that attitude is one i am against. gery has embraced over the year and i do not want to speak on rahm's record, but i know for a fact that might view that public education is a public good is something we should all be concerned about. >> if you oppose charter schools? >> i do not oppose charter schools, the ones we have already. i would not focus on developing more of them. i think the issue is to develop and bolstered our neighborhood schools and to improve public education. public schools have to take everybody. they cannot decide what to do that they want. they cannot cherry-pick. the charter schools can cherry pick students. the question is, how many kids are we going to wind up having

left behind because their parents do not have the ability to provide otherwise for them or they are children that have other issues that a charter school does not want to deal with? what happened in the neighborhoods? when i was going up in the city, i could walk to school in my neighborhood and get a quality education. we have to get back to that in the city of chicago. the schools serve everybody. >> i wish i could do this over the dinner table with my kids. it would be helpful. community colleges have made life blood -- are the lifeblood of our economy in the sense of training workers who want to move on from one job to the next. you have touched on an important topic. to many of our kids coming out

of high school are going to committee college. they are borrowing money, paying loans, and repeating what they should have learned in high school. we have a good model of a pilot project in the city of chicago where high school students get up to the level where they end up going to community colleges. during the high school years, they are already getting the training they need. we need to scale back up as part of the proposals made last month. we need to make sure that high schools to -- i schools and community colleges arlinked up to these kids are not borrowing money and getting behind. the second thing is there -- that is something we ought to challenge the for-profits to do for our kids. if you do wa to go on to wait for their education, have the skills and knowledge ready. >> you are referring to dole-

credit -- dual-credit. >> this is an essential point. 47% of the kids in the city of chicago are dropping out of high school. they drop out rate in committee college is higher because they do not have the basic skills. i propose we get a new curriculum that teaches towards college or career training. 53% of disputes to go to college end up going to committee colleges. i am am a strong supporter of charter schools. i believe in constitute -- in competition anchoice. when you take out north side and you take out walter payton, the best performing high schools or charters. they are not the solution, but

the choice they provide is a solution to the problem. >> i am happy to ebb ushered in charter schools in 1995 and 1996. -- i am happy to have ushered in charter schools in 1995 and 1996. they gave parents a choice. that is what this is about. in regards to miguel's question, we have dueled-enrollment. in the last 10 years, this is don silent. i agree it is wrong. it has to comeack. the chicago public schools have lost their momentum. i believe that. things like this have gone into the deep freeze. they need to come back out. >> if you are going to the talmudic again on public education, you can hang up a side that the -- if you are towel on throw in the te

public education, you can hang up a sign that says they are close. they do not have to take all the kids at charter schools. if we are goingo build a strong city, we have to have balance in the way we approach the ise. i have a friend that has a charter school for girls at the high-school level. research shows it worse for girls. let's define things in terms of innovation. i have no problem with that. you cannot just throw in the towel an not focus in on rebuilding the infrastructure of our neighborhood schoo, making certain that every child, every school, and every neighborhood is one a child to give to to get

a quality education. the child should be left behind were turned away. that is the important thing. >> some time ago the decision was made to set up a parallel system of public education in the city of chicago whi once had been selected and roulette, and schools, charter schools and the other being neighborhood schools. i talk with families everyday to struggle with the decision on where to send their preschoolers to school because they not believe the school down the street from where they live is good. we need to protect as many academic options as possible. the fact of the matter is, until we improve our neighborhood schools, we are going to strengthen the neighborhoods. that is the bottom line. >> we are down to what we are calling the final five minutes of the debate. it went by so quickly. we are going to get each one of

you a minute. let's say you are knocking on the door to the people out there, what is or stop speech? why should they be voting for you as a mayor? i do not want to hear anything we have already heard. >> first of all, i think t city, as yogi berra would say, when you get to the fork in the road, take it. we cannot keep doing what we are doing and expect results. that is true about our schools and investing ithe quality of our teachers, givin parents of the sidelines and involved in their kid's education. we also have to do something about crime. we have to have somebody u.s. the strength, determination, brit, and resilience to see that change through. in my public life, whether it was taking on the insurance companies to get kids health care where taking on the and are a -- or taking on the nra -- i

have taken on special interest and at the resilience to see that change through. >> thank you for having us. i believe so strongly in the future of our city. i know we can do this. there is no doubt about it, our problems are large financially in the city and public schools. i am very optimistic. it willot be done by wishful thinking or an idea here or an idea there. it takes planning so that we are following a path to get there. i am very proud of my career of having dealt with these issues and balanced 16 municipal budgets. this is the kind of experience we need to get into these situations, but these budgets back in shape, and give us the tools we need to bring jobs to our city, bring police and other programs we need to get our neighborhoods safer, and to make sure families stay in the city.

we do not want to lose people. they will not stay if we do not offerhem a quality education, good jobs, and public safety. i am prepared to bring each of those three to our city. people should have confidence that we have a bright future. >> i love this city. this is my home. i stepped forward and not because of any interest to serve myself, but to serve the people of chicago and to bring to bear the skill set i have developed over the years in local, state, national, and international government to help grow our city in a way that serves every community, every neighborhood. evy neighborhood matters. we are all proud to be part of the city. we need toring each other together as people and tap the rich divsity of our neighborhoods and bring all the talents we can muster to solve at work to our respective problems.

we all know what our problems are. they have to do with rebuilding our neighborhood schools and public safety in our neighborhoods. i was on 87th street the other day and gunshots force made to the floor of the car. we have to make our communities safer. our seniors are not hostages in their homes. i am getting close to the end of my minute, right? i want to bring the experience i have to bear on solving these problems. i am always been a fighter. i had to fight my own party to run for the united states senate when nobody thought i could do it. i intend to bring that determination to working out the issue that -- the issues that our city faces. >> i think the neighborhoods are calling out for us. what type of reform are we talkg about? rerm that is going to ensure there is balanced growth, balanced development.

reform that is going to make sure we eliminate patronage, waste, and corruption in the city of chicago. reform that is going to see to it that we lift that oppressive cloud that hangs over the city as the result of the feast, restrictions, and hassles if people are put through just try to make a living on a day-to-day basis. i say to them that i am the candidate who is ready. i had the experience -- 20 years in the legislature, four years as a city clerk. i am getting my did message directly to the voters. -- i am getting my message directly to the voters. if they want a my york appealed to special interests and big money, i a not their guy. if they want someone who cares about individual residents and will work night and day to make our city if a true world-class city with world class

neighborhoods, then i am the person to work for. >> thank you very much. did you have a good time? [laughter] thank you very, very much. i am hope everybody enjoyed the debate. we are encouraging all of the voters to get out and vote. we are also helping choose to become the next mayo of chicago. we asked our viewers to stay with us for a special edition of "politics tonight." i am micah materre. good evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up in a few moments, we will go live to the capitol hill. john bolton will be talking about u.s. national security challenges and may touch on the protests happening in egypt. it is starting at noon, eastern, with live coverage on c-span. while we are waiting, the president made some remarks earlier today. >> this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, monstrosity. that is how it has been portrayed by opponents.

that just does not match up to the reality. this thing has been in place for 10 months. it [applause] so, let's look at what has happened over the last 10 months. not only has the economy grown and added jobs, but small businesses across the country have already chosen to offer health care to hundreds of thousands of their employees, many for the first time. that is something we should all celebrate regardless of politics. [applause] estimates from the business round table -- this is not some left-wing organization. this is an organization of all of the country's largest organizations and other experts, who indicate health insurance

reforms could save $2,000 to $3,000 per family per year. that is money that businesses can use to grow and invest and hire. that is money workers will not have to see vanish in the form of higher deductibles. that is good for all of us. and i can report that granny is safe. [laughter] [applause] in fact, grandmothers medicare is stronger than ever. if she was one of the millions of seniors that fell into the doughnut hole last year, she will receive a check to help her afford her medications and a 50% discount on brand-name drugs as part of the affordable care act. [applause]

finally, because it is absolutely true, that we have to get a handle on our deficit, that the debt we are carrying right now are unsustainable if we do not start taking action, it is important to be clear about the truth of health care reform. health-care reform is a part of deficit reform. we know -- [applause] we know that health care costs including programs like medicare and medicaid are the biggest contributors to our long-term deficit. no one disputes this. that is part of the reason why it nonpartisan economists, why the congressional budget office has said that repealing this law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit over the next decade, and

another trillion dollars in the decade after that. they are not just making this up it would send middle-class premiums up and force large employers to pay that extra, and shift control of your health care right back to the insurance companies. now, i have repeatedly said that i believe our system is strong and viable. we need is to be. it saves lives. it employs a large number of americans. but the way, it is still making pretty good profits. just as we are a people that believes in the power of the individual, the promise of free markets, we are also a people who believe that we aspire to protect one another from harm and exploitation. our task -- [applause]

our task has always been to seek the right balance between the dynamism of the marketplace but also make sure that it is serving people. sometimes that means removing barriers to growth by lifting rules that place unnecessary burdens on business. other times, it means an acting safeguards like these, like the affordable care act, to ensure our american belief of hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by a sense of security and fair play. that is at the heart of this reform. that is why we fought so hard for this reform. that is why we have to keep on telling people across the country about the potential of this reform and what it means for them and their families. that is why we're not going to fall back. i do not want to tell students

that we're putting them off their parents' coverage. i do not want to tell seniors that their medicine is out of reach again. i do not want to tell jeanine pirro taxes are going back up or killed that she has to choose what to do. i do not want to tell in the mother of a child that they cannot get the care that he or she needs after all. i do not want that for america. i do not want that for our families. that is not who we are. and that is not what we stand for. [applause] we do not believe that people should have to -- we do not believe that people should have to hope against hope that they will stay healthy or hang all of their fortunes on chance. we do not believe in a country like ours that one in 10, one in eight of our citizens should be that vulnerable, no matter how

hard they are working. we believe in something better. so the time for fighting the battle of the last two years has now passed. it is time to move forward. in these efforts, strengthening our families, getting our fiscal house in order, allowing small businesses to grow, allowing entrepreneurs to strike out on their own, free from crushing costs, are critical to our economic success. by reforming our health care system so it does not dictate anybody's economic fate, america can decide its own. >> remarks from the president on health care earlier today. by the way, we will have all of his comments later today on the c-span network speed up a live picture from capitol hill right now, were surely we will get comments from former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. john bolton. he is expected to talk about national security challenges, including u.s. policy toward iran and north korea. he may also touch on the protests going on in egypt.

this was set to get underway at noon eastern. we understand it will now happen at 12:20. we will have a live one is hurt. until then, your phone calls from this morning's "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. host: we have friday economic reports in. host: also, an ap economics

record -- -- writer -- host: next call, ope phones, virginia. good morning to ken. caller: good morning to you all also, c-span3 i wanted to try to get in on dr. light, but i could not. and now i am on, and what i want to discuss was i do believe that

as far as the federal government jobs and all, there are people that need jobs and we will have to do something about the amount of money that they get. i will explain to you about how your ex-president gets $200,000 a year. once you are a civil servant, your job is over with, i think you should be leveling off to a standard citizen again with a rtain amount of money that you get a yea and you should have to live off of social security and medicare like some of the american people have to do to see if they can make it that way. but i still believe the cuts need to be, that they are getting too much money in the people should have to live off the wages that they get. host: thank you very much. next, a comment from lazard in michigan. good morning.

caller: they say, they talk about the government. i wish the government would take cut pay for a yearly pay like everybody else. for example, the people o get in and have to leave life, it is amazing how the government growing up is double and triple paid. that is my concern with that. the second when i want to tell you about the rioting in egypt, yemen, and whatever the other places that it is going on -- finally, the young generation sees what is going on. how is the life better everywhere like united states, the best country on earth. now they are waking up and looking at it, how they can have a better life. thank you very much. host: if you go to the front page of c-span.org, and today is

the 25th anniversary of the challenger explosion in which seven astronauts, including the teacher in space, christa mcauliffe, lost their lives. there will be a memorial service today, and c-span will cover that. roanoke, virginia, maryann is up next. what is on europe wiyour mind t? sika thank you for taking my call. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. you had the woman from brookings and the republican on. they both seemed to be really gung-ho for free trade. i really think americans should all know that in the last 10 years, even with those bush tax cuts, 45,000 companies -- not bs, 45,000 companies -- have

been outsourced. something is wrong when you have two people on there saying yes this has been great for america. no, it is not. take a look at every town across the united states. the only thing left are the multinational companies. that is all we have left. if we are going to get this country back, we certainly do not need other trade deals. that is insane for us to do any trade deals until we get these trade deals fixed, the ones we already have. host: thank you, marianne. returning to the story from egypt, we told you earlier that -- we spoke to the ap bureau chief and learned that mohammed el ibarra de was in a mosque surrounded by security forces. he is now under house arrest. cadillac, michigan. rose is up next on our

independent line. you're on the air. good morning. caller: yes, i am talking about my husband. when the big three auto makers were going bankrupt and had all these problems, the solution was from the people, you know, politicians, you are going to have to make choices. so they cut their pay, their health care. they even cut the amount of people. i think we need to stand up and do this with the politicians. i think everybody is getting tired of the salaries for politicians. when i retire, i will live on $12,000 to $13,000 a year social security. they want to cut back? what is going on with the other countries and egypt? it is just the people. it is the blue shirts going

against the white shirts. they are tired of politicians having it so good and the workers having it so bad. host: yesterday the white house announced a series of personnel changes. the most common and will be the new press spesperson who will replace outgoing spokesperson robert gibbs, jay carney, who was at "time" magazine for a number of years. u can see the story in the front section of "the washington times." we went back in our video library to look at him from years past, and here is one clip from him. >> the best press secretaries were very deft at serving both their boss, theresident, the white house, the administration, and the press, and it is a tricky job. i am sure i would not be any

good at it. but not this service in either side, embarrassing themselves, not having to go to the president and saying i just screwed up, frequently, hopefully, and not making themselves look like they're just spinning and not conveying information in front of the press. host: that was jay carney, who said, "i wil >> you can see "washington journal" every morning. right now, we're going to do secretary of state clinton. she is speaking on her meeting with the colombian president from earlier today. >> when i was recently in the region, i met with a wide range of civil society groups, and i heard from them about ideas they have that would improve their countries. the people of the middle east,

like people everywhere, are seeking a chance to contribute to and to have a role in the decisions that will shape their lives. as i said in doha, leaders need to respond to these aspirations and to help build a better future for all. they need to view civil society as their partner, not as a threat. there is a great deal of concern also in our government, mr. vice president, and about the mining disaster that killed 21 miners in colombia. and we will have our translator translated these remarks about colombia as we go along. i know that president santos cut

short his stay at the world economic forum to join the families of these victims. and i would like the people of colombia to know that they are in the thoughts and prayers of all americans, not just for the mining tragedy, but for the terrible flooding that in the past two months, has climbed more than 300 lives, affected more than two million people, and incurred billions of dollars in reconstruction and cleanup costs. >> [speaking foreign language]

[translator speaking] >> the vice president and i had a very productive, wide ranging discussion on many important issues, and we reaffirmed the resilient, enduring partnership and friendship between our peoples. >> [translator translating]

>> we share common values and their respect for democratic governance, the rule of law, and self-determination. >> [translator translating] >> and the united states has stood with colombia for more than a decade as they take on the security challenges. >> [translator translating] >> we have made considerable progress together, but we have more work to do on a security and other issues. >> [translator translating] >> that is why we are hosting

the second round of the u.s.- colombia high-level partnership dialogue in march, were we will cover so many of these issues. we are committed to a very broad discussion of issues from sustainable energy to human rights. and that as president obama said in his state of the union address, we are committed to a successful conclusion and ratification of the u.s.- colombia a trade agreement.

and i look forward to working with the vice president and members of the colombian government to bring that result about. i also commended the vice- president and the santos administration for the progress that is being made at resolving long term disputes having to do with displaced people in the country and it reaching out to civil society to add their voices to and national conversation about human rights and labor rights. >> [translator translating]

>> and i want to thank colombia for their assistance to other countries in the fight against drug traffickers and criminal organizations. their assistance to the people of haiti and afghanistan, and in so many ways, the leadership that colombia is showing in helping to solve difficult issues.

and we look forward to continuing and close cooperation, mr. vice-president. >> [speaking foreign language] >> thank you so much, mr. hilary clinton, secretary of state of the united states. >> [speaking foreign-language]

>> i want to say on behalf of the government of colombia, and especially on behalf of president santos, public to express our thanks to you, mrs. clinton, and to president obama to the solidarity of your government and to your people. to the people of colombia, on occasion of the recent floods in the recent mining tragedy, which cost 21 lives and left several injured in the area in our country. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> and our broad ranging discussions today, we have agreed to work together, to defend fundamental rights of humankind. the human rights that affect all of us, in particular, labor groups, indigenous groups, women's groups, and others. and we have also agreed to continue to work to cooperate with all countries, to combat organized crime, in particular, transnational crime, which includes drug-trafficking, which attacks our democracy.

>> [speaking foreign language] >> in our dialogue, we have expressed our gratefulness to the political will of the u.s. government, in particular, president obama and secretary clinton, to find everything necessary to achieve ratification of the free-trade agreement between colombia and the united states. it is an agreement that helps the people and the government of colombia, and it also helps the people and government of the

united states. >> [speaking foreign language] >> and we also greatly appreciate the willingness of the u.s. government in the u.s. congress to extend the trade preferences act, not just to the region, but to colombia in particular. it is a sign of great solidarity at a time when we're busy with the reconstruction of our country after the devastating floods.

>> and we also agreed to redouble our joint efforts, along with secretary clinton and president calderon regarding haiti, to support the people of haiti in their quest to elect freely their own leaders.

>> and we will continue the high level dialogue that we began last year between the u.s. and colombia. this is then headed by secretary clinton. we will be strengthening our programs to discuss issues ranging from all kinds of progress and democracy, human rights, new technologies, energy, and also, one that we have added after our dialogue today, the environment.

>> [speaking foreign language] >> and on behalf of the government of colombia, president santos and the people of colombia, i want to thank you for the progress that colombia has made in consolidating its self to combat corruption, violence, impunity, and holding a human rights. >> first question to the associated press. >> yes, madam secretary, i have two rather direct questions about egypt. the first, is president mubarak finished? the second, are you condemning

the violent crackdown against protesters? >> well, i think we have been answering those concerns for quite some time. and as president obama said yesterday very clearly and as i said in doha, it is absolutely vital for egypt to embrace reform, to ensure not just its long-term stability but also the progress and prosperity that its people richly deserve. egypt has been a strong partner at the united states on a range of regional and strategic interests. and as a partner, we believe strongly and had expressed this consistently that the egyptian government needs to engage with the egyptian people in implementing needed political, economic, and social reforms. we have consistently raised this

with the egyptian government over many years. we have also raised it with other governments in the region. and there is a constant concern about the need for greater openness, greater participation on the part of the people, particularly young people, which is something i was very clear about in doha. and we want to continue to partner with the egyptian government and the egyptian people. what will eventually have been in egypt is up to the egyptians, but it is important for us to make very clear that as a partner of egypt, we are urging that there be a restraint on the part of the security forces, they're not be a rash to impose very strict measures that would

be violent, and that there be a dialogue between the government and the people of egypt. at the same time, we also would urge the protesters to engage in peaceful protests, which they have every right to do, and a deep grievances that they are raising deserve to be addressed. but the real question we're focused on is, how can we support a better future for the people of egypt? one that responds to their aspirations? and as i have said before and as the president has also said, the egyptian government has a real opportunity in the face of this very clear demonstration of opposition, to begin a process

that will truly respond to the aspirations of the people of egypt. we think that moment needs to be seized, and we're hoping that it is. >> madam secretary, two points. the first one is, vice-president garzon ask the obama administration to send to the free-trade agreement to congress this year. is the administration going to do that, yes or no? >> yes. >> this year? >> yes. >> win? which one we have an agreement. there are still negotiations taking place. as the vice president and i discussed, when we have an agreed upon at text, we will, as quickly as possible, send it to the congress. >> [inaudible] >> it is not yet in the form of

agreement that we have been discussing with our colombian counterparts. they know what we need to do in order to get a successful outcome. we do not want to send an agreement just for the sake of sending an agreement. we want to send an agreement and get it passed. >> do you want to change the agreement? >> we're discussing some clarifications and concerns that we know will have to be addressed in the congress. i am being very clear with you. we want to pass the agreement. in order to pass the agreement, we have to be able to make the case to the congress, and that is what i am intent upon doing. >> excuse me, this did to men has the microphone. >> in colombia -- speaking foreign language]

>> [speaking foreign language] >> i want to express it is really important and basic here. >> i want to point out the great political will of president obama, the secretary of state,

and of the u.s. government, and members of congress from both sides of the aisle to move as soon as possible to achieve ratification of this agreement. i think that is the most important thing. >> and we agree, and that is why we want to proceed as quickly and effectively to guarantee success as possible. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> secretary of state clinton holding a news conference following her meeting with the colombian vice-president on free trade issues. right now, we will go live to u.s. -- former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. john bolton, discussing national security challenges to iran and north korea. >> the president himself has tried to focus on the domestic affairs. the rest of the world is not waiting for us to get our economic house in order. the challenges and threats to

american interests and those of our friends and allies around the world are building day-by- day, and our -- the question of how we respond to them or whether we respond to them, i think, will be increasingly important as we go forward. so let me try first to see if i can identify some of the characteristics of president obama and his administration and how he approaches foreign- policy, because i think that does have an impact on the substance of the policy. and then talk about a number of important areas where i think some of our most important challenges are going to come. and at the end, i would be happy to try and answer your questions on those subjects or anything else that i do not cover. i think the most significant aspect of the president's approach to foreign and national security policy is that he basically does not care about

it. i think this marks him as a different from that the long line of american presidents since franklin roosevelt, beginning on december 7, 1941. virtually all of whom got up every morning worrying about threats to american national security policy. what motivated them, it was at the top of their agenda. i just do not think that is the priority that president obama has. it is not that he does not ever deal with foreign or international security policy. of course, he does. but typically, only when he has to and when it cannot be avoided. you get the sense it is almost an interference, a new sense in it the way of his pursuit of his domestic agenda. -- and nuisance. second and related to the first point is i do not think that he sees the rest of the world as terribly challenging or

threatening to american national interests. i think he demonstrated this during the 2008 campaign and in many of his actions since taking office. he has desperately tried to avoid the phrase "global war on terrorism." perhaps thinking that if he did not talk about a war on terrorism, there were not be one. he said during the campaign, for example, that iran was a tiny country, implying that maybe if it had nuclear weapons, it would be a tiny threat. now it is certainly true that we do not face the civilization- ending prospect of an exchange of nuclear salvos with the lives of the soviet union as we did with the cold war, but even a small number of nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state can pose a challenge. if you ask which american cities you prefer to lose to two or

three nuclear weapons, you can see why even though the threat is asymmetrical, it gives the holder of the nuclear weapons capability enormous leverage over the united states. moreover, even a tiny country with a small number of nuclear weapons can obliterate other tiny countries nearby. ask the israelis, it does not take 1000 nuclear weapons to turn israel into an ash heap and create a second nuclear holocaust. what is tiny to us is not so tiny to other countries. but it is the whole idea that iran is small and insignificant, it does not have to worry as under the current regime, that i think gives away the president's real view that threats and challenges to america have been exaggerated. now typically if you combine two attitudes like that in american history, you would end up with a policy of isolationism.

but that, of course, is not the direction the president has taken. instead, he is a very strong believer in multilateralism, both through the united nations, the g-20, other multilateral groups, that he is very comfortable subsuming american leadership in the larger collective action. now, look, alliances, international organizations, are a part of any american presidents tool kit. but the difference is, in this case, the toolkit becomes more important than the leadership. i think that is why when you put all of this together, it is the best to understand president obama as our first post-american president. and that is a very carefully- chosen phrase. i did not say un-american. i did not say anti-american. i said post-american.

in the same sense that many residents of european countries do not think of themselves as, you know, merely french or nearly german. another european. they are beyond patriotism. they're part of something larger. and i think the president sees himself as something larger as well. now this agglomeration of attitudes is not the first time that a leader of the democratic party has had these views. it is obviously the first time that a leader with those of use has become president. but it reminds me very much of what george h. w. bush said back in 1988 when he accepted the republican nomination for president and talked about his opponent, governor michael dukakis. bush 41 said back then, referring to the caucus, said, he sees america as another plaids -- another pleasant country on the united nations

roll call, someone other between albania and zimbabwe. and i think what bush said about michael dukakis, you could say about obama. we're one of 192, nothing particularly special. and that is really what motivates it. those of you who watched the state of the union earlier this week will say, that analysis is obviously false. look at what the president said about america. you get every patriotic speech. indeed, he did, marking the onset of the 2012 presidential campaign. i think that the fact that so many people comment on those aspects of the speech reflects the awareness that it does represent a substantial departure, at least at the rhetorical level, from the with the president has performed before. but i do not think it is a bird heart -- a departure that goes beyond the rhetorical. we will see in the next two years. based on the evidence of

performance to date, i think that these foundations of the president's attitude toward foreign policy are going to continue. and i think that other leaders around the world have come basically to the same assessment. i think that they understand the president takes a very different view of america's place in the world than most of his predecessors, and they have calibrated their policies toward us accordingly. they see weakness and an assertiveness, and they are going to try and take advantage of it. i believe that actually the scope and pace of foreign policy challenges in the second two years are likely to pick up over what they have been in the first two. because, as i said, people around the world have been readjusting their policies to take the administration's view of the world into account. and let me just give a few

examples, i think, of how the president has played these policies out. let's just start with china, having hosted president hu jintao in washington for a summit meeting. i thought it was a remarkable meeting, probably the most substance-free summit meeting that we have seen in a long time. and i think that is a reflection of the lack of grand strategy, vis-a-vis china, that we see in this administration. i think their basic motivator is one shared by many american business leaders and academics and others, and that is the idea that china is engaged in a peaceful rise and that it will become responsible stakeholder in international affairs. that is certainly one possibility. that is a very desirable possibility. it may turn out to be true, but

there are a lot of other scenarios as well. scenarios of a much more disruptive china, much more troublesome, much more challenging to the united states. i think the peaceful rise and responsible stakeholder scenario is based on the maurer less straight line projection of chinese policies cents -- on a more or less straight line projection of chinese policies on the past. i do not think it is necessarily the way you project policy into the future for a country as enormous and with the history that china has come to take a slightly longer time span to project for, let's take 100 years instead of 20 years. what has happened in the last 100 years in china? the fall of the last imperial dynasty, the first establishment of the republic of china, the first fall of the republic of china, the breakup of china into warring warlords states, the invasion of japan, the war

against the japanese, the civil war between the chinese nationalists and the chinese communists, the defeat of japan in 1945, the second establishment of the republic of china, the second fall, the retreat of the chinese nationalists to taiwan, the establishment of people's republic of china. then in the 1950's, the great leap for word. the most tragic economic policy in the history of the world, more civilians killed as a result of the great leap forward than any other government policy in mankind's history. then followed by the great proletarian cultural revolution, which destroyed it and told wealth of chinese culture and history. then followed by the political repression at tienamen square. if you want to take a century of chinese history of projected for, you it projected century coming of radical discontinuity, conflict, and uncertainty.

i think when you look as some of what is happening in china today, the inevitable but a graphic effect of the one child per family policy, the question that many business leaders, american, japanese, european, have raised about the authenticity of these statistics about chinese economic growth, the disparities in income that have arisen, the political shape of the chinese government. you still have to have a lot of questions about what is the most likely scenario for china going forward. we can see unequivocal evidence that the people's liberation army remains the strongest and most cohesive force within the chinese communist party, which remains the dominant force politically in china. the government has dramatically increased spending to augment china's strategic nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities, enhancing their

submarine fleet, moving toward a real blue water navy. increasing their investments in area denial and anti-access weapons like anti-aircraft carrier cruise missiles. there anti-semite workfare experimentation, their obvious success at -- highly advanced cyber warfare capabilities, and on and on. all of which are accompanied by an increasing political assertiveness, demonstrated by really extraordinary claims to sovereignty in the east and south china seas, and their disputes over american military access, even to the yellow sea in connection with the recent problems with north korea. all of this is presenting an enormously complex series of the challenges to any american

administration, but i think our administration has responded basically by turning away and worrying about china's currency policy. honestly, i would worry about our own currency policy more, as our deficit, according to the congressional budget office, this fiscal year will be a mere $1.50 trillion. is the president's response to say he is very concerned about it and to deal with that deficit will mostly freeze spending at current levels, except for a few areas where we will increase spending. so i want to say to all of you staffers who are just starting your careers, i want to thank you very much for taking on this that that you and your children will pay for the rest of your lives and consider the economic consequences for the country. because that is going to undermine our strategic

projection capabilities, beginning almost immediately. so here we have a situation conceivably -- it is very difficult for the u.s. to affect a lot of what is going on in china. but to act as if these challenges do not exist at all or simply to ignore them or not deal with them or not to begin to plan strategy for them, i evening is extremely troubling. and what i have just said about china, i did say as well about a research in russia -- a resurgence in russia, where vladimir putin said a few years ago that the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century was the breakup of the soviet union. i think most of us in the wreck of the soviet union was a pretty good way to end the 20th- century. that is obvious to not prime minister putin's view. it is clear that he wants to reestablish russian hegemony

within the space of the former soviet union, not necessarily recreate u.s.s.r., but reestablished as russia's backyard. as people in the republic of georgia what it is like to be the recipient of that policy. what is our response? we want every said button. during the bush administration, our relations with russia deteriorated. well, yes, they did deteriorate because of russian aggressiveness, russian threats to cut off oil and natural gas to eastern and central europe and the flow through to western europe, this drive to reassert russia's role in the former soviet union, russia is a flying political air cover for iran and north korea's nuclear weapons programs in the security council. and the administration's response is to sign the new start treaty as part of the recent policy. when asked, what have we gone from russia for this reason policy, the answer is, we got

the new start treaty. so it is a completely circular form of logic as the russians behavior in a nearly a belligerent fashion. i response is to limit our offensive nuclear weapons capabilities in a way that constrains us, that is not equally constrained russia. russia has its legitimate defense needs, as do we. russia has, by my count, and treaty ally in the world, belarus. no, congratulations. we have got a nuclear umbrella to protect our friends in europe and asia, and has provided the cornerstone of strategic stability internationally. and that nuclear umbrella is developing holes in it. when other countries see that our nuclear capabilities are deteriorating, they will naturally ask themselves the question, should we be looking out for ourselves?

so that our weakening of our nuclear typically does not achieve the president's objective of moving toward a nuclear-is the low world, it actually increases the incentive for our own friends to find ways to protect themselves against external threats. and there, i think the administration has also really perform in a way that has allowed it challenges in the proliferation area, especially in the nuclear field, simply to grow. the administration's rhetoric, certainly the president's idea of nuclear-0, must be based by definition on rogue states like iran and north korea giving of their nuclear weapons programs. of which there is absolutely no evidence. indeed, all of the evidence is to the contrary. the president started out his administration by announcing in

his inaugural address that he wanted to negotiate with north korea and iran. he said, we will extend our open hand if only they will unclench their fists. well, that is a policy of complete naivety in my view, and it has been treated as such by the intended recipients on the other side. north korea detonated a second nuclear device and received in response only a modest increase in sanctions and renewed u.s. activity to reactivate the failed six-party talks. just recently, north korea revealed a uranium enrichment capability that many, even in the bush administration, denied they were pursuing. while at the same time, building a new nuclear reactor at yeonpyeong to replace the one

that they had before, which was held together by chewing gum and wire. demonstrating that the -- this is desperately impoverished country subject to more economic sanctions and any other country in the world still somehow finds resources to expand its nuclear capability. and i would have to say that i do not think that uranium enrichment facility that they reveal this the only one in north korea had. they would not build it at yeonpyeong, where we already know the target cordons, unless they had one or more backups in those mountains of north korea where we have no idea what is going on underground. so north korea is making progress, even as it faces the challenge of the regime transition in the world, so far only hereditary communist dictatorship. response seems to be still simply limited to trying to get

the six-party talks going again. that is the failure of imagination that has to impress others around the world also thinking of developing their own nuclear weapons capability, and it appalls the leadership in countries like japan, which visibly feel the threat from north korea. and worry that the united states is not going to respond in ways that are appropriate to provide for the defense of its allies, like south korea and japan, in the region. i think, actually, the failure that is even worse when it comes to the case of iran, where not only has the administration spent two years of wandering the world, looking for some iranian officials to shake hands with, it has failed to do even the

minimum steps to support the iranian opposition. and we saw -- i want to be fair here, which is not much worse in the record of the bridge administration in its second half, which did not do much to support the opposition either -- it is not much worse than the record of the bush administration in its second half. you do not want to provide any material assistance to opposition groups in iran, because that will take them. it will allow them to say that they're just tools of the americans and it will make the opposition less effective. i have two responses to that. first is, that will say that any way. they did in the aftermath of the fraudulent elections of 2009. actually, they blamed the brits more than a blind us, which leads me to wonder what the brits were probably doing more than we were. point being, it is a matter what we do or do not do, we're going to get the blame for it anyway. if we're going to get blamed,

why not achieve something? but number two, i recognize this prospect is not theoretical. it could happen. but why not let the opposition groups make the decision? if they do not want to take american assistance, so be it. but if they do, i think you have to judge that they figure that they're capable of handling the question of whether or not being involved with the united states makes it harder for them to carry out their work domestically in iran. but obviously, the real questions, the real threats that iran poses are international. two-fold, their long and now very nearly successful way to act -- quest to have a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. and second, the terrorist threat that they pose around the middle east and around the world. they are equal opportunity terrorist did you do not have to be a shia like hezbollah to get

their support. hamas in the gaza strip it's their support. terraced of all kinds of strikes in iraq get their support. and they even support their former sworn enemies, the taliban in afghanistan. so this is a thread that i think we have understated for the last two years, at our peril. as we have understated the threat of the iranian nuclear weapons program. recently, you can hear the administration saying that economic sanctions have slowed the iranian nuclear program down. i would have to say this is one of the most fans of all claims that i can remember in a long time. there's no evidence that that has happened. in fact, the administration itself has shifted the rationale for the shanksville -- for the sanctions policy over the two years, away from the idea that the sanctions would stop the nuclear weapons program, to the

rationale that the sanctions will bring iran into the negotiating table. that is not a subtle shift. that is a pretty dramatic change and would you think the effect of the sanctions would be. how has that shift played out in practice? well, we just saw this past weekend the perm five + germany's recent session with iran that turned into a gigantic thud. it the sanctions are not stopping the nuclear program as such and the effect of bringing iran back to the negotiating table is for the basically to dallas to take a hike, that real performance, not rhetoric, i think, tells you what the sanctions are accomplishing. which is precious little in favor the sanctions, because i think anything that puts pressure on the regime is a good thing. but i do not think we should have any illusions that they are going to have a real impact on the nuclear program itself. as for the fabled virus, i

believe it did have some impact in slowing iran's program down, and i have a lot of respect for the intelligence agency, since that is probably where it came from. i also think it is incredibly effective propaganda agency. if your opponents think you're 10 feet tall and you're telling the world, well, you know, you can only imagine what we really did, the midas will be 10 feet tall. this virus affected the uranium enrichment activities of the iranian program. i think they will now be much more defensive in how they take the enrichment program forward. but there's no claim that had any effect on any other aspect of iran's activities, the weatherization activities are the ballistic missile programs. which we now have been conducted now for almost 15 years in close co