us all together is a very parchment of the declaration of independence, the constitution of the united states, and the bill of rights. that is our umbrella, and that umbrella is so wide that we saw the democrats come under that umbrella, independents come under that umbrella, libertarians, the constitution party, people in the tea party or a political, no political party and all, -- or apolitical. i think everybody here up on this day is believes this. these are our founding documents. on this guy is believes this. they are brilliant. we believe in them -- everybody here on this dais believes this. this is not divisive. if anything, all we're trying to do is ignite that love affair that all of us up with america's founding. that is what the tea party is

reminding us, to republish those documents in our hearts, and that is only a unifier. it is not divisive. >> thank you so much, congresswoman. thank you. [applause] i am being given instructions by somebody. >> should i go now? thank you for allowing me to be a part of this. you have got great people up here, by the way. >> as michele leaves, some people criticize her accuracy, and she mentioned 21 generations, and 21 would be 399 years, just celebrating the 400th anniversary of jamestown, so you are right on target, may be understated by half a generation. i just wanted to say that. >> see you later. >> thank you, congresswoman.

>> thank you, thank you. >> thank you so much, congresswoman, for coming and joining us. she is truly a leader and a strong voice for us on the hill, and we appreciate her. our next question is for senator hatch, and this is coming from online, and the question is from provo, utah, mr. young, and he says, "will the realistic response to obama b.p. to -- what other provisions will be in it, and will it include tort reform? " -- boat toward reform?" >> the president has said he is for tort reform. do not believe it. president obama, the personal injury lawyers. they talking to forms of -- they

talked in terms of tort reform, and he cannot mean it in terms of continuing on as president of united states. they spend about $1 billion every few years. it is pretty hard for them to go against the unions, and that is something that has been very noticeable to me over the years, because about 40% of the unions are republican, and so all i can say is, you know, there is a real difference between democrats and republicans. there is no use kidding. i was a democrat of the way through byu, and you have to be a pretty strong democrat to make all of the way throat byu as a democrat, and realized, my gosh, these people are not be a.

they can be very, very helpful from time to time, but i've got to tell you, the party is dominated by special interest groups that are the most liberal in our country, and they cannot take them on. he will not take them on on this court reform. i would like to see it, haute -- this porker reform -- this tort reform. defensive medicine because of the litigation, and one of the things i used to do, i was a medical liability defense lawyer, doctors, nurses, health- care providers, and most of those cases, 90% of them, were frivolous. spi 200 thousand dollars. you can make a pretty good living. in a day of runaway jury is,

attorneys can make a lot of money just by bringing these cases, and insurance companies are hard pressed to not pay the defense cuts, it is they do not know if they will get around a cheerier not, so i do not think he can do it. i do not think he means it really, and it is nice rhetoric, but i do not think there is any reality to it. >> thank you, senator. let's do another question. i know we are all getting short on time, so let's move straight to lisa miller, who is from alexandria, and her question is, and whoever is there can take this one.-- oh, yes, there you go. i will give it to you. >> thanks. ok. you of a bill before you, the senate does, the faa reauthorization, and i wrote

down the bill and what they want to add to it. i know there is nothing to limit air traffic controllers, and right now, they went to filling up with satellite technology, and in 2001, in february, they were talking about privatizing it so the air traffic controller or the airports would have access to private financing for the satellite technology. now, we are 10 years later, no privatization and to know satellite technology, and now, they are looking at what they have to pay in the private sector. what do you propose? >> we are way behind the technology with the airports in this country. something has to be done. satellite technology is the best system, so that is what they're trying to do. i can remember the exact, something like $8.70 billion to

do this, and, you are right. we have to scrutinize everything that comes up. we do want people to be safe, but privatization, i am not sure that it is not privatized right now, it is ever since reagan through the union out, and it has been a little bit different than it has ever been before, but keep in mind, we have 53 democrats in the senate, 47 republicans, and what i am counting on, and i do not mean to change the subject, what i am counting on is for the great people and the house to take it to the senate and to continue to put it to the senate and literally will cause the senate to, if they are going to vote against them, the year 2012, but you sure what the air-traffic

system to be safe, and we want the highest and best methodology to be used in that system, and it will be seen. no question about it. >> and the other responses to that question? if not, why do we not just take a five-minute break. we have quite a few questions coming up, and many of them -- >> we do not need a break. >> are you guys ok? are you guys ok? let's do it. >> we may not look like much, but we are a tough bunch. [laughter] took, let's move straight this next one, which is from bruce. are you here, bruce? all of the way in the back, ok. i would come over there, but it would take me a long time, so i am going to read it. have you considered elimination of the income and payroll taxes,

consolidating all tea party bergert regards to win back the white house? >> all tea party groups in regards to win back the white house? >> with the irs, i had to decide whether as on the stand on principle, and to this day, i believe i was right, they were wrong, but i paid. i went back and clients in the seat of my old be a bulldozer, and the smoke when out, and i concluded that we needed to be rid of the ira's entirely, and how would we do that? .[cheers and applause] -- we need to be rid of the ira's entirely, and how would we do that? -- with of the irs.

the only way to fund the federal government if you're going to get rid of the internal revenue code it is that you have to of a consumption tax, and it has to be level. it has to be on everything, and you have to tax pharmaceuticals and everything in between korea note just having come back from simi valley and the reagan ranch and the reagan library, ronald reagan said what you tax, you get less of, but if you look at it by definition, the federal government has the first lien on of productivity in america. they take all earnings -- they tax of earnings and investment. once they get theirs, then you get yours. if we stop punishing production and put on consumption, let people in best all they want to, we will see this economy grow, and we will invest trillions backed from overseas, facing capital gains tax. i will better stop right there.

i have taken all of your time on this, but i'm going to talk about this this weekend, so this weekend, there will be more detail on fair tax. that is what i have wanted for a long time. >> thank you. amy, do we have a new question from twitter or facebook? >> actually, yes we do. there is a question for alan west, from the great state of florida. >> thank you very much for being here, each of you. .there is a lot of talk right now about the debt ceiling, from both ends of the spectrum. there is severino on the debt ceiling, definitely yes, and now, i am hearing a lot of rhetoric, and a lot of people are using it as a negotiation tool. i think our congressman dan webster in district 8 has said that he is yes if we get a repeal of obama care, and i think that there are a lot of people using that as a negation -- negotiation to.

are you a note, or are you a yes? >> i see this vote coming up as an opportunity for leadership, and i think it is an opportunity to leverage some things to make sure that we make this federal government fiscally responsible, so there are things i am looking at. i think the number one thing you're looking at is we have to tap historical spending. right now, we're on our way towards 26%. the second thing we have to do, which is the exact thing that senator lee talked about, most of our states have balanced budgets. you do not run your homes or your businesses with of balancing the budget, so that is the second thing. the third thing is we have to have the courage to stand up and say that the big entitlement programs have to be taken away, and we have to sit here in washington, d.c., and come up with the bottle submissions with which we can strengthen social security and strengthen medicare. but then, how to incentivize

health? how to restart create options for the american people to allow them to be the ones in charge of their retirement? and most in koran condition for me is to cut the corporate business tax rate. the president said that in the state of union address, so now, we should hold them accountable to do that, because, charlie, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to spur on long-term, sustainable economic growth, it comes in the growth of the private sector, not the public sector, and if we're going to love the public sector to grow, it is about cutting the corporate business tax rate. it is kind of funny. the purpose of extending this tax rate -- tax rates was not about punishing people who are " and " rich, -- quote-unquote rich, now you look at a 5%, 6% increase on these business

owners, so i see the debt limit gives us the opportunity to set conditions to be fiscally responsible as we move forward, and west says no. [applause] >> ok, we are going to take another youtube question, and this is out of waco, texas. >> as a hard-working american citizen, i strive to create citizen-led solutions in my district. i want a representative that promote self-government. what are you doing as a representative to improve representation on your district level? >> i am happy to take it even though he during a two representatives. we even though heat -- even though he geared it to

representatives. it was representative with a small "r." we understand that people governed themselves better than people can. people govern themselves better of the local level than they do of the national level, and that truly is a substantial part about what this tea party movement is, is this idea of people like us, pushing power out of washington and back to waco, texas, and back out to utah, and all other places throughout the country. we need people back in our home states. i just had this conversation with the speaker of the utah house of representatives, becky, a few days ago, and she is on board. there is a whole team of legislators back in my home state who wanted this to happen. we need to be pushing power back, and our state legislatures

need to be pulling it back. those boats that to cast last november for federal officials are eclipsed in importance perhaps only by the votes that to cast for your state legislatures. those are exceptionally important elections. please, do not overlook them, because they are every bit as important, if not more important, in this fight to restore the proper balance of power. we have got to push the power back to where it belongs. [applause] >> i would just add to that that when i look back to those years when things were causing me to change the direction of my life, i was inspired by the leaders now, and it caused me to put myself into the public life, and from the state and i am from in iowa, we support a lot of local things. -- from the state that i am from

in iowa. working with finnerty party organizations and our grass roots organizations, -- working with our tea party organizations. i think each one of us can go back and have some points on the map that korea followed to see who inspired us, constantly up there trying to identify talents and encourage people. doing the right thing, always. eventually, we have got a big army that is coming in here now. the tea party rally, tens of thousands of people surrounded the capital a couple of times, and i see people making new signs, and new leaders are out there, and they are coming, and they are the next wave behind us. >> but i think the critical challenge of the tea party is, are you out there raising up the next generation of leaders? you have got to be out there. are you having a candidate to

seminars? are you instructing people on how to articulate the issues? -- are you having a candidate -- having note -- having candidtaae seminars. let's be very honest about this, because this is part of the self assessment, so what i would say to all of these local tea party greece, what are you doing for the next level of local elections, elections, and also national elections as we move forward, because it is very much the same as in baseball. where is our single lay, aa, aaa system, so we can get people ready to come up in -- where is our single a? [applause]

>> i completely agree, and we are all in here together. we are responsible, too. we are actually responsible. the people are responsible for the mess we're in now, because we have been taking care of our families and goings to school and working and not paying attention, but we are awake, and we're paying attention, and we are saying, "no maur." >> -- "no more." the next question, i imposing this to all of you. what can we do to stop the bailouts in places like california and illinois that have liberal legislatures that refuse to quit spending money that they take in? >> just say no. >> yes, you do not do it. >> i mean, how can we stop that?

because that is where we are headed? >> we say no. this is a very simple answer, especially in the house of representatives, where we are the ones that have the constitutional control of the purse strings, and we have to say you have to get your fiscal house in order. if you continue to reward bad behavior, you are going to get more bad behavior, and i remember when i used to get with things as a young kid -- get whippings as a young kid. >> this question came up a few times in the audience tonight, so i know there are a lot of people looking for the answer. right over there, and also lopez, right over here behind me. there he is. >> hi, my name is -- is this

working? so i think one of the big issues that consolidated the whole network of tea party years -- tea party-ers, about to wbc go, there was a report issued from the sclc committee on the bailout and the whole crisis that happened in 2007, 2008, and it is clear in their that this crisis was avoidable, and therefore, a bailout was not necessary. and now, that is a positive step, but also, they emphasized glass-steagall. if we actually pass this glass- steagall, there is a way to actually get them out so we do not have to bail them out. no, my question is, are you with

this report, or you -- or are you opposed to this fdic report? wall street. >> i do not kiss anybody is, you know -- -- anybody's, you know. history has a way of repeating itself in teaching you a very bad lesson. to really understand, you have to go back almost to 1976, 1978, with the jimmy carter reinvestment act. one of the things we have been talking about is constitutional mandates. when they say that every american has a right to own a home, that changes the entire complexity of the mortgage industry. all of a sudden, the government comes in, and we start to lower standards, and we start with of things to happen that in 30 years, look at what comes about.

when we repeal the glass- steagall act, that was very good for regulating financial industries. now, listen, you get financial industries that go in and out, all of a sudden these bad mortgages get locked up with good mortgages, and a big bundle together, and they get sold off from big two banks, foreign banks, and and people realize, oops. people are going out there to get mortgages they can afford, but because the government changed the standard, ok, that is what led to the collapse in 2008, and we saw this with fannie and freddie and some of the very nefarious things that they were doing, but when you allow such an incredible influence of special interests, that is why people continue to turn a blind eye to it, so this is what we must understand, but the public sector, government,

cannot get involved until the private sector, as we saw with the mortgage industry, but guess what just happened? once again, government has said that everyone has a right to health care. so 30 years from now or maybe even shorter than that, where will that end up? so what you're talking about is really simple. we have to start looking at the causes of some of these things, and it is a failure of the government appear -- up here to not overstep these mandates. >> let me just follow up on that. i and the chairman of the society, and i went to a breakfast. -- i am the chairman. there was a discussion that was just beginning to percolate its way into "the wall street journal." there was a financial advisor with 30 years in the banking industry, and i will never

forget what he said. is what what you'd do everybody else does. that way, if they are making money, you are making money, and if there is a bailout, you will be bailed out with the rest of them. this is part of this. the implicit federal guarantee. and bad loans and bad neighborhoods. the implicit guarantee of fannie mae and freddie mac is a guarantee where now we have got a statutory guarantee. to be clear which businesses are too big to be allowed to fail, determining which ones will go into receivership and who would receive them, and i have not seen anybody introduce this legislation.

[applause] >> another question that has come on line, i am not sure where he is from, but we heard this repeatedly throughout this town hall tonight, is when will the 112 congress take on the issue of defunding of the departments that are not included in the article one, section 8,f the u.s. constitution? [cheers and applause] >> i think it is too long and too expensive. >> i talk about this a lot back in the home district, and a great example, the department of education, back in the 1970's, when we celebrate the education from welfare, there were about

$18.10 billion for their budget. the department of education know is closer to an $80 billion budget and 5000 employees. but what has happened to education? it has been an inverse relationship, so i think now is the time we have to ask questions. this is a no-brainer, so i think it is very important that we start to ask these questions within ourselves, and we must bring those things up, because this is part of us serving you, and if it does not make sense, if it is a duplicitous program, if it is a feeling program, if it is a redundance program, if you look at the department of homeland security and the command, you will see a duplicity of tasks, missions, so what are we doing?

we are creating a bureaucratic united states, and it is truly outside of the leaps and bounds, so, you are right, we do have to put these things on the table and to start discussing them. >> we know there are tough decisions to be made, difficult decisions, and we are here to support you, because it is much more difficult when you have these people support a new -- much less difficult. and now, we want to go to another youtube clip that we have. >> this is a question for senator paul and senator lee. the stock market has rebounded. unemployment, for college graduates, remains high, about 20%. is this the new normal? what are you doing in the senate to promote job growth? thank you. >> the president talks constantly about wanting to create jobs.

bob he speaks this word "create" as if he was the create for, and he is not -- the creator, and he is not. we have a technicality, a little problem we cannot legislate jobs. it does not work. i cannot create or destroy a matter or energy. i have tried it at home. it does not work. no matter how hard we try, we are not going to korea a single lasting job. islly, what we're doing taking money from peter and giving it to paul. what we have to do is get the federal government the heck out of the way. [cheers and applause] now, in the end, we will be here

all night if i list all of the things that we would have to do, but number one, we have got toslash the corporate income-tax rate. it has to happen. it that is not fun to say anymore now that the president has said it. we have to start taking hold of regulations. in addition to all the tax burdens that we see, this is costing hundreds of billions of dollars every single korea to industry. one of the problems with this, we talk a lot in the constitutionally limited government program about the need to get congress to stop doing things it was never intended to do. that is one symptom of the problem we face, one reason why we focus on the constitution.

other bad things happen. when congress does not do the things it is supposed to do. the very beginning of article one set up the legislative power of the united states government shall be invested in congress, not in executive-branch agencies. [applause] and yet, what happens? every single day in this blessed town? well, we of legislation that never makes it across my desk, never makes across your desk. it is promulgated by an executive-branch agency, so if they decide, for example, the way you are admitting -- emitting ash or ozone, they do something. something that congress has

enacted, saying, for example, "we shall have clean air, and it is the epa authority." if you do not like it, who you talk to normally? you talk to one of us, your senator and congressman, in you say, "this is bad." when we do, we say, "i did not vote for that. if you do not like it, go talk to the epa." they say, "we were not elected by you." note so, a "bug off." -- so, "bug off." that is why i will be co- sponsored legislation with rand paul and some other senators to rein in some of this regulatory

morass -- what i will be cosponsoring legislation. -- why i will be. every time there is something that has a significant economic impact over a certain threshold, we are going to provide that that regulation will not remain in effect unless or until congress adopted by law. that way, it is on the table. >> thank you, senator. right now, i went to go to somebody who is local here in virginia, and anytime we have put together any event, i can always call on this person to help, turn people out, and be there for support, so i mean going to go to tom with more right now. he has a question for congressman king -- tom whitmore. >> congressman king, you'll be happy to know that your colleague, congress will michele

bachmann, has got your back to repealed dog frank. do -- dd-frank. -- dodd-frank. you have been there, from the very beginning. my question for you, would you agree that one of the reasons that the tea party has generated so much excitement and been so effective is because they represent the conscience of america? >> the answer to that question. we had a conversation at one of the rallies, and it was so descriptive of what i think has emerged here, i have taken but upper, and i believe that tea party is are the conscience --

tepee -- tea parties. the conscience is here, speaking to us. we are hearing it now. this is our faith, our american traditions. the things that made america great are going to make america even greater again, if we can stick together, if we can build this movement, and this is why we will have the state of consciousness of america, and i appreciate that. >> thank you, tom. standing together than apart, that is for sure. >> i have a question that has come up a few times. the question that a few people last was is it a priority to have more senators and

representatives joined that? is this something that you do not see as an issue right now? >> in the senate, we have started a tea party caucus with three members, including iran paul, jim demint, and myself -- including rand paul. i get asked this question very often by reporters to what the answer to this question to be, "yes, i am devastated." this is three more than we had one year ago. next year or next congress -- first of all, i do expect more to join. even if they do not.

>> we are getting close to our indian point, so i want to take one more question from the audience. i want to take it from somebody who has traveled here from seattle, washington, to be here tonight, in she is another one who has really supported this tea party movement from coast to coast. catherine. >> well, i have started a group called the doctor-patient medical association, but i am going to ask you about something that is on the horizon, and that is the u.s.-korean trade agreement. a number of us who are free traders are very concerned about what is in a trade agreement, which includes that foreign companies are operating in the u.s. to discourage u.s. law and instead go to the u.n. and the world bank tribunal.

so we are concerned that what is masquerading as free trade is not worth the tradeoff in u.s. sovereignty, so we you, as a free traders, -- president obama is counting on republicans to help him pass this, so we are hoping you will take a second look and consider that. >> when that was first negotiated, i took a look at it. i have got to go take a look at that. yes, i am a free trader, but i want to be a smart trader. we should not let companies operate in that fashion. this is something we need to pay attention to. >> thank you, catherine. one more question here. i understand that most of you in the audience know that the federal government is trying to regulate our internet, and the

internet is critical to this tea party movement. it is a big issue. we have all seen it recently. we have seen it in egypt and iran, and so, right now, i have summoned you want to ask a question regarding internet regulation. -- i have someone here who wants to ask a question. >> as everyone knows here, 90% plus of what the tea party has done has been on the internet, from its generous to its axis, deuteronomy. [laughter] -- from its genesis to another. speaking to a rogue agency, december 21, the sec just voted themselves. the sec cannot do anything

unless and until congress says they can come and they have never done that. the d.c. circuit court unanimously ruled that they do not have the authority, and it went ahead and did it again anyway. i know one act is one in its way through both the house and senate. i know congressman has a bill to undo this, but i wanted to get in front of you all know, and i wanted you to comment on -- we know how important this is, and from the economic standpoint, the internet is one-fifth of the nation's economy. it ties with health care. it is a free-speech issue, an economic issue, and more. >> thank you. >> i think it is very interesting that back in the 2008 election cycle, president obama and, of course, the democrats used social media very well to their advantage to win the election, and now, all of a

sudden, they see that on the conservative side, we are able to do that and learned that lesson, now they want to shut that down, and i do not think we can allow that to happen. something else has happened, when you look up and see that area well has purchased the huffington post.-- aol has purchased the huffington post. we cannot allow ourselves to be suppressed and allow them to take the internet. i stand firmly, if it comes down to it, the biggest pressure we can put on some of these regulatory agencies, cut off their money. [cheers and applause] >> just to add to that, if you look back in the 1980's, ronald reagan eliminated something that require there be a balance between the left and right in

the public airways, and the liberals did not do very well on talk radio. people did not want to buy air time. fair enough. i see that fairness doctrine and the same philosophical category as the control of the internet. mubarak did control the internet in egypt, and i certainly do not want to have anybody being able to control the internet or shut it off, so i am with mr. west, especially, to shutting off the funding to people who do not listen to that. [applause] >> i do not want to say anything that is duplicative of what has been said, but not to be confused with the real interviews, never in the history of mankind has it been so easy and inexpensive for so few peoplepeople with so little mono

speak to so many people. that is what has enabled this movement to be reborn. i say "reborn," because we started back in 1773, but we got a real boost with the internet, with youtube, facebook, email, internet, blogs, everything else. it is how we exist. it is how korea build and a monopoly -- it is how we have built a monopoly. the facts are out there. it exists beyond what the mainstream media has been willing to report. not everything on the internet is true. a lot of it is not true. but people can find trees and ferret out the truth and separate fact from fiction. -- people can find truth. we will shut them down.

[cheers and applause] >> thank you all for being here so much. we have come to the end of our time, but before we totally wrapped up, i want to take a couple of opportunities -- before we totally wrapped in up -- wrapt it up -- wrap it up. i want to take time to recognize somebody in the tea party movement. she is a mom, somebody out there taking care of her family, and she has decided to step up to the plate and challenge senator webb in the state of virginia, in she is here with us tonight. [cheers and applause]

so we are working on that, and i want us to take something away from here, and a action item, so this is not just for show, and we have something that we have to go do, and i want to tell you that we are going to continue to build this movement, to bring people into this movement, because we all identify with this responsibility. we do not have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem, and we need you guys to rein in the spending, and we are here to support you to make those tough decisions when you have to make them, and in the meantime, we are going to go out, and we are going to find some more conservatives to support you in november 2012, and we may have tried to fire harry reid once, but we will take the gavel away from him in november 2012, so that is what -- note [applause] -- [applause] we all work together. this is a nationwide movement.

so that is what we are going to be working on. so i just want to ask briefly, what do you need from us? senator lee? >> mark levin wants to talk to me. >> be excellent into each other. this is a movement that is not going away. it is worth fighting for. it is worth fighting together. we will win. [cheers and applause] >> mr. west? >> if any of you ever get the opportunity to come to our congressional office in the longworth building, there is a eight pictured that is very indicative of what we are as american people, and it is a picture of george washington kneeling beside his horse in the

snow of valley forge and praying. continue to get on your knees and pray. a man or woman, avail of much. thank you. [applause] >> congressman king? >> i think that is right on target. i want you to think about this. when i first went into the state senate, making principled arguments to reasonable people, and they will come around. that was 90. people who are principled are generally already there. sometimes they will come around, and that is easy. and so as many times as i have made the argument compaq --

argument, i will go back and say, the staff will take them off. they are hearing from their constituents, and they have a fine political barometer. we would like to think that we are a world leaders, and to some degree, we are, depending on the arena that we are in -- we would like to think that we are warned leaders. -- world leaders. it changes the minds of the members of congress because they have to hear from you. if they do not do their job. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much for being here, not only to our congressmen but to all of you who have come from far and wide. thank you so much, and, hopefully, we will do this again

several months down the road. thank you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a few moments, a forum about the political unrest in egypt. this is in 1.5 hours, a report on the toyota acceleration problem. after that, british prime minister david cameron on what he says is the failure of multi- cultural listen in great britain, and then we will have the tea party express town hall meeting with members of congress.

>> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke testifies before the house budget committee on the state of the economy. the committee chairman and representative paul ryan, who delivered the republican response to the president's state of the union speech. that hearing is on c-span2 at 10:00 a.m. eastern korea also on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, homeland security secretary janet napolitano will review threats to the u.s. -- c- span2 it 10:00 a.m. eastern. also on c-span3, homeland security secretary janet napolitano. >> the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, on-line, and on social media sites, and find our content any time through the c- span video library, and we take

c-span on the road with our local content vehicle, bringing resources to your community. it is washington norway, c-span networks. provided by cable as a public service -- it is washington in your way. >> a former pentagon official yesterday criticized the obama administration's response to the conflict in egypt, saying the u.s. is now at a disadvantage. he served during the george w. bush administration, and he was on a panel that included a representative of an egyptian news organization. this is a 90-minute discussion hosted by the hudson institute. >> i am a the center of religious freedom here at the hudson institute, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. welcome to everyone. we to they are going to address prospects for the local democracy in egypt. inspired by an uprising in tunisia, ordinary egyptians took

to the streets in alexandria and tahrir square in cairo two weeks ago. thousands of protesters became tens of thousands. they were largely secular, but they were joined by the moslem brotherhood movement, each ship's most organized and largest opposition force. the protests soon became a revolt. becama revolt that mubarak that mubarak and his regime step down immediately became the demand. mohammed elbaradei is being put forward to leave the transitional government. mubarak announced that he would not, nor would his son, stand in

september. government has the peace accord the u.s. was taken off guard. egypt's government has the peace accord with israel. secretary clinton had recently declared the regime to be stable. u.s. policy has fluctuated over the past few weeks over whether president mubarak should leave the transition or go now. it is beginning to sink in that elections now may well equal an islamic fundamentalist regime. after all, the mosques have been the only place for political organization over all these years of political repression. the current announcement from the obama administration emphasizes the importance of an orderly transition. meanwhile, as if to underscore the risk to american interests, iran has applauded the revolt, calling it an islamic awakening. the organization of islamic conference has, by contrast, been silent, appealing only to avoid violence.

the saudi king has warned of chaos in his statements. i was in saudi arabia last week and witnessed firsthand that there was little enthusiasm among the royals for a muslim brotherhood government. in which iran might yield the most influence. analysts in the united states have advocated for an immediate end to military aid to egypt. they have even conceded that it

is fundamentalist but will moderate in power. to help us analyze from different perspectives the prospects for liberal democracy in egypt, we have four presenters on our panel today. i'm delighted to introduce them. are for speaker is samuel tadros. he is finishing his master's at georgetown university. he's a senior partner in the egyptian union of liberal youth. he previously worked as a consultant at the hudson institute on moderate islamist thinkers in egypt and interned at the american enterprise institute and most recently worked with the heritage foundation. he received his b.a. from the american university in cairo. our next speaker will be lee smith, a visiting fellow at hudson institute and a senior editor at "the weekly standard." his critically acclaimed 2010

book has just been released in paperback. "the strong course. " -- the strong course." -- horse." next will be paul marshall, my colleague and a senior fellow at the center for religious freedom at hudson. his global survey was published in 2008 and his books on religion and journalism "blind spot" was published by oxford university press in 2009. he is the author and editor of 20 other books on religion and politics. we have co-authored "silenced" a forthcoming book on blasphemy and apostasy laws, which will be published by oxford in november. our final speaker today is douglas feith. he is the author of "the new york times" best selling memoir "war and decisions."

as undersecretary of defense for policy from july 2001 until august 2005, douglas feith helped devise the u.s. government strategy for the war on terrorism and contributed to policy making for the afghanistan and iraq campaigns. in the reagan administration, he worked as a middle east specialist and served as deputy assistant deputy of defense. before we began, would like to ask you to turn off your phones. the presenters will give short talks and then we will turn to question and answers. thank you. >> let me begin speaking today with a very short story from the first day of demonstrations in

cairo. a friend of mine close to the first demonstration on tuesday, the day that is now claim to be the start of the egyptian revolution. there he found an old acquaintance of ours. the man calls himself the liberal democratic activist, very well educated, a member of the egyptian opposition. he finds him there screaming with resolve the voice, "what a disgrace. what a disgrace. six towns are worth $1." my friend was bewildered. he got the reply, "this is an insult to egypt's honor." if egypt was a great country, the egyptian pound would be worth $6 and not the reverse.

my friend answers, "a weak currency might be good for exports. actually, it's very hard for the government to maintain overvalued exchange rates." the activist looks at my friend with bewilderment. it is not that the words were not understood. they were spoken in very clear arab. it is that the idea behind those words were completely alien to him. he had not heard about those concepts before. looking at my friend for a minute, he then looks at him and tells him, "behind me, what a disgrace." egypt has turned from what secretary clinton describes as a very stable country into a country of turmoil. people are glued to their tv screens looking at the events with a sense of admiration and rightly so. young men are seen demonstrating in the streets and bringing down a machine of security that has oppressed them

for more than 30 years in a mere four hours. the prevailing attitude has been one of democracy. they're fighting for their democracy and we should stand with them. what those young men understand by the word democracy is however not exactly what those observers might think. commentators on cnn have mentioned that everyone they meet in the streets of cairo seems to be in love with americans and israel. be in love with americans and israel. it has probably been observed. there were probably interviewing people in the streets of tel aviv and not cairo. th prevailing negative of those young men who support democracy, who want freedom, that has been the prevailing thing. to look at the prospects of what is happening today in egypt,

this egyptian revolution, would turn into a liberal democracy -- one needs to look at the seriousness. to build a liberal democracy, the question is not whether people want this or not. there are other questions involved. whether there are institutions in the country that can build a liberal democracy. whether there is a rule of law in the country or not. whether there is an independent judiciaryhat is able. i would touch upon a couple of those points. first is the issue of the liberal party is in the country. there are three main parties that are described as liberal and democratic. their sense of the words, however, is que different from that westerners might have of the word. one of the liberal party is has a vice president who could write an article stating very clearly -- are jews human beings or not?

the answer is no, they should be exterminated. that is the leading liberal party. it calls itself liberal. its ideas are hardly what we understand by the idea of liberal. another party stands against any selling of state property. the state property, the ate mechanism, the control of the state of the economy, they want to maintain it. how this fits with any understanding of the word is to the people to decide. the judiciary -- yes, there is a strong independent judiciary in egypt. there's a sense that it has tried to maintain that in the country. the same judiciary voted with over 92% to exclude women judges -- a decision the egyptian government was pushing. are the independents? s. do they have the values we

understand as the words liberal and democratic? hardly? whether there's a sense of civic, educational culture. whether the egyptian educational system provides any of those ideas that are needed to build a healthy political discourse that allows people to discuss the ideas with alternatives. that is lacking in society. before people get so excited about the idea of the marcy being -- the idea of democracy being built, caution should be there. the institutions that are building these democracies need to be looked at. democracy is not just about people being excited about it. there are other things involved. this is not a marker see that is happening in egypt. what is happening? in my view, the egyptian army is

taking power. the egyptian army, which has always been the egyptian regime, has recently been threatened son.ly by the president's the army never liked him. the reasons are outside of the fact that he did not serve in the army. they are very institutional reasons. dhe attempted to build a party, threaten the army in t sense that suddenly the road to achievement, the road to growth in society was no longer a military uniform, but was a party idea. the other sense in which he was threatening the army was a sense of economics. the egyptian army control is immense. estimates put the size of the egyptian armies control of the army at 40% of the economy. gamal mubarak knew liberals were

creating policies that were threatening tharmy's control of the economy. looking at will is happening, the army found its golden opportunits. the army was able to put its narrative again to president mubarak. the army's argument was that the policies were hurting the regime. the army needs to be in control again to cool down -- to cool things down. in a sense, this is what is happening in egypt. young men are fighting in the streets, yes, but the real decisions are fought inside the regime, where the army has been able to step by step exclude its coetitors and silence the regime. where does this leave us? unfortunately, it leaves us with a very bad prediction.

we have an egyptian history. two incidents before something similar happened. a generation revolted against british occupation. it meant reality a couple of years later and discovered that nothing had changed for them. the results were to say, at least, very problematic. this generation formed the? years after the 1919 revolution. it was the generation that joined fastest organizations in the '30's. the same incident, the same sense of high expectations and very low achievements leading to great disappointments happened after the narrative of a great victory in 1973. brazil in egyptian that egypt

did not win in 1973 -- never tell an egyptian that egypt did not win in 1973. then there was his discovery that things were not getting better. this reaction led to what we have seen in the growth of the violence, radical list islamist organizations. what will happen in the future when this sense that nothing has changed in egypt? the opposition parties will each get 20 feet from parliament. they will each get better favors from the regime. the regime will give some concessions, yes, but will maintain power. what will happen to those young men in the streets? what will happen when they discover that all they have worked for actually resulted in nothing for them? i think that is a question that not only egypt, but the world

will have to deal with for some time in the future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much to nina and the rest of hudson for inviting me along. i want to start off by saying that i essentially agree with samuel's interpretation. i think perhaps the most cynical way to read what has happened over the last few weeks and perhaps the most accurate is that is essentially what we have seen is a preemptive military coup. i i ink the military did not plan this, but the military saw what was happening on the streets and understood that they could take advantage of what was happening on the streets. as sam explain clearly, the military does not like gamal mubarak. the military was not happy about this that gamal mubarak might

succeed his father. that is not the way the mility understands it. this is a free office of the regime. it is not a mubarak dynasty. the military has always been central in egypt and stay back for quite a long time, certainly before 1952. that's the way i understood it. what we have seen is a preemptive military coup. the notion that it has taken u.s. policymakers by surprise is surprising. the fact that the white house and administration has been frustrated is a little bizarre given that everyone has understood that the succession was eremely delice. no one knew exactly which way it was going to pan out. we have bee quite worried about this for a while. obviously, this was a concern. g speak about of tdou

this. the freedom agenda, the bush administraon, among many other things, it anticipated that this was an issue with egypt. authoritarian regimes were a problem and this was one of the upsides of the freedom agenda. to account for these authoritarian regimes in to push for something else. in other words, the notion that egypt was a troublesome place and that the succession is going to be a problem -- this has been known for quite some time. should not have taken the administration by surprise and we should not be blaming the intelligence community for this now. this debate has been on the table for quite some time. one of the things that i want to say, in spite of the fact that i think we can see this as essentially a preemptive military coup, there are some victoriehere for the protesters, as well. we also want to talk about this. there has been some skepticism

over your views of the word " democratic uprising." i think there are some positive things that have happened. namely, i think it is good that gamal mubarak has been taken off the table. this is an upside for egypt and for u.s. policy. it could be an upside for u.s. policy. i think this is something the people have wanted for quite a while. we have wanted the -- we have wanted mubarak to name a successor and now there's a successor, suleiman. although people may not be happy, i believe this is something we have wantedor quite a while. the other victory, of course that president hosni mubarak has agreed to step down. he needs to be kept to his word. i do not see the point in trying to force him off the stage right

now. i think he needs to be kept to his word and i think what this administration needs to do and what u.s. policymakers need to do is, it will take serious wo, bu if they're serious, they need to push omar suleiman or whoever succeeds him in elections in september for the same sort of reforms they wanted. sometimes the bush administration was good at getting this from mubarak. this is not easy. it's not easy to shout for someone to get off the stage from the sidelines. if u.s. policymakers are serious about a democratic egypt, these are the sort of things that will have to be done. sam outlined the liberal trends in egypt are mighty slim. a lot of people have blamed the mubarak regime for crushing liberal trends. there's some truth to that. however, liberal trends have been rare in egypt since about

-- certainly since the constitutional era. way today that its 1952 with the free officers coup. yocould also make an argument that the liberal trends were slim even before then. starting in the 1920's, they started to be under attack. most notably, from the muslim brotherhood. i think some of the discussion around the islamist movement in egypt is very strange. the notion that somehow the muslim brotherhood would not come to power in free and fair elections is slightly counterintuitive to say the least. i know that one of the explanations that people give -- the egyptians have seen this happen in tehran and they recognize this is a profound mistake and they do not want to make this a mistake. we do not exactly know that. the other evidence is -- the

palestinians voted for hamas. in lebanon, 30% of the christian community, of all people we hardly expect christians to welcome an islamist regime. nonetheless, it has aligned itself with the leadership and his alliance with hezbollah. again, there are plenty of reasons people opt for islamist trends in their different countries. one of the reasons is that many people like islamist party spirit is a slightly counter intuitive notion. the muslim brotherhood is perhaps the pillar of egyptian cultural and intellectual life over the past century. moreover, is the flower of arab political maturity. this began in egypt. the notion that it is not going to play a central role if not

the central role in the future of egyptn politics -- again, that does not make sense to me. this gs back to -- if we look at it -- i would say it is tied to arab political modernity starting in 1978. the founding of the brotherhood is 1928. what we see happening with the napoleon in egypt, muslim avtivists started to wonder if -- why did it happen that egyptians were overrun so easily? the answer was -- differed intellectuals started to pop up. one said that the reason is because islam had become weekend. this is one of the reasons -- this is the reason why the ran us so easily.u

the idea was that is long needed a renovation. what it needed to do was purged itself of various not islamic excesses' and return itself to the pctices of the profit. the earliest companions and successors -- they were known as e righteous forbearers. it goes to the one time mufti of egypt and the chief disciple and the founder of muslim brotherhood in 1928. this is a key intellectual trend in egypt. it is the intellectual trend in egypt at this stage.

again, i think this very important to keep in mind when we talk about whether or not the brotherhood will play a key role. it certainly will. for u.s. policymakers -- we hear different things coming out of the white house on how much the administration should push to have the brotherhood included in the national dialogue and how much it should play a role in the opposition. this is interesting. this is an important debate. we certainly have to look at this and say -- what right to american policy makers have to intervene in the decisions of another country? what right do we have to trample on other people's natural rights? these are certainly important arguments. the other argument is that it is not the role of the american president to ensure the nural rights of another people. the role of the american president is to protect and preserve american interests.

one key american interest in the middle east is to preserve peace in the eastern manage iranian. -- in the eastern mediterranean. this islso for the sake of our ally, egypt. this peace treaty undergirds the pact in the eastern mediterranean. it is very key. i think that we have to confront the fact of that if there is a muslim brotherhood controlled government in egypt, the peace treaty is going to be endangered. the brotherhood has said as much itself. we need to deal with that. if we are one to talk oneempowering the brotherhood and ensuring their role in the national dialogue, we have to face the consequences. as sam was talking about before, looking at some of the protesters, even without the brotherhood, i think we he to face the fact that we are looking perhaps at a very

different egypt. egypt is changing. we need to recognize that the people on the streets -- none of them remember the 1963 or 1970 wars. catastrophic wars for egypt and certainly not good for israel either. there was an interview in he wall street journal" with the syrian president. he said -- this is partly facetious because this is an extremely brutal regime. syrians understand that if they take to the streets in the number egyptians do, t security will have no reservations about opening fire on the syrian protesters. something that he said is worth consideration. he said, "weave a little easier -- we have it much easier because we do not have a relationship with israel." the egyptians to have a treaty. whether we like it or not, we

are going to have to deal with the fact that the region is not happy with that peace treaty. egyptians are not happy with that peace treaty. this is certainly something to think about down the road regardless of whether or not -- regardless of how much power the muslim brotherhood gets. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for inviti me on to this panel. in order to avoid undue duplication by the panelists, we have been asked, if possible, to focus on some different aspects from one another. i have been massed particularly to look at the question of what life might be like for egyptians

and perhaps others. -- if they muslim brotherhood unsheathes a large msure power in egy. what would it mean for political and religious dissidents? muslims whose view of the nature of politics and the nature of islam does dier from that of the muslim brotherhood. what would it mean for egypt's coptic christian minority, the largest non muslim minority in the middle east. what might this mean about the status of women and so forth? the answers to these questions or at least suggested talks on these questions depends on two things. what we think is likely to be the strength of the muslim brotherhood? and what is likely to do, if it has power. this is, of course, -- the

strength and the intention of the muslim brotherhood is perhaps the major subject of debate in the u.s. as it looks at egyptian politics. one of three things -- the question of mubarak, the question of the military, and the question of the brotherhood. the u.s. administration seems to be going back and forth like each of these over the last few weeks as it tries to sort out the relative strength. it is significant that we discussed the brotherhood more of them all the other political opposition groups combined -- the brotherhood more than all the other political opposition groups combine. most commentators would probably have difficulty listing several dozen of the egyptian opposition groups. there's a very good reason for this. the fact that there are several dozen of them -- their very small and they are very disorganized. at the moment, they're not in

any position to exercise much power, even if it were handed to them. there is this focus on the brotherhood as the major actor, other than mubarak and the military within egypt. what does the brotherhood believe? i will give just one quotation and then qualify it. if you go to the brotherhood's web site, you wl find many quotations outlining the goal. i could repeat these at length. many of you probably could as well. just one, "our goal is to estaish one islamic state of united islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of god and t strengthening of the islamic presence in the world arena.

the goal is the establishment of a world islamic state." you could say many of those quotations as a political platform. you could say, we do not mean these things or they are a long- term goal. amongst the brotherhood statements in the last several weeks, they have said that this is not an islamicprising. this is a democratic uprising. at the moment, we are the egyptian brotherhood, not the muslim brotherhood. the brotherhood is famously equivocal and contradictory and in what it says about itself. i think, partly because it has -- it is at least tactically quite clever in such matters. also the question of what the brotherhood actually believes or

what does it intend -- we should also bear in mind that what the brotherhood might do and what it intes to do are not the same things. this is true for any political goal. if statements about democracy, and we need to understand what that might mean, or statements about religious freedom. these may well be sincerely meant, but if the party acts in such a way, if it believes the laws it passes, if it believes the versions of islamic what it wants to enforce will lead to such freedom and democracy, it is mistaken. even what the brotherhood might sincerely say about itself might not give us too much indication of what might happen. what i would like to do as a means of investigating possible outcomes of the brotherhood's

power is to look at two sources. one is to look at how the chips religiouspt's minorities view the current situation. i will just give you quotations from three church leaders. i do so not because these church leaders -- they are highly adept at reading how egyptian politics might affect them. they are a minority. they are a persecuted minority. they look at the situation with a very careful and jaundiced eye. one of the leading roman catholic figuresn egypt says "though some of the primary opposition leaders in this revolting to be secular

formist, church leaders believe the main engine fueling and organizing the donstrators is the muslim brotherhood." coptic christians, as well as the armenian greek orthodox and others now fear a fate similar .o that of iraq's christians the head of the largest church group in egypt, the church of st. mark, usually called the coptic orthodox church, its head said on national television, addressing remarks to mubarak and said to him, "i called the president and i told him we're all with you, all the people are with you." this expression of support for a leader very definitely on the

alps is quite striking. shows fear of alternatives to mubarak. the head of another church in egypt said, "want to be gracious to aan who served egypt for 30 years. he had his mistakes, just as other leaders appear " it is striking that the major spokespeople for religious minorities, while they've been complainingbout the situation in egypt for many years, at the moment, they seem to think the present situation, while it could be improved, the changes are more likely to be for the worse than for the better. i take that to be significant. another way of working out what might happen in egypt would be to look at the example from other countries. obviously, this is always dangerous. each country is unique.

they are very different. i think we can learn something. one thing, which has become a washington sport, is to compare and contrast egypt and iraq. let us compare 2011 to 1979. of course, shiite's got in for a charismatileaders and sunni 's generally do not. there are other examples. egypt has borders with two territories run by offshoots of the muslim brotherhood. one of these is gaza. hamas is an offshoot of the brotherhood. following its electoral victory

in dawson, amongst other things, hamas killed off a large number of its palestinian authority opponents. or, look further south. the national islamic front. sudan is largely a military dictatorship, but its official sponsoring party is still the national islamic front. its previous name was the muslim brotherhood within sudan. it was the first takeover of of a country by islamic group after the iranian revolution in 1983. it already represented in parliament those in the minority party -- they took over the country and declare that sudan would be ruled by sharia. this was in 1983. sudan did all of those things. we're often told it is only the

imaginings of what an islamist regime would do. in the first year in one province alone, a kerrey held 52 public imputations, 12 of them taking an arm-- and a leg from opposite sides of the body also, the broadcasting of public hangings and crucifixion. and engaged in two wars of genocide against the south and also in darfur. currently, southern sudan has voted to succeed. bashir has said he will change the constitution and impose sharia law. sudan is not egypt. i would not expect those things to happen in egypt. it does give an example next door of a muslim brotherhood sponsored gime. that should give us pause.

if we look for islamist regimes with strong front of political islam, apart from gaza and sudan, you might look to taliban rule in pakistan and if yes stand within the tribal areas or portions -- pakistan and afghanistan within the tribal areas or portions of nigeria. or they a activities in orl- shabab in the areas it controls within somalia. again, i emphasize there's no guarantee the muslim brotherhood would end up exactly like these. the are the examples. and saudi arabia and iran are the only other examples we have of regimes which have sought to

implement this sort of program that exists on the egyptian muslim brotherhood's website. i often say, what is their definition of insanity? repeating the same action and expecting a different result. i would expect egypt to go in that directionalthough in a milder form. the eight territories show seven characteristics. most of them do. first, muslim voices other than those of the islamists have been silenced. secondly, religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted. women are subjugated. the society tends to be less free than it was before, not that any of these societies were

marvelous before hand. the all suffer widespread violence and most of them have engaged in war. finally, the regimes have not moderated while in power. i believe this should give us great caution. we fear about what might happen within egypt and outside of it, if the brotherhood has real power. one of our goals should therefore be as much as we can, which is probably not necessarily that much, to ensure that the future power of the muslim brotherhood is limited. it would help if in our conversations about egypt or anywhere else we talked about free and open societies rather than democracies. democracy has many meanings. one of them is you respect

rights and freedoms and stuff like that. in many other uses, it just means that one is able to vote for a government. what we are concerned about is societies which are democratic and free, not democratic and totalitarian. we want to stress freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the importance of societal counterweights in the state, the legitimacy of opposition, a constitutional order of separation opowers, and a right to regime. these are the particular things we are looking for and we need to refer to them as shorthand, but i thinkree societies rather than democratic societies would be a better shorthand. to the degree we can, we should push for a real transition to such a society. that means giving time for societal forces other than the muslim brotherhood to grow, since they were more

successfully repressed by mubarak. i also think that organic change has usually been more effective in producing lasting freedom. united states is one exception. most of what we call democracy and free society has come from the gradual spreading of power away from a strong executive to the legislature with a strong judiciary. as much as we can, we should encourage such a model with in egypt and i believe that douglas feith will tell us exactly how to do it. thank you very much. [applause] >> good morning. paul has set me up to disappoint you.

what i would like to do is not give a policy prescription so give a few of the kind of considerations that i think either are or should be in the minds of policy makers in the u.s. government. i want to emphasize the importance of balancing conflicting interests. very often in these kinds of discussions, people will focus on a particular aspect of the problem. wh policymakers have to do in the government is a look at the range of problems that confront them. they do not have the luxury of picking a favorite topic and focusing only on that. and the national security field, -- in the national

security field, it is beneficial to have a strategy, something that reflects careful consideration of long-term interest and sething that sets major national goals. the value of having a strategy is that it does give -- it does bring careful thought to a subject and it allows the government to chart a course or a sustained period of time and not be buffeted by the shifting winds day-to-day. what we have seen ingypt fairly clearly is that the obama administration did not have a strategy to deal with middle eastern political instability and a marketing promotion. -- instability and democracy promotion treated basically run away from the bush administration's democracy

promotion policies known as the freedom agenda. this desire to run away, to distance themselves to anything associated with president bush, led to the very cold response of the president and his administration to the demonstrators in iran back in june of 2009. i think that became an embarrassment for people even within a the administration. they recognized that even many of their own supporters were unhappy with the president showing no interest in the pro democratic rhetoric and bravery of the iranian demonstrars. interestingly enough, at the very beginning of this egyptian political turmoil -- once agai

the administration indulging a predisposion to reemphasized democracy and announced th words from the secretary of state and the vice president that the egyptian government was stable. then they quickly had to maneuver to try to get on the righside of history and say that they do have some sympathy with the complaints of the demonstrators against the mubarak regime. what we saw was this flipping and flopping and they have done some more flipping and flopping since then. that really reflects that there is no broader conceptual context. there's no strategy that what the administration is doing fits into.

officials interested in developing a strategy would have to start by clarifying some points, i believe, about demoacy promotion or the promotion of liberal democratic ideas and u.s. national security policy. i will offer a few thoughts that they might want to consider. one, the u.s. has practical interests in the spread of democratic institutions and the development of democratic institutions. a contrary view, the so-called realist view, which tends to equate the authoritarianism with the stability, is refuted in the streets of cairo now. i think that's one of the important lessons. the view that tends to deprecate the practical importance of

democracy is not a vw, according to as much residents with the american people, but it's imrtant for the american people to understand that in their key national security institutions, within the government, the state department and the cia, the so-called realist view is the predominant view. there tends to be a general downplaying of the importance of the practical importance of democracy promotion to the united states. now, promoting democracy has obvious moral and i would say less obvious practical benefits. it can help create a more peaceful and stable world. to illustrate the point, compare your of today to europe at the star of the 20th-century and you can begin to see the benefits, the actical benefits

of successful the markers the promotion. it could also help diminish the ideological appeal of islamism. democracy is not a cure-all for that problem, but it could be important. democracy promotion is not a simple matter of overtowing authoritarian regimes and quickly organizing elections. i think that all of my colleagues on the panel here have issued very important and intelligence warnings, cautions, about simplistic approaches to democracy promotion. theerm "democracy" as paul marshall and others have mentioned, is shorthand for a set of liberal democratic concepts, attitudes, and institutions.

concepts such as individual rights, limited government, and rule of law. attitudes such as compromise, respect for contrary views, and institutions such as multiple power centers, independe judiciary, property rights. when we talk about promoting democracy, many people think that all we're talking about is rushing to organize elections. i think it is extremely important. it's part of the problem with using this kind of shorthand. it's important to understand that sensible people who are talking about promoting democracy are tking about promoting these concepts, attitudes, and institutions and not just looking at the one institution that gets first and foremost attention by most people, which is elections. free and fair elections are an element of democracy.

in the absence of the other elements, they are not only insufficient to create democracy, but they can produce anti-democratic results. democracy is not only about process, but also principles. it is not hypocrisy for supporters of democracy to oppose the use of democratic process is to give power to people who reject democratic principles. nazis, communists, and islamist s have all in various places and various times used democratic means to pursue power even though they reject liberal democracy in principle. this is one of the great challenges for liberal democracies. they have to understand that not every element of liberal democracy is a good thing to rush forward with in societies

where the use, for example, of quickie elections can produce results that are deeply, philosophically hostile to the principles of liberal democracy. the third point i would make is -- as important as democracy promotion is for u.s. national security policy, it does not always trumped every other policy consideration. officials with broad responsibilities are continually forced to make trade-offs among important interests. what then means is that serious policy-making in this area requires arguing against the so- lled realist view that democracy promotion is essentially irrelevt to american interests and also

fighting against the purests who argue that anything that is -- that seems to be at odds with the media promotion of democracy and the rushing -- with the immediate promotion of democracy and the rushing towards ection is a violation of principle. fourth, an intelligent, sustained fort to promote democratic institutions should heed the philosopher edmund's burke's warnings of trying to promote abstract ideas on foreign cultures. democracy is not a single thing. samuel tadros did a very good job of explaining from the point of view of an egyptian who cares about liberal democracy and would like to promote it -- is

entirely favorable the sceptical about how fast one can move on this track in a country like egypt. he a understands that democracy will not look the same in every country. americans need to understand that. not every country is ready for all the main liberal democratic institutions right away. some institutions that would be deemed undemocratic in one couny may be the key to successful liberal self- government in another. for example, to create and secure democracy germany, afr world war ii banned the nazi and communist parties. that kind of sweeping ban of political parties would not fly in the united state but it was deemed important and beneficial and democratic in germany. for people who do see the practical benefit of decracy promotion from the united

states, it is important that they developed a sophisticated understanding of the complexities here and the fact that democracy is not going to look the same and is not going to have all the same institutions in every country. that is not an argument for dismissing the moral or the practical benefits to the united states of trying to encourage the development of liberal democratic institutions. u.s. policymakers are now being forcedo consider what our key interests are in egypt. the list is fairly obvious to most everybody. i will not spend a whole lot of time on it. we have an interest in regional peace. we have an interest in the considerations ofrade and prosperity for the region. in counter-terrorism, in countering the spread of nucar

weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the area. that is of course a reference to regional state to state relations. iran, for example. we have an interest in making sure that we do not wind up of the end of this political upheaval with an egyptian government that wants to pursue its own nuclear weapons program. we have a very strong interest in political refm in egypt and in the broader arab and muslim worlds. the united states has a large stake in this. our strategic interest is to promote the kind of liberal democratic concepts and institutions that i just mentioned, but to do so with caution and common sense and without illusions of the type

that samuel tadros warned against about overnight transformations in the attitudes and principles of millions of people. key is being clear-eyed about the muslim brotherhood, which is a philosophical enemy of liberal democraticdeas. i think paul marshall has done a very good job in his brief presentation in warning about the nature of the muslim brotherhood. remarksthat lee smith's should be taken to heart by everybody in e u.s. government foreign policy establishment as they view the muslim brotherhood. the realist you that it tends to dominate -- view tends to

dominate in world affairs. it is a very big mistake. in dealing with the muslim brotherhood, you're not just talking about a set of practical interest. you're dealing with a group that has -- that formed on the basis ideology and lives to serve that ideology, as practical, flexible, and nimble ashey have shown themselves to be in many respects, i think it would be a serious mistake to ignore the essential, ideological nature of the organization, and to just assume that they are -- that they can easily become responsible political actors in a democratic egypt. now, the reason there is so mh focus on the muslim brotherhood

is that they are one of the two institutions that are, right now, maneuvering for influence and power in whenever the next stage of egyptian political development is going to be -- whatever the next stage of the egyptian political development is going to be. america's job is to do whatever it can to help manage or influence the political transition in egypt. but, it is important to observe that, in all events, our influence is limited in this kind of affair. it is especially limited, given that we enter into all this turmoil as the united states government without a strategy. i think the fact that we did not, over the last two years, have an administration that was reaching out to multiple players in egypt and cultivating people

and institutions and ideas that ould have helped us with better information, better intelligence, better contacts, more influence -- it has put this in a position where the united states government now is largely a bystander rather than a significant player in developments in egypt. but, in any eve, we should be trying, within our limited means, to exercise some influence and that influence, if we have a truly strategic view that takes into account these considerations about promoting liberal-democratic institutions and recognizing with the muslim brotherhood is -- whatev influence we have should be directed towards minimizing the

kind of political power that the muslim brotherhood would like to establish for itself in egypt. and iould just say that, overall, my message is a message of trying to approach this problem with balance and to recognize that what the administration has been doing in recent days has been crisis management, rather than the implementation of a strategy. it would be helpful if they have a strategy. it makes the crisis management, in man ways, easier and more likely to advance the u.s. national interests. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i think our panelists did an excellent job of eliminating --

eliminating some of the issues that our policy makers are thinking about -- illuminating some of the issues that are policymakers are thinking about and talking about today. i would ask that you identify yourself and your organization and wait for the microphone, since we're taping this for our web site -- website, www.hudson.org. over on this side. >> thank you. i would like to direct this question to douglas feith and whoever else might have some insight into it. i am indira lakshman, the diplomatic reporter for lumber ws. i want to know what you think about -- for bloomberg news. i want to know what to think

about the funding that has been cut in recentears. why did they do this and do you think this has had an efct on disempowering ngos? >> i thinkhat the cutting of funds by the obama administration for democracy promotion was one aspect of what i referred to in my talk as they're turning away or running away from the bush freedom agenda. interesting point, i think, to realize that the general promotionaliberal- democratic ideas and institutions has been a part of american national security policy fromdemocratic and republican administrations for decades. president bush made it a

particularly, highly-eliminated part of his -- highly- illuminated part of his policy, but it was not a radical departure from american foreign policy. what was much more of a radical departure from traditional american foreign policy was what the obama administration did when it came in in cutting democracy-promotion funds and basically showing a lack of interest -- an affirmative lack of interest in democracy in russia or human rights and democratic considerations in russia, in china, in egypt, in saudi arabia, syria, and various other places where it had been an important part of the american agenda. the obama administration, and then, of course, in president

obama's cairo speech, he talked about democracy there, but he gave it so clear a minor emphasis that it was in real contrast to what had been done by the previous administration. and i think it was largely an effort for obama to position himself as the un-bush. i think it was a very serious mistake. i do think it did harm, as your question suggests, it did harm our ties to various groups and our ability, basically, to have better information and better contacts in egypt during this process -- crisis. >> ok. the gentleman right here. >> [unintelligible] my question is for doug feith.

how come the obama administration did not know about this? [unintelligible] do you think obama will use this egyptian crisis to ask israel to give more concessions? [unintelligible] this is not the first time [unintelligible] punjab is a very important province in pakistan. [inaudible] -- [unintelligible]

somehow, these people are inherently less cultural. i mean, [unintelligible] my question i how obama will use this crisis as leverage against israel because it was ry difficult to get concessions to palestinians. now, obama is in a very strong position to do that. >> i think one of the noteworthy features about the political upheaval in egypt is howittle it has to do with israel. i do not think that israel is a gigantic factor here. your point about intelligence -- very often, our intelligence can

produce some insight about particular facts. but the kind of -- the kind of question about which the ministration was surprised, which is that this authoritarian regime in egypt was going to have a major -- was going to eate major instability when the time came for deali with some kind of political transition -- you did not have to be in intelligence to see that coming. i mean, anybody -- that's not -- that's a matter of intelligence, but it's the intelligence of ordinary people we are talking about. it's not the intelligence of intelligence agencies. there was a lack of intelligence in the sense that they failed to see something that should have been obvious to everybody. i say "failed to see," perhaps

in parts of their brains, the leaders of the u.s. government saw this. but it was not at the fore of their minds and they were not dealing with it as something that could happen imminently. that is partly the reason they look s shocked when the events occurred. the other point i would make is that, again, since i'm trying t show how important it is to balance interests here -- when people say that some countries or some people are not ready for democracy, sometimes, that is true. and i think we have seen examples of it where people have democratic opportunities and they blow them. and you get an example like the

elections in the gaza strip that produced this extreme the anti- democratic result of putting hamas i power. but, just as a countervailing thought, if you had said to a serious student of germany, let's say, in 1946, that, in 60 germany was years germans, going to be a solid, liberal democracy whose basic attitude toward international of years was -- international affairs was cifist, they would have said, you do not know anything about chairman history -- german history or culture. it is not going to happen. all of the sensible people would have said that democracy of that

kind in germany was inconceivable. likewise japan. as important -- and i do think valid -- as all the warnings and cautions we have heard from the panel are this morning about the difficulties of moving a ciety like egypt in the direction of liberal democracy -- as importan as that is, i do not think we should be completely closed minded to the idea that -- close-minded to the idea that countries sometimes manage to pull off philosophical see changes that are very beneficial to the people of the country and the world. it is in america's interest to promote those ideas, even when they are long shots. in some cases, they pay off, as in the cases of germany and japan.

i mean, they pay off informally for those countries, for the world, and for u.s. interests -- they pay off enormously for those countries, for the world, and for u.s. interests. >> produced the into the microphone -- could you speak into the microphone? >> my question goes to mr. feith and anyone else on the panel. under the current turmoil, do you tnk the u.s. has a path or way to preserve the peace treaty b? by buying time for the election, do you think the u.s. knows who to speak to to stop the current tide of the muslim brotherhood and their rise toower? >> as i said before, i do not

think we know as much as we should know. i think the u.s. government would benefit enormously if the government of the time to hear the presentations that sam tadros, and paul marshall, and lee smith made this morning about the political scene there. >> i think when sam describing for -- described befe -- i agree that one of the interesting things about the protests is that we realize that the arab-israeli crisis is not the key issue. there are lots of other issues as well. however, if we also look at these demonstrations, i think that one of the things that we see is that people are dissatisfied. people are unhappy with the peace treaty. we are talking about giving people a free voice in the governance of their own society. one of the things we're going to find out is that, for better or worse, people do not like this

peace treaty with israel. i find it very unfortunate, but i think it is the case. as we look aund the region, that is the way it is. we can blame the regime force during this up -- for stirring this up, and they do a perfectly good job of this, but it is also a popular feeling on the street. one of the things we probably need to come to terms with pretty soon is that a peace treaty may be on shaky ground. i do not think with the military regime. we also need to understand this is what the military plans for. that is the enemy, not libya, not saddam, not the iranians -- israel -- that is the enemy, not libya, not sudan, not the irians. israel.

we're talking about tens of millions of young people who do not remember the catastrophe that 67 or 73 brought egypt. >> a question right here. >> my name is ron, aetired international development consultant. while i appreciate the need for a maturity or maturation process for civil society so that the institutions of democracy are strong, it seems that there will be an election in september. the scenario there, according to what you haveaid and what we read, is that the muslim brotherhood is likely to be in power. if that is the case, the u.s., if they follow what they did in gaza to not recognize hamas, will not recognize the muslim

brotherhood, which will cross the street to erupt again -- cause the street to erupt again. we will be in worse trouble. i would like to hear your predictions. what will be the result of the elections in the fall, or do you suspect there will not be? >> i think there will definitely be elections in the fall. how those elections -- of course, we're speaking about presidential elections and not parliamentary. the egyptian government has so far refused to dissolve the egyptian parliament arguing that, to pass those constitutional amendments, you have to have that current parliament. presidentiallections will take place. i would doubt that the muslim brotherhood would be able to challenge the military in the presidenal elections. the egyptian military is immensely popular.

the reasons are various points -- the popularity of the victory with israel in 1973, the army is viewed as clean. we do not hear about corruption cases. the army is viewed as efficient. if the army puts a young face, perhaps e prime minister been the interesting candidate here -- of course, when i say young face, that is relative. he is 69, i believe. [lauter] layman --an omar's a omar suleiman, the vice president. i think, in that case, he would able to win the presidential election. the more important question will deal with the parliamentary elections. i think the pressure will be on the regime immediely after the presidential elections to

dissolve parliament and call for new elections, since everyone knows what a disgrace of and elections the last one was -- of an election the last one was. in that case, a victory by the muslim brotherhood is an issue to be concerned with. of course, therere many issues to deal with he. we're not talking about winning egypt as a whole. what would happen in each district? who are the candidates? there are so many different issues to deal with. the concern would be with the parliamentary elections, not the presidential elections where the muslim brotherhood would be unlikely to have a serious candidate to challenge a young, clean face from the military. >> i would like to pose a question to our panelists.

the united states has been giving either to $1.5 billion to $2 billion in aid annually to egypt. is that leverage we can now use, now that mubarak will be out of the way, to bring in some of these democratic bodies and institutions that doug talked about? if so, what would you call priorities -- and achievable priorities in the near term? sa do you want to start with that? >> i think one of the interesting surprises in the last few days is how little information we have about the egyptian military. i have spoken to various people in the administration -- previous administration. the sense is that mubarak had always kept a wall of separation between the egyptian military and its american contacts.

any attempt to deal with the military through open-channel dialogue with the military leadership was always stopped by mubarak. so, whether the military contact, the aid it reflects any real relationship with the people or not is a question mark. whether it can be used -- definitely. i think everybody has been talking about the aid to egypt in the form of -- about cutting the aid to get the results you want. i think it might be worthwhile to think for a while about whether the aid can be used as a tax, whether more aid might encourage the military to bring

reforms. what those records would be -- i would say that it is more important than opening up the system is allowing the ideas that we've understand as liberal and democratic to be inside the system. the egyptian government has always managed to portray their problem, and rightly so, of choosing between the regime and islamists. how can you create certainty and allow this alternative to grow -- a bringing those ideas inside egyptian society, allowing real civil society to grow. i think those are the areas where the military would be prescient to bring those things. >> paul, would you like to say something? he painted a very dire picture based on the comments of the christian leaders. is is the largest religious minority in the middle east -- the coic christians in egypt.

if they have drawn comparisons with iraq, which is certainly a chilling thing, as half the christians there have left since 2004. if there is a massxodus of 10 million people, it will be bad for u.s. interests. what do you see that the united states should behinking about doing at this point? >> in terms of other countries i mentioned -- again, they are going to be different from egypt. just to emphasize my basic point -- all of the examples are horrible regimes, so we should not expect anything different in egypt. in terms of dealing with religious minorities in egypt, i believe that one of the things the u.s. should push is for religious freedom. this is important because it is

a major part of equality before the law. it is one thing that they have pushed for -- the uniform code forbidding places of worsh -- for building places of worship other features of the demands -- rights are based upon citizenship, rather than religion. these are not so much in protections for particular group, but universalizing the law and having citizenship law. i would make this part of the agenda of the use of u.s. aid. we mentioned cutting back on the democratization programs. i think one thing that the u.s. could certainly use its military aid to leverage is the ability to offer more aid, which goes

toward the question of civil society. that includes religious freedom and other forms of human rights. the growth of independent journalism, of a free press, thingsf this kind. this week can do -- it would help eptians and also provide the foundation for the growth of alternative political parties and voices. i would use our aid to leverage more aid and make religious freedom part of that. >>hank you. i think we're out of time. i would ask you all to join me in the tnking our presenters today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

prevent accidents. our charge above all is to save lives. as long as president obama and i are on the job we will never take the american people'srust lightly. for their safety for granted. and i said over and over when it comes to safety we will not take a back seat to anyone. in service of this commitment and that congress' request, we launched to unprecedented studies into unintended acceleration in toyota automobiles, and in america's fleet of cars over all. we asked a straightforward question, can automotive electronic systems possibly cause unintended acceleration.

one study, the national academy of sciences exploration of unintended acceleration across america's fleet continues. the other study, our partnership with mass, engineering and safety center has now come to a close. today, we can say clearly and affirmatively that nhtsa, america's traffic safety organization, was right all along. as we stated last year, there are only two real world causes of high-speed unintended acceleration in toyota's. first, some toyota formats and trap drivers gas pedal while their vehicles were in motion. second, soalled sticky petals

made some toyota acceleration too slow to release. as a consequence, toyota has isued recalls and paid for repairs on nearly 8 million cars or trucks. and nhtsa has leveled record wrecking civil penalties on the company because it failed to respond to these critical safety concerns in a sufficient, sufficiently timely manner. our conclusion that toyotas problems were mechanical, our conclusion is this. toyotas problems were mechanic mechanical, not electrical. and it comes after one of the most exhaustive, thorough, and intensive research efforts ever taken. nhtsa's best and brightest engineers, our nation's leading

electronic specialists, men and women who work with the space program rigorously examined nine vehicles in which consumers reported unintended acceleration. they pored over more than 280,000 lines of software code looking for potential flaws that could intiate an unintended acceleration incident. they bombarded vehicles with electromagnetic radiation to see whether it could make electronic systems cause the cars they control to gain speed. and they, along with nhtsa, worked meticulously day and night to get to the bottom of unintended acceleration. when we talk about nhtsa's safety first focus, this is what wemean. it's why we saw more voluntary

automotive recalls during 2010 than in any previous year, a total of 20.3 million vehicles. it's why we received an all time high number of consumer complaints, closely reviewing each and every one and it's why we have worked the clock to keep american drivers and passengers safe. so let's be clear. the jury is back. the verdict is in. there isno electronic-based cause for unintended high-speed acceleration in toyota's, period. and this morning -- excuse me, this afternoon with safety experts from nasa and nets are on hand to review the salient and supporting details with you. to address nasa's findings we

have mike kirsch, principal engineer at nasa's engine and safety center who led this first of its kind study, to address the thousands of complaints that nhtsa received and the methodology with which nhtsa carried out the rearch we have ronald medford, the agency's deputy administrator. to explain nhtsa and the departments next step we have david strickland, nhtsa's administrator. and, finally, we will be happy to take questions after their presentations. let me close by saying this. i am deeply, personally gratel to the dedicated safety professionals at nasa and nhtsa who conducted the study with extraordinary rigor, immense skill, and unwavering attention, and absolute integrity. it was an enormous task, but they have set the standard for

thoroughness, and we are appreciative. so with that, mike, please present nasa's information. >> thank you, mr. secretary, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work is such a broad audience today. as the secretary said i'm a principal engineer in the nasa engineering and safety center. i work out of langley research center in hampton, virginia, about four hours southeast of here. principle and jeers are multidisciplined engineers and provide project management for multidisciplined tasks in our organizations. it like to start the presentation with a summary of our outcome. the bottom line is that nasa analysis and testing did not find evidence that malfunctioned in the electronic throttle control costs large unintended acceleration's by described by consumer reports. and now i'd like to discuss how

we arrived at our conclusions. deception i will provide a backup on a messaging and safety center. background and goals of the study. the approach of the study, our technical evaluation strategy. i'll give you a subset of finding and observations from our final report, and then wrap it up with an executive summary. the nasa enduring and safety center was established in 2003 in response to the space shuttle columbia accident. the goal was to enable complex problem solving using experts anywhere in the world. this approach allows the best engineers and their respective disciplines to apply their expertise in tough technical problems. dna -- independent assessment since its inception. nasa begin discussions with nhtsa in march of 2010.

the scope will determine if there were designed vulnerabilities in the toyota electronic throttle control that could possibly cause unintended acceleration that can be realistically expected to occur inonsumers use of these vehicles. two critical components of that scope, vulnerabilities that lead to unintended acceleration and our realistically expected to occur in the consumers use. nasa formed a team with indian experts and systems, avionics, software, electromagnetic interference and human factors. some of the best engineers in their respective disciplines from across the country, experts from nine of 10 nasa centers where participating. we worked directly with nhtsa's automotive experts and this made for a very powerful team. we have some guiding questions during our study. what specific conditions, both internal and external are neceary for e failure conditions to occur.

are those conditions evident in reported cases. what physical or electronic evidence did the failure produce. what are the expected ranges in severity. and could defend hav any effect on any other interfaces such as the braking system. the nasa team received and evaluated threesome outside nhtsa and outside nasa. the nasa team evaluate consumer reports and warnke returned data while studying how the electronic throttle control works. we studied over 900 vehicle and questionnaires in detail and read many more. we were looking for clues that would help characterize the failure affects. the model year 2005 toyota camry was identified as a vehicle to study in depth. can hae the highest production volume and high numr of consumer reports in the malia 2005 was selected because it contained impose both from the earlier design and the later electronic throttle control

system. from the nhtsa consumer reported a majority majority of the consumers described large throttle openings with degraded braking and did not leave a trace or a diagnostic trouble code. therefore, the nasa study focused on identifying failure modes that could result in large throttle openings may not generate dignostic trouble code or leave physical trace. the technical strategy was analyzed with the system to understand how it is supposed to work and th export how it might fail. we were given unrestricted access to all t and software for source code. we had ready access to toyota engineers both in the u.s. and in japan any time we had questions. the nasa team assembled and tested critical electronic throttle control components in the system include the accelerator pedal, the throttle body and electronic control module to understand how that system might fail.

disallow the team to develop an empirical understanding of the system in the lab which coupled with design information enabled a detailed understanding of the entire system. the nasa software team modeled the code, ran the code on silators and subjected the code to automate code checkers. the nasa team that access to vehicles purchased by nhtsa from consumers with a sentence of unintended acceleration, and these vehicles were examined for signs of failure and were also used to validate our understanding of the system and to characterize the effect of these failures that were induced in the system. the nasa team also perform electromagnetic interference testing on these same vehicles obtained from consumers that have filed consumer reports with nhtsa. i will roll into the findings now. our first finding, there are safety features designed into the system to guard against large unintended acceleration from failures.

multiple independent safety features include detecting failures and initiating safe modes such as home mode and to cut strategies. there were no electrical failures in the electronic throttle control that impacted the braking system era however pumping the brakes at full throttle will cause loss of vacuum assist. this effect would be seen if you had entrapped pedal. this mode is not unique to toyota vehicles. there were no failures found in the software that would unilaterally causunintended acceleration. there were no credible vulnerabilities identified from electromagnetic interference testing that would cause unintended acceleration. to create large untended acceleration, two independent panel signals need to falsely indicate that the panel has been pressed. this requires two independent failures that the failure detection system would not detect.

these days must be in precise ranges in the correct circuit in the correct time sequence. if you fail to meet any of these restrictive conditions, the vehicle will generate a diagnostic trouble code. we would xpect to see signs of this failure in warranty claims if this type of failre were occurring. our review of warranty data did not indicate an elevated occurrence of this diagnostic trouble code relative to the number of reports of unintended accelerations. the nasa team did perform destructive analysis from a failed pedal to the consumer vehicle. they had a vehicle that had the check engine light come on and we found an electrical short between the two pedal signals. this failure mode combined with driver input could cause the throttle to jump slightly your however in all case releasing the accelerator pedal stop the effect and vehicle braking was not affected. and although the vehicle would

operate, it was not considered drivable. for cases of this failure mode were found in the review of the vehicle under questionnaires and warnke returned data, and in all cases the check engine light came on and the consumer had the vehicle prepared -- repair. moecent pedal design from 2000 later were found to ard against this type of failure. i'm going to shift to observations. observations are conclusions that are sort outside the scope of the study or are unsubstantiated by evidence. my first observation it was absurd that failures of safety critical systems and electronic throttle control do not provide the same driver information as failures in safety critical braking system. this is also not unique to toyota vehicles. for example, failures in the brake system get a unique red warning light while a generic check engine light occurs for failed in the electronic control system. the same check engine light illuminates for a loose gas cap.

diagnostic trouble codes were intended for a mission control and are not mandated for safety critical failures. it was also absurd to vehicles that are offered with the failure of susceptible to the effects of the second failure. no evidence was found that the failures occurred in vehicles with reported unintended acceration. to summarize, nasa detailed analysis and testing did not find evidence that malfunctions in electronic throttle controls caused rge unintended accelerations as described i some consumer reports. nasa found a way that electronic throttle could fit with combined driver input can cause the throttle to jump but the failure rate is very low and it leaves evidence to reoccurrence. we also felt ways that electronic throttle control can fail in very small throttle openings up to five degrees. our detailed study can't say it's impossible, but they so the testing and analysis performed

we find that malfunctions in electronics are an unlikely cause of large unintended acceleration. now i'd like to turn over to ron baker, deputy administrator for the national highway traffic safety administration. >> thanks, my. good afternoon, everyone. first let me thank mike and the team at nasa for all the hard work that they have done for us here at nhtsa on the issue of toyota elctronic throttle control system for vulnerabilities. our focus at the national highway traffic safety administration have worked very closely with them over the last several months, and i have to say that we could not have had a mo intelligent, dedicated or capable group of people working on this issu. and i think nasa's conclusion bears repeating. there is no electronic-based calls for unintended high-spe acceleration in toyota's. before we enlisted nasa's help,

last year we already had to evaluate potential causes of reported unintended acceleration for several years. details are at work include the research and potential causes of unintended acceleration are in the report we are releasing today. we identified to vehicle-based mechanical causes of unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles. th first one, pedal entrapment, occurs when the accelerator pedal becomes trapped in a depressed position by an all weather format. the second, sticky accelerator pedal, can hold accelerated in a depressed position or caused to return slowly after the driver takes their foot off the pedal. at our urging toyota recalls nearly 8 million vehicles that could potentially have been affected by these failures. to make sure the scope of the pedal entrapment, sticky pedal

recalls was broad enough to address all the vehicle-based causes of unintended acceleration known to toyota, we analyze tens of thousands toyota documents. we did not find any previously unknown potential causes of unintend acceleration in any of the data. we turn to her own databases and scrutinize consumer complaints and toyota warranty data in great detail. not surprisingly, we found that publicity surrounding our investigations, the recalls and congressional hearings on the subject played a major role in the volume of complaints received. you can see on the chart in back of me that our toyota complaint volume spike in march 2004 when we first opened a widely blicized investigation for the electronic throttle control.

complaints ramped up again in september 2009 through the end of march 2010. that time period witnessed the fatal crash near san diego in late august 2009. at florette entrapment recall in early october 2009, an expansion of the recall as well as the sticky pedal recall in january of last year. and, finally, the congressional hearings shortly thereafter. we receive the majority of the complaints after the recall and almost half of those came in favor and march of 2010. i want to draw your attention to some important numbers in our vehicle complaint database. of the 9698 unintended acceleration complaints, 1998-2010 model year vehicles, only 3054 were unintended

acceleration complaints about toyota vehicles. in other words, about two-thirds of the unintended acceleration complaints to nhtsa spanned the entire automotive fleet. unintended acceleration is not exclusive to toyotas. the vast majority of the unintended acceleration complaints of toyota vehicles involved incidents with the vehicle was stationary for traveling at very low speeds, and the driver claimed that the vehicles suddenly accelerated and the brakes didn't work. we found when the complaint alleged that the brakes didn't work, or that the incident began when the driver stepped on the break, what most likely happened was pedal misapplication. the driver stepped on the gas rather than the break or in addition to the break. field inspections of vehicles involved in unintended acceleration incidents during

2010 supports this analysis. we inspected 58 vehicles. 18 were excluded for various reasons, including the lack of event data recorders. but in the remaining 40? is no vehicle-based defect could be identified as the cause of those crashes from 39 of them. and for one crash the result occurred because of pedal entrapment. does vehicle inspections which included objective evidence from event data recorders indicated drivers were applying the accelerator and not applying the brake, are not applying it until the last second or so before the crash. ave and beyond field inspections we obtained 20 toyota vehicles for extensive testing and examination of factors that can contributeto unintended acceleratio we chose 11 vehicles that had not been involved in unintended acceleration incidents, and nine complaint vehicles that had been involved in recorded unintended

acceleration incidents. we could not find any previously unknown defects in these 20 vehicles and we determined the braking system for capable of overcoming all levels of acceleration, including wide open for model. with this report we have a tremendous body of work analyzed and verified and compiled all potential unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles. separately we've enlisted the national academy of sciences to examine the broad subject of unintended acceleration across the entire automotive industry. and the safety implications of electronic control systems that are increasingly common in motor vehicles. we expect recent -- to receive recommendations from the national academy of sciences later this year on how we might use their research in making authority to address any such implications identified either pedal. -- identified by a pedal. spent by other like to turn out

to the transport minister who report on thepotential future work, david strickland expecting to so much, and thank everyone for being here. good afternoon. as you've already heard, nasa's report on the unintended acceleration of toyota vehicles represents months of precise and exhaustive work by both nasa and national highway traffic safety administration engineers. nasa has delivered outstanding work and like the secretary, i want to personally thank mike kirsch and his team for their dedication and passion for this project. in addition, i'd like to thank dan smith, our senior associate administrator for vehicle safety and our tranfourteen for his leadership and their tireless efforts. the nasa findings, observations and recommendations, coupled with nhtsa's own work, point to several actions that we at the national highway traffic safety administration can take no, to lessen the risk of unintended

acceleration in the entir automotive fleet. it also suggests longer-term areas where we can strengthen the agency's ablity to address the safety of electronic control ystems. short term we will consider initiating at least three rule makings. first, to require break overwrite systems. cond, to standardize the operation of key ignition systems. and third, to require the installation of event data recorders in all passenger vehicles. first, break overwrite systems help prevent or lessen unintended acceleration incidents by assigning priority to the brking system over the throttle. as noted in his report break overwrite systems, and i quote, provide a broad overarching defense against unintended engine power from a wide range of problems, not just unintended

acceleration. second, jesus ignition systems can't exacerbate unintended acceleration incidents if, for example, the driver cannot quickly sh off the engin and third, crash investigators can mind the event data recorders for information relevant to unintended acceleration incidents that result in crashes. for the longer-term, and national highway traffic safety administration will also begin broad research on the reliability of electronic control systems so that we can continue to ensure future generations of vehicles are safe. with vehicles becoming increasingly reliant on electronic controlled systems. our knowledge in this area is critical. we will also continue to make sure our staff continues to be well-informed about emerging technologies and that we hire staff with the needed expertise. we will give full consideration

to nasa's findings and observations, including their suggestion that we improve dashboard warnings for safety critical vehicle issues, and that we evaluate vulnerailities and software designs. and on nasa's recommendation we will look to other industries for best practices in managing safety critical functions. we -- work already done by the railroad, aerospace, military and medical sectors can provide technical guidance for our own instry that we regulate the automobile industry. and as mentioned in national academy of sciences pedal starting unintended acceleration and electronic control systems across the fleet will offer recommendations on these subjects. we look forward to their analysis and we wish to enhance our own understanding of the subject area. today, i am also announcing that the national highway traffic safety adminiration would begin research on the placement

and design of accelerator and brake pedals, as was human factors research such as out drivers use the throttle and brake pedals. pedal misapplication occurs in vehicles across the fleet and we want to know whether these types of incidents can be reduced to better pedal placement and design. along with nasa we plan to breathe a national academy of sciences panel soon after these findings by our two agencies. finally, i want to remind the american public that we are dedicated to their safety. we want to serve you. we want to hear from you. and we want to keep you informed. i strongly encourage everyone to visit our website, safer car.gov where you can not only report problems in finding information about recalls, but you can sign-up to be notified about safety vehicles that affect your car, tires and child safety.

the national highway traffic safety administration has the most active investigors program on the planet. and at last had an unusually large numberf recalls due to nhtsa's willingness to work with manufacturers to identify problems early as the law requires. as the secretary said, highway and traffic safety is more than the name of our agency. or the object of our mission. it is a serious responsibility with which the american people have entrusted us. thank you very much. >> all right. i will try and organize the questions here. if you have a question, please. [inaudible]

>> we have received a large number of complaints, especially as i noted since a lot of the publicity surrounding this. and a lot of those new complais involving fatalities of unintended acceleration came in after this. we have looked into as many of those as we get concrete data on, and we don't see a cause related to unintended acceleration other than the ones we've already addressed. >> can i ask about -- you said the main reason that you don't think these two rare incidents happened in the real world is because of the war decline data. is there anything else that led you to believe that? was there a complaint that could potentially be affected by this rare circumstances because the

foundation of the theory was that it takes the precise resistance value for the failure to occur here if anything other than those precise values occurs and will throw a code. so if that type of failure were occurring you would expect there to be signed in the war decline data. we didn't see the signs so we don't expect that just those perfect resisters were occurring everywhere, and the non-perfect resisters were occurring. you expect to see kind of a premade. many more close calls in our vernacular would call it before the real ones hit. >> what did you -- you mention human factor. [inaudible] >> the main reason we had our human factors focus engage was the one, help nterpret the vehicle owner questionnaire data, and also if we found a

vulnerability was kind of human dependent, like this vulnerability will occur if the accelerator pedal is stepped on at this rate, it was for them to guide us in what is reasonably possible. [inaudible] >> we didn't find any vulnerabilitie of the human factor depended. [inaudible] >> repeat the question. >> the question is of the pedal misapplication complaints, how big is that problem compared to the other problem that we identified as part of the defects your we think that much of the complaints, and they are detailed in the report our acts in the vast majority are related to that type of a problem, based

our analysis of the 50 cases with electronic data recorders and a full review of all the data with respect to the cases look at indetail. >> anybody over your? yes, angela. [inaudible] >> i'morry, i didn't hear you. [inaudible] >> i'll give you an illustrati illustration. last year my youngest daughter who lives in peoria called and said she was thinking about buying a 2011 toyota sienna. she wanted an ironclad guarantee from me that her vehicle was going to be safe. so i checked with david and ron, and i told my daughter that she should by the toyota sienna, which she did. so i think that illustrates that we feel that toyota vehicles are safe to drive.

yes? >> it seems there's a bit of a difference between what nasa is saying -- you are saying they're no causes. excels like you are on different sides. >> i think we are on the exact same page. now seeking data from an injury perspective and we are trying to prove negative and it's very difficult to prove a negative. so basically we found no evidence that this is causing large unintended acceleration. that's an objective statement. we are certainly -- certainly nasa scientist, could never happen. >> and fromnhtsa's perspective, safety is our number one priority so our goal is to find a real-world incident and where it in electronic data can cause unintended acceleration they can't be controlled by the breaker from our safety analysis and our automotive experts

paired with nasa's findings, we are incredibly confident that the only cause of unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles are the two mechanical causes, floor mat entrapment and sticky pedal. but we'll always continue to monitor not only toyota but the rest of the fleet or any trend if this issue for us to investigate and then go forward with possible action. >> what's the status of your investigation for the toyota technicians who were apparently able to duplicate sudden acceleration of vehicles speakers i think you are alluding to the document where they looked at ron dismisses toyota -- sorry, lexus. toyota provided the full report and it is very clear from the report that toyota was not able, was not ale to repeat that condition. in terms of the vbiage of the report and the details why we would strongly recommend that you contact toyota on that, but we are very confident that

report was very thorough and they were not able to replicate that condition. >> just to follow up. did a nhtsa have any ongoing investigation where toyota was able to replicate the unintended acceleration? >> i'll have to refer to ron, but my understanding was and was no cases like that. >> we have no ongoing investigations related to that. >> we do hav opened still the recall query. we were looking for whether or not there's any additional issues related to unintended acceleration caseshat we've are ahead of recalls fo, but that's it. [inaudible] >> know. i told -- the last time i spoke to mr. smith was last week and she wanted to know specific results of the study which were not ableo provide at the time and we told her we were still looking at her vehicle. the nhtsa step in the nasa staff did extensive testing of that lexus including electromagnetic

interference testing, full throttle testing of all the safety systems, and there was no other vulnerabilities done on that vehicle other than what nhtsa originally found, that this situation that ms. smith encountered was floor ma entrapment. [inaudible] >> yes. >> repeat the question. >> the question is how do we explain owners who have had repairs done to the vehicles and then they complain again that they have already, they continue to have a probm recur. we have looked at a variety of those specific complaints, and each and every incidents we have not found any data to support the conclusion thatit's anything other than the two types of defects that we've

already determined exist and have recalled. [audible] >> look, the reas we did a study that we did is because if you went to the hearings that i testified at an house of representatives and the senate, jt about every member of congress didn't believe that we have found te problem, whch was floor mat, sticky pedal. and just about every member of congress that question me said it's got to be the electronics. so to try and prove the case that it was at the electronics we hired the experts. and they said it wasn't the electronics. so i think what this says to me is, we have some of the best safety people in the world working at d.o.t. that know what they are doing, hey did a thorough investigation. but look him as a former member of congress i thought weshould

listen to these members. we have, a i hope they get the message today. >> david, why are you considering maybe a break override after 10 months of loing at this? why not either -- >> let me answer tha. answer is this. again, if you go back to the testimony and the questions that we heard from a number of committees in congress. many members of congress suggested that a brake override system might be helpful. so we need to look into that, and we need to make sure that if that is a solution we do it the right way, and that it is -- is the kind of solution. and so we're going to look into

it. we're going to decide. we haven't decided, but we ae going to look into it and investigate it and do our research. remember this, the reason that we have credibility, the reason our safety people have credibility, the reason that nhtsa has credibility is because everything is databased. it's not made up. is not based on a mtion. it's not based on some story that somebody told us. we do our investigations and come up with our solutions based on good data. which is why we hired nasa. so we are going to check out the brake override. [inaudible] >> first of all, i don't agree with what you just said. nobody up here has even insinuated the term that you use, driver air.

but i'm going to let at 11 and to this. but the way you characterize this was not characterized that way by anybody up here. go ahead ron spent one of the things, we described -- we have described as consumers -- as the administrator indicate we want to look across the fleet to see if there are things, are ways to redesign of -- both the design of the battle and the spacing of the pedal that can minimize this kind of misapplication from returning. in fact, there may be something that can be done to minimize this from happening without blaming the people that perhaps the way it is currently designed to be improved. >> my question is the -- >> i will follow-up, john. it was a 10 month investigation where we had no predisposed conclusion. we were looking at the facts and we took this investigation from the ground floor of looking at y possible situation which would lead to wide open unintended acceleration.

this is a safety investigation, period, making sure every toyota was actually safe to drive in this particular situation. .. do you think it would be the problem? >> well, i will say this, if you looked at what i said in the hearing, on capitol hill, and some of the ways that i

characterize toyota and the way that they go about managing their company, mr. toyoda came here to d.o.t. and we visited. i've been to japan. i spent a whole day with mr. toyoda and he showed me, and he introduced me to a lot of their safety people and showed me a lot of their initiatives. the proof it in the pudding here. i give toyota a great deal of credit for investing $50 million in a safety program in michigan. that's extraordinary. that shows that they really care about safety, that they want to set up shop, a shop of safety in our country, and so i think they've, you know, they've understood what we do here is

serious business, that what we do here is promote safety, and we take a backseat to nobody, and that's what i've always explained to every car manufacturer, and i think that message has gotten out there. yes,ir? >> [inaudible] >> repeat that, mike. >> the question is could five degree throttle openinge a faor in some of the low speed events. did i get that right? yeah, at we found with with the opening is similar to feeling your air conditioner kick on when at a stoplight. it's a marginal increase in break pressure is 8.5 pounds and

bumps up to 9 pounds. if you are going down the road and it jumped up to five degrees, you won't know it happened. we don't think it would affect it in any event. >> yes, sir? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i got your point. give me your question. >> [inaudible] >> i think toyota has been very cooperative and responsive. i think they understand that at the department of transportation, safety is the number one priority. we treat all car manufacturers the same. we didn't single out my car

manufacturer. we never have and never will. our concern is that anybody who buys the car is it's the safest possible car when they drive it out of the showroom, and it continues to be that way, and if it's not, they need to report that to usand we take complaints seriously whether it's against any car manufacturer, and i thinkoyota understands that now. anybody else? thank you very much -- okay? >> [inaudible] >> well, when toyota announced their $50 million investment in a safety program in michigan, i spoke to mr. toyota. we spoke only about that. he explained what they wanted to do. i thanked them for their investment. i thanked them for the idea that they realliment to in-- really want to invest in safety, and that was the extent of our

discussion. thank you, all, very much. anything else, jill, or is that it? >> [inaudible] >> on television, on radio and online. c-span, bringing public affairs to you. created by cable, it is washington your way. british prime minister david cameron said his country's policy of multicull which you

rememberism encourages muslims and others to live strat lives. he spoke for 20 minutes recently at the munich security conference. >> the german chancellor told you about our day yesterday. my wife called me yesterday and said darling, where have you been all day? i said i've been having a six-hour lunch with my friend from germany, angela. i said don't worry, there was also a man from belgium there as well. now today, i want to focus my remarks on terrorism. but first, let me address one point. some have suggested that by holding a strategic defense and security review, britain is somehow retreating from an

activist role in the world, and that is the opposite of the truth. yes, we are dealing with our budget deficit, but we are also making sure our defenses are strong. britain will continue to meet the nato 2% target for defense spending. we will still have the fourth largest military defense tpwhunlt the world. and at the same time, we are putting that money to better use focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army. that is not retreat. it is hard-headed. every decision we take has three aims in mind. first, to continue to support the nato mission in afghanistan. second, to reinforce our actual military capability. as chancellor merkel's government is showing right here in germany, what matters is not bureaucracy, which frankly, europe needs a lot less of, but

the political will to build military capabilities that we need as nations and allies that we can deliver in the field. and third, we want to make sure that britain is protected from the new and various threats that we face. that is why we're investing in a national cybersecurity program that i know william hague talked about yesterday and we are sharpening our readiness to act. the biggest threat that we faced comes interest terrorist attacks, some of which are sadly carried out by our own citizens. it is important to sthreas terrorism is not linked -- stress that strism is not linked to one ethnic group. anarchist attacks have occurred recently in greece and italy and of course, yourselfs in germany were long scarred by terrorism

from the red army faction. werked acknowledge this threat comes in europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of islam, and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens. last week at davos, i ran the alarm bell for the urgent need for europe to recover its economic dynamism and today, my message on security is equally stark. we will not defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take outside our borders. europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries. of course, that means strengthening, as angela has said, the security aspects, on tracing plots, on stopping them, on countersurveillance and intelligence gathering, but this is just part of the answer. we have got to get to the root of the problem.

we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie, and that is the existence of an ideology, islamist extremism and we should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from islam. islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. islam's extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. at the furthest end of those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal, an entire islamist realm, move along the spectrum and you find people who may reject violence but who accept various parts of the the extremist world review including hostility towards western democracy and liberal values. it is vital that we make this

distinction between religion on one hand and ideology on the other. time and again, people equate the two. they think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. they talk about moderate muslims as if all devout muslims must be extremists. this is profoundly wrong. someone can be a devout muslim and not be an extremist. we need to be clear, extremism and islam are not the same thing. this might pose a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat that we face. there is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. on the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between islam and islamist extremism and just say that islam and the west are irreconcilable. that there is a clash of civilizations. so it follows, we should cut ourselves off from this

religion, whether that is through forced repat ration or the banning of new mosques as is suggested in some parts of europe. these people fuel islam phobia. and i completely reject their arlt argument. if they want an example how western values and islam can be compatible, they should look at what has happened in the past weeks of tunisia and cairo. the point is this. the ideology of extremism is the problem. islam, emphatically, is not. picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us confront the former. on the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction. they lump all muslims together, compiling a list of grievances and argue that if only

governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop. so they point to policy that so many muslims live in and say get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end. this ignores the fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offenses are often miled middle class. they point to grievances about often western policy. they say stop riding rough shod. muslims who are angry about western policy but don't resort to acts of terrorism. they also point to the profusion of unelected uses across the middle east and say stop propping these people up and you'll stop creating the conditions for extremism to flourish. if it is the lack of democracy that is the problem, why are there so many extremists in free and open societies?

now, i'm not saying these issues of poverty and grievance about foreign policy are not important, yes, of course we must tackle them. of course we must tackle poverty and resolve the sources of tension, not least of all, palestine and be on the side of openness and political reform in the middle east. on egypt opposition, it should be clear. we want to see the transition to a free and democratic society. i simply do not accept that there is somehow a dead end choice between a security choice on one hand and islam on the other. let us not fool ourselves. these are just contribute tear factors. even if we sorted out all of the problems that i mentioned, there would still be this terrorism. i believe the root lies in this extremist ideology.

an important reason so many young muslims are drawn it to comes down to a question of identity. what i'm about to say is drawn from the british experience, but i believe there are general lessons for us all. in the u.k., some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional islam practiced at home by their parents, whose customs can seem stayed when transplanted to modern western countries but they find it hard to identify with britain too because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we encourage different cultures to live separate lives apart from each other and the mainstream. we fail to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. we even tolerated the segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to

our values. when a white person holds obable views, racist views, we rightry condemn them but when equal views come from one who isn't right, we don't stand up to them. forced marriage, where young girls are taken abroad to marry someone when they don't want to is a case in point. this hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce that not enough is shared. this all leaves some young muslims feeling rootless and a search for something to belong to and something to believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology. for sure, they don't turn into terrorists overnight, but what we see and what we see in so many european countries is a process of radicalizeation.

internet chatrooms of virtual meeting places are attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated. in some mosques, the plight of muslims elsewhere. in our communities, groups and organizations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion. all of these interangsts can engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wired society has failed to supply. you might say as long as they are not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all of this? well, i'll tell you why. as evidence emergingst about the backgrounds of those convicts of terrorist offenses, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called nonviolent extremists and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by

embraces violence. i say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past and if we were to defeat this threat, i believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. so first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we as governments and as societies have got to confront it and second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone. let me briefly take each in turn. first, confronting and undermining this ideology. whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed. now for governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. we must ban preemps of hate coming to our -- preachers of hate coming to our countries.

governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that while they are nonviolent are in some cases part of the problem. we need to think much harder about who is in the public interest to work with. seek those who present themselves as a gateway to the muslim community who are showered with public money and doing little to combat extremism. this is a bit like turning to a right-wing fascist party to support a right wing fascist movement. we should properly judge these organizations. do they believe in universal human rights including for women and people of other faith. do they believe in equality for all? do they believe the a democracy and the right for people to elect their own government? do they encourage integration or separation? these are the sorts of questions that we need to ask. fail these tests and the

preassumption should be not to engage with thesentsities. at the same time, we must stop these groups reaching people in publicly funded institutions like prisonons. some say this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. i say would you take the same view if these were right-wing extremists recruiting on our campuses? would you vocket inaction if chris -- advocate inaction? christians were leading prepare groups in our prisons? if they are acting to keep young vulnerable men away from violence? i say nonsense.

at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are and that is completely unjustifyable. we need to argue that terrorism is wrong in all circumstances. we need to argue that prophesies of a global war of religion are nonsense. governments cannot do this alone. the extremism we face is a distortion of islam so these arguments in part must be made by those within islam. so let us give voice to those followers of islam in our own countries, the majority who despise extremists and their world view. let us engage groups that share our aspirations. second, we must build stronger societys with stronger identities at home. we need a much more active,

muscular liberalism. it says to its since the as long as you obey the law, we will just leave you alone. it stands neutral between different values but i can't believe genuinely liberal country does much more. it believes certain values and actively promotes them. freedom to have speech, worship, democracy, regardless of race, sex of sexual assault. it says to its citizens -- or sexuality. to belong here is to believe in these things. each of us in our own countries i believe must be unambiguous and hard nosed in defense of our liberty. that includes making sure that immigrants speak the language of their new home and ensuring that people are educated in the common culture and curriculum. back home we're introducing national citizen service, a

2-month program for 16-year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together. i also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society. that way common purpose can be formed as people come together and work together in their neighborhoods. it will also help build stronger pride in the local identity. so people feel free to say yes. i am a muslim. i am a hindu. i am a christian but i'm also a londoner or a berlinner too. it is that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries that i believe is the key to achieving true cohesion. let me end with this. this terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us. it cannot be ignored or contained. we have to confront it with confidence. we have to defeat the idea that warped so many young minds at

their root and confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our country. none of this will be easy. we will need stamina, patience and endurance and it won't happen at all if we act alone. this ideology crosses not just our continent bul but all continents. we're all in this together. at stake is not only lives bower way of life. it is a challenge we cannot avoid. it is one we must rise to and overcome. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much, prime minister. we have about 15 minutes or so, maybe a few more, for our discussion. i would like to propose the two speakers that we take maybe two or three. >> in a few moments, a tea party express town hall meeting with members of congress. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern with conversations on the environmental protection agency, the health care law and consumer grants. the house is in session at 10:00 a.m. and again at noon for legislative business. >> a couple of live events to tell you about this morning. ben bernanke testifies before the house budget committee on the state of the economy. the committee chairman is representative paul ryan of wisconsin who delivered republican response to the president's state of the union

speech. the hearing is on c-span 2 at 10 eastern. also at 10 eastern on c-span 3, homeland security secretary janet nap tano will discuss threats to the u.s.. she is on the committee chaired by peter king of new york. >> votesing discrimination in the south and the kennedy administration's strategy to overcome it, also a look at the beliefs of our founding fathers and the role of christianity in establishing our nation and senator daniel iniee. -- inoei. all weekend, every weekend. for a complete schedule go to c-span.org/history. have the schedules e-mailed to

you. >> mr. president, it is my great honor today to speak on the floor for the first time as a united states senator. >> the new class of freshmen senators have been giving their first speeches on the senate floor. follow their appearances online. track the daly house and senate timelines, read transcripts of every session and find a full video archive for every member. congressional chronicle at c-span.org/congress. >> up next, last night's tea party town hall meeting with members of congress. speakers include senator orrin hatch and rand paul and representative michele bachmann and steve king. this is an hour and a half. mice [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] while our members getting are miced up, i will tell you that these have grown leagues and downs. our two-year anniversary is coming up in just a few weeks. we can have rallies until the end of time and protests, but, ultimately, if you want to change what is going on in washington, you have to change your players in washington, and the tea party express got involved in the political aspects, in the campaigns, and we all work together to bring new members of congress here to represent our principles and values of the tea party movement

and to have people here that we know that we can work with, and so, we thought that we need to have an open dialogue, a working relationship, because we all want to get our country back on the right track, and so, we thought we would do this first, a historic town hall with members from both the house and the senate, to be here and to listen to us, we, the people, the constituents from around the country, and, obviously, people here in washington, so we have taken questions online, virtual questions, so that is what we are doing here tonight, and i want to kick it off by introducing somebody we have been very proud for, the great state of kentucky, the south, and he has really come into washington and has shaken things up, i would say, senator rand paul. [applause] and i am going to rand paul

first, because i personally want to thank him. i want to thank him personally for starting the first tea party, as in the united states senate. [applause] >> stay hooked up? but i cannot walk with a wire. do you want me to come over there? i will stay here, because i am already wired. i have masked upper -- up my wire. i have already messed up my wire. do you want me to come over there? all right, all right. now we really feel like we are at a grass roots rally with all of that. well, thank you very much for inviting me. i think the tea party is just an

amazing thing. i have not seen anything like this. i was involved in politics, in my dad was running in the 1970's, and the reagan election in 1976 -- and my dad was running in the 1970's. this is a movement that comes not only from the people, but it is city by city. if you want to believe that the tea party does not come from the top down, realize that every city has a tea party, and they do not necessarily always relate to the next city's tea party. it is city by city by city. it all came together at one time, really, i think, spontaneously. i went to the tea party april 15, 2009, on the square. i was coaching baseball for my 11-year-old son. i said, "i will be gone for 20 minutes," with other people who had been yelling at the television set like me for years.

they said when we came to washington, "we will be coopted. they will co of the us." the week before we are sworn in or two weeks before we are sworn in, we had the republican caucus and earmarks. i get here, and i hear a first state of union, and it was, "it is like we have, what did the president. the president know gets these." is a real problem. i see that and feel the significance of the situation changing because of the tea party. i am glad to be part of it. it is not even now being led by me or mike or west or michele bachmann. we are not telling the tea party what to do. they are still telling us what

to do. we can be part of the solution. but we are still asking what the tea party once, and i am glad to be a part of it -- what the tea party wants. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator. i guess we will go straight down the line. the latest member of the tea party caucus in the house of representatives, congressman west. [cheers and applause] and senator mike lee from utah. he is new on the hill, another great conservative friend. so do you want to come up here? >> i will stay right here. this one works. that way, i can use both hands. it makes it easier for me.

i am still getting used to this tethered-microphone situation. i am glad to be here tonight and with some of my colleagues that are here from both houses of congress. this is an important movement. this is a moment that is not a passing fad. interestingly enough, there was a profile piece done on the in "the washington post" over the weekend, and it was kind of odd because it was in the "seinfeld" section, and if someone had told me years ago that i would be in the "seinfeld" section, i would have thought that to be awed -- it was odd because it was in the section, and if someone had told me years ago that i would be in the "style" section,

i would have got to be odd. you see, if he thought about it very much, he would realize that the tea party movement did not start on february 19, 2009, when that first meeting happened somewhere in florida. it started in 1773, when a group of americans decided they had had enough. this was not based in washington, d.c., because this place really did not exist then, as such, and that government was oppressive to the people. it did not respond to the concerns of the people and was slow to respond to the needs of the people, and they decided to take some action, to show them what they did not want out of their national government.

it took us years to get from boston -- to get to boston, where we did decide what we wanted to get out of our national government. that is an important step. it is interesting. the set of principles that they explained is still the same as it is today. the tea party movement today reached the same conclusion, that our national government is far from what we call a general police power, passing any laws they think is important. really, our national government is set up to do just a few things, to control our borders, establish a uniform system of weights and measures, conduct laws governing copyrights, patents, and trademarks, our defense, and then there is one that i hope to exercise one day, the power to issue letters.

all past and issued by congress in the name of the united states -- all passed and issued by congress in the name of the united states about piracies on the high seas korea -- high seas. but the point is, there is no power granted in that document. to tell us where to go to the doctor and have to pay for it. there is no power to tell us to do a lot of the things they are trying to do, is it? america is coming together and is saying the american government has limited power, and it is time that its legislative body, congress, starts acting like there is some limit to its power. that is why we are here. that is why we are not going away. [applause] >> thank you, senator lee.

now, congressman west. >> i will make sure i do not trip, because a lot of people would have fun poking fun at me on youtube, but it is fun to be with you here this evening, and as senator orrin hatch asked me, "how are you enjoying this," as i said, i protected the issues that make this country so great as it is, and now, to have the opportunity to serve in the u.s. house of representatives, i am and body in the american dream, because years ago -- i am in bodying -- embodying the american dream, because years ago, my parents would never believe that i would be standing here. that is what makes the american dream boat -- dream. some people come after the tea

party because they do not understand it, and other people come after the tea party because they are afraid of it, but if they recognize that this is a constitutional, conservative, grass-roots movement, so now, all of a sudden, folks are going back to reconstitution and the federalist papers, and when you talk about montesquieu, locke, hobbs, when you talk but the fact that people are getting together to look at these large pieces of legislation and having legislation reading parties and then coming back together with summary sheets, this is an incredible thing that is happening in our republic, and it is truly what the founding fathers wanted it to become a representative democracy, so you have people you have elected to come here to speak your voice, that you can continue to watch these people accountable to simple things. they want effective and simple

constitutional government. understanding the left and right limits, the mandates for the federal government. that is what we have to get back in line. the preamble to the u.s. constitution establishes this, to provide for the common defense, to secure liberty. those are the mandates that we have, and when we have people who do not really understand this whole thing with illegal immigration and bringing a lawsuit against a sovereign state in the united states of america, all you have to do is good to article 1, section 10, and others, and understand that if we fail in our responsibility at the federal-government level, the state has every right to defend itself. [applause] so i am absolutely honored that i can stand with the american people, and anyone who does not want to believe in the effective

and constitutional government, anyone who does not want to believe in our national security, being able to identify the threats from our enemies and the emerging capabilities that cause us concern note, it you know, i served at fort hood, texas -- cause us concern, you know, i served at fort hood, texas. someone gunned down 43 of our warriors and also civilian contractors, killing 13. we are on the 21st-century battlefield which is totally different than any battlefield we have ever stood on, and we have to be very serious about the security for the future generations of americans, and then the last thing the tea party stands for is the free enterprise solutions. they believe there is risk out in the free market, but it is the inherent responsibility of ceo's and then out in the

private sector to mitigate those risks. it is not about you, the taxpayer, coming out and then being held responsible for their field practices. those are the three cornerstones police of the tea party, national security, free-market, free enterprise, and everyone here in washington, d.c., who does not believe in death, then they do not know what made the united states of america great -- who does not believe in fact, than they do not know what made united states of america great. van they do not know -- then they do not know what made the united states of america great. so it is my honor to be here with you. but >> thank you, congressman. >> i was not leaving. the senators, they boogied out. i see there are free hot dogs

here. >> i thought everybody was leading me. senator hatch? thank you so much for being here tonight, and all of these rowdy tea party people. >> i have said before on a number of occasions, but let me just say that i am proud to be here with these wonderful men. i am going to vote for your vote -- for you. this is not working? then maybe i had better use this one. this one is not working either. ok, i will bring it up closer. we are in perilous times. we now have a $14 trillion national debt. by 2020, according to the presidential action korea, that will be over $20 trillion --

according to the presidential figures. this country cannot take that, and we are not going to take that, and the fact of the matter is we have to fight for the country. i have been in the senate 34 years. i have worked on every judge that has come through, and i have to say that one of the biggest issues of picking the president is that that president is going to pick the judges in this country, one-third of the separated power in this country, and you really get a different set of judges when you have a democrat in the white house, and, frankly, this is what has evolved here in many respects. 1982, strom thurmond and i led the fight for the balanced budget amendment, the first time it passed by a record two-thirds vote. we brought it to the senate, and we got 66 votes later. there were two people, who i will not mention their names,

but we had the votes, and it had been passed in the house, and we have got to work very closely together and get that balanced budget amendment passed, because if we do not, we will not get spending under control, because it is too easy to go around the current system and continue to spend. i have been in the senate 34 years, and we have never had a fiscal conservative majority. usually the more from blue states, who will go with the democrats on most spending issues. even bill clinton, from time to time. the fact of the matter is is that we need to have a fiscal conservative majority, and that is what the tea party is going to do. [applause] and let's just take the health- care bill. the constitution comes into play in so many ways. i was the one you raised the

issue of the job-killing employer mandate. that is a big issue, because if that is allowed to stand by the current supreme court, and there are differences on this issue throughout the country, and i have to say, if that is allowed to stand, it will be the first time in history that that type of situation would actually fit within section 8 of the constitution, and i have to tell you, in order to have article one, section 8, work, it has to be in commerce. it is not to force someone to buy what they do not want to buy. if we go that far, it means united states government can do anything to you that it wants to, and there are no limitations. liberty is built on limitations, and, frankly, when there is no

liberal -- limitations, liberty is gone, so we are really looking at some very, very important things right now, and i, for one, what to think the tea party for what they have done. -- want to thank the tea party. they are going to double the unemployment tax from $7,500 to $15,000, so they have money for more employment in this country -- $1,500. the businesses are not going to put up with that, and they would just get rid of employees. we have to remember of the things that made this country so great. all i can say is that i am so grateful for this great nation and what it means to the world. i have been all over the world for our country, and i have to

tell you, everywhere the we go, people have always been amazed, and yet, we are in danger -- everywhere that we go. i am very happy to have all of the wonderful citizens fighting side-by-side and doing everything they can to get this country back. god bless you, and thanks for being who you are. [applause] >> thank you, senator. right on time. congressman steve king. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. my tiny, apparently, is impeccable -- my timing. my wife will never agree with that. the calvary has arrived, 87 freshmen.

they are the constitutional conservatives that have been produced by the heart and soul of constitutional america, fiscally responsible people, as well, and they have arrived just in time, when congress has been way too much money, and the president has done this. we need to turn this around in the vision of our founding fathers. there is much to talk about. we talk about the debt ceiling that comes up in a couple of months later. the debt ceiling is not the pivotal thing we are looking at. the c.r. is the pivotal item we are looking at. i was working at the president and harry reid as much as i could, and then the next 30 days, we will do it all over again. i would do that every 30 days.

we need to. [applause] and yet, it seems that that decision may have been made to extend funding out to the end of the fiscal year, september 30. it will be the largest appropriations bill times 5 ever voted on by congress before, even though it will be rolled back to 2008 level, and it will still be five times larger than anything voted for before but -- before. i can get my mind about that, but the most important pivotal component of important pivotalc.r. -- important pivotal we canwith the c.r., choose this grant to fight on, and if we can stand cella, there is not -- we can choose this ground to fight on. and if we can stand, it will be

possible to shut off any spending to be used this year to a force obama care -- to enforce obama care. those of you know me know that i am not easily satisfied. there is the position i have taken. >> ready? >> solutions waiting for a problem. so in december, when it became clear, when the c.r. was tasked to fund the government, we must not only shut off all funding for obama care for the rest of this fiscal year, but we should follow the model of the funding that shut off the four -- what shut off the funding for the vietnam war.

that is there, and it exists in other scenarios, as well. notwithstanding any other section of law, all funds that have been heretofore appropriated, and obama care automatically appropriates as well as of the rises, we can shut those ofcom and if we do not come obama in here will become a growing malignant tumor -- we can shut those off, and if we do not, obama care will become a growing megan touma wrote -- malignant tumor. shutting off all funding that has been put in the pipeline for the funding of obama care must be done. fight on. if we do not fight on this ground, i do not know how we win. >> thank you, congressman king. so we're going to go to our first question. haute >> all right, first question. >> thank you.

can i address any of them? i am from pennsylvania, and i am the co-chair of an organization, and my question to congressman king, a good friend of mine, it is, what is congress going to do to stop the fed from printing money like it is going out of style? it is causing an inflationary style -- time. >> the first answer is to do something with the fed. and then, to follow up on that, i think we have got to expand this national dialogue, and part of what goes on is that the american people have to be the ones pushing on congress. they are also reactive, so the higher we raise the knowledge base, the better chance we have to slow down the inflationary base to support that. thank you. >> and our next question is

going to come from youtube. >> you have to read their lips. >> government benefits? >> anybody care to jump into that one? senator? >> this is the problem of our time. this is exec be the reason why we have to have a balanced budget amendment in place, because cuts are going to be painful. cuts are painful by definition. that is why they are called cuts, but we have to have them in order to prevent things from getting a lot worse, which they very, very quickly will. study said and done recently,

looking and economies that have collapsed under the weight of excess of national debt, and what a number of economists have concluded is that once a nation debt to gdp ratio passes the 90% threshold, it starts to really impair the nation's economic growth, to the tune of about 1% per year. instead of growing 3%, it might grow 2%, 2.5%, 2%. that can result in to job losses of about 1 million over the course of a single year. we are now close to, we are between 90% and 100% with our debt to gdp ratio. some say it is 100% already, depending on what figures to look at. the job losses we are incurring are painful. the inflationary cycle that we are already in and that is about to get a lot worse in the next few years is going to be

painful, so a pain-free exit is not an option. i wish it were, but it is not. and that is part of what the tea party wilckens should be to our national dialogue, is this an acknowledgement that a paid free exit is not really on the table, so we have to look at the one that is going to do the least amount of damage and restore government in the process. that is why i think we need a balanced budget amendment. my colleague from my home state, senator hatch, has proposed another. we need some version of the balanced budget amendment to pass. with all due respect to those who served in this body over the last few decades, our money has not been well managed. i hope that you do not disagree with me too much on that. that is not an overstatement. and so, congress has to be