where i would say, simple. you basically acquire a bank -- require that banks with the long term debt that can absorb the losses and if you think this requirement is coercive, you give the option to buy back their shares for what is known and literature, which is very fair. not being course of at all would have been immediate -- coercive would have been in media. american idea, the market is not ready to provide the capital. in that case, there was not even that objection. the plan was feasible. as i said, the credit squeeze is proposing it as the law of the land in switzerland. why? because banks in switzerland know they are too big to be saved. they're concerned about what is

going to happen in the future. in the u.s., they're not concerned so they lobby in a different direction. >> thank you. i will ask one more question. this is my second round. if you fast forward to today and look at the other end of the buchan, march 4, 2011, problems we have now, the chair has described moral hazard and the like. we talked about that. what did you do? i can anticipate your answers as i think you've given them, just to make it very clear on the record, what would you recommend march 4, 2011? >> briefly, first, i want to emphasize the things we have said. one, you need more capital. and that you need increasing capital has to be with the size of the bank's, the risk of too big to fail. it has to be that this

distortion has to be eliminated. secondly, if you have a problem, you should play by the ordinary rules of capitalism. when you go into bankruptcy, you convert that to equity. it is really a version of the standard rules of capitalism. you look at the numbers back in citibank, they had enough long- term capital it was more than enough to manage them, more than we put in. the answer -- the resolution authority ought to be nothing more than basically the rules of capitalism. but i do feel that because there are agency problems, that the owners or the managers of the banks do not necessarily act in the interest of the owners. the kind of a managerial capitalism, that you have to go

bad -- be on that to have regulations and restrictions. for instance, it should not be allowed for government insured institutions were very large institutions to be writing these kind of risky derivatives and under other high-risk activities. so i think we do need additional regulations and more transparency that would circumscribe excessive risk- taking by either government answered institutions or large institutions, because i do not think capital is enough, is a full solution. >> thank you. >> at the risk of sounding as though simon johnson and i collaborated, i would say i would change capital to equity and picking up what he said, and what i would do is raise the requirement to say that for

every -- after minimum size to protect community banks, and you start to phase in capital requirements which start at 10% and really increase as the size of the bank increases so bad -- so that going up to 20, said the largest banks would be paying with their pain in the 1920's. i would face that in beginning now because the big banks are reporting substantial profits and i would give them three years to get to the required capital. as far as other regulations are concerned, i am a believer that regulation only works when it is incentivizing the regulated. that is, if you compare drug regulation reese said, well, we will give you a monopoly and you

produce this drug. then you have someone who wants to protect his right. we have to do the same thing. capital is one way to do it. there are other ways to incentivize the bankers. if we just give them prohibitions, you can see it happening, you can see the number of lobbyists, bankers, in washington every day trying to write the rules that were passed in dog-franc. that is not the way we're going to restrict future risks. >> thank you. >> do not allow them to pay dividends today. we all agree you need more capital. nobody knows how much capital is necessary. even the bankers will conceded the easiest way to increase equity in the business is to retain earnings. they have profits now. that money stays in the bank, belongs to the shareholders.

pain that equity under these circumstances makes no sense in economic terms. it is irresponsible, encourages risk-taking of these banks, high leverage and debt. it is completely contrary to the stated policy both in the broad of the administration. mr. timothy geithner says we need capital, capital, capital. it is completely against the process. the federal reserve process stress test and how it will apply to financial institutions systemically is not done. why would to let them pay capital under the circumstances? it makes no sense and they should not do it. >> thank you. >> i agree with more so what has been said with one situation. if it is done in accounting terms, it is not particularly useful. washington mutual did not violate any capital requirement before it failed.

lehman at 11% of capital, just the day before it went bust. i do not think this accounting based measure of capital, particularly use for, what we need to do is market based. we have a proposal based on a swap. he to be based on other indicators. i think the notion is, we don't want to treat everyone the same because there are people who behave properly. why should they be subject to the same walls? i think the rules should be -- you cannot pay dividends or pay cash bonus. you have to transfer the bonus you want into equity. that would play a bigger role in recapitalizing banks than even stopping dividends. >> thank you, tournament. -- thank you, gentleman. >> if i have learned one thing from this panel, it is to not

ask you all the same question. [laughter] i have several questions, but i will ask the specific questions. first, when secretary spoke, one thing i took away from his testimony was the argument that while we had a lot of problems in our economy, those problems are not really related to tarp. perhaps even problems in credit are not tarp problems not. professor stiglitz, i think your testimony to be the view you do not agree with that. can you explain what it is in relation to those macroeconomic matters that are related to tarp? >> in the short run, and in the

long run, but in the short run, i was turned argued if they had given money to the banks in ways or in other ways, they could have induced moral lending. and induced more restructuring. for instance, by the time we bailed out citibank and bank of america, we were very large shareholders. we could have been even larger shareholders if we had shares -- >> money for the value, so to speak. >> yes. if we used that shareholder voice to say you cannot go make your profits out of speculation or go pay these bonuses -- back to the paying out bonuses -- and decapitalizing the banks, what was the to boy's recapitalization. we allow the capitalization of

banks through the palace of bonuses and dividends -- payouts of bonuses and dividends, we did not put any pressure or constraints on the behavior of the banks. so there were, including the restructuring of the mortgages. so given the amount of money if you're putting in hundreds of billions of dollars, it should have some voice in what happens in the result of that is that we did not get what we wanted, which is restarting of the economy. the long run, the more difficult or even more worse problems because we have a more concentrated banking system in interest rates will be higher, spreads will be higher and the result of that is not only is there longer risk we been talking about, but in the short run, because the market is less competitive, the flow of money in the long run will not be what it should be. >> prof. johnson, treasury seems

convinced the banks are healthy, sound or something like that. i wonder if he would comment on two things. is that right? and happen anyone know that is right? with top and a lot about the liability side, given -- we have talked a lot about the liability side, but what about the asset side of the balance sheet? >> that is exactly right. there's a great deal of uncertainty around asset values. of course, the correct way to assess the state of any banks is to do a stress test. the downside scenario needs to be much more rigorous or negative, pessimistic than the one they used in 2009. i fear the stress test they're doing now, although they have not disclosed anything really about them, i fear the tests are even more gentle.

my answer is, we don't know. there are many bad things that can happen. we are not out of the recession as my colleagues have mentioned in many dimensions. the sensible, a prudent thing to do is to require the banks retained earnings and build a bigger equity buffers against potential future losses. that is in respect of of whether you accept my view or other fees. -- that is a respective of what the except my view or other views. the head of the bank of england, even if you do not agree with the views of those people, just today, the only thing that makes sense is to have the retained earnings right now and not pay out dividends, given what we know and the many things we don't know, fear about the economy going forward. >> prof. meltzer, you're suggesting that we have size adjusted capital requirements.

as i noted in the prior panel, it was one of the recommendations of this panel in our regulatory reform progress to congress. >> good for you. >> thank you. it seems the most obvious idea to me and i'm heartened to see some of your experience having recommended it. >> said vitter introduced a bill to do it. >> i have also been involved in the arguments on the hill that prevented it from being mandated it in dodd-frank. i find it is being treated as though you're suggesting a perpetual motion machine in the political process. can you explain to me why something so sort of straight forward cannot seem to be taken seriously? >> yes. the bankers do not want it and they come down with the lobbyists and hordes to tell the congressman that you are facing disaster.

there will not be loans for the public or capital to build industry, all of that stuff. >> the me ask and then i will stop. >> we got to the 1920's with capital requirements. >> since we're talking about size-weighted capital requirements, would that not as many would be a powerful incentive for institutions to be smaller and then they would lend more when there were smaller? i mean, would it not move rashly to step away from the too big to fail structures and the amount of credit provision would not be affected? >> we would remove the incentive, which pushes them to be bigger and bigger all the time. that would be good. i do not think they would be small, but i think it would be smaller. there isn't any evidence that i know that says their economies scale of that size, which makes them want to be bigger. i want to add one other thing. in 1991, i believe congress

passed the audition. are you familiar with that? did they use it at all? no. what did it call for? it called for early intervention. just completely ignored. they gave reasons. they said it did not apply to holding companies and such things as that. given all the things they were doing, they could have made it work. they closed them down. we have to legislate it. thank you. >> i am allowed to keep going, i am told. [laughter] >> my understanding, there is not economies or evidence of scale or scope and banking over about $50 billion in total assets. the macy $100 billion if he wanted -- you may say $100 billion if you want to be generous. >> i want to emphasize one more

theoretical point, the requirements of leverage, basic idea and economics that says leverage does not buy you anything except hire probabilities of defaults. and so the argument that they're making that it would interfere with the efficiency of the economy has no support in the economics profession. >> one argument i want to dispose of. there is the notion that -- you suggested various levels of capital be required. but how much capital should be recorded in a given size, just the notion of a sliding scale does not -- is there any basis for the argument that a sliding scale would bring on a credit crunch? >> no. >> no. >> can i dissent on this? >> i think i found a point of

disagreement. i feel proud. >> i have to say i have great respect for prof. stiglitz. i think since miller, the level is not irrelevant. i am surprised to say to see now is completely irrelevant. i do not think is relevant. i think in the current situation, if you were double the capital requirements to banks to mark, you would have a credit crunch. there would be a consequence. why? the managers do not want to raise more equity, regardless if this is in the interest of the shareholders. they do not want to raise more equity. the alternative to raising more equity is to lend less. i think there would be consequences. i think the argument they're

going to use to say why the sliding scale is bad is that it is going to unfairly affect the large banks. i completely disagree with this argument. i think now we unfairly favor large banks, so a sliding scale with only bring a level playing field, but that is the argument they will make. >> your point about the credit crunch is a constitutionalist argument. >> why? >> you get more collective form of lending, that is, if a bank -- one argument made is of the corporations are so big that they need to have big banks, but they can syndicate the loans for hundreds of years, syndicate the loans and service the banks. >> known is proposing you immediately double -- no one is

proposing immediately double it. you could dump assets. look for example at the plan put forward by david. experienced treasury and to this demonstration. now the proposals out there, ways you can time the shift in capital requirements to phase in these kinds of either higher level overall or step level as prof. meltzer is suggesting. it would not a contraction mary. >> my chair has some of this must come to an end. >> this is been a fascinating conversation. i'm certainly not one to try to compete with you on your field. i will pull you over to mind as a mere labor economist and start talking about executive compensation, which has received a certain amount of attention. my own view of this issue and

combined with the current crisis sort of has evolved over time. to one in which it seems to me when you have a too big to fail financial institution, it is the case that shareholders very much value risk and are going to move toward more leverage. they are going to compensate executives in a way that would have them shift the risk profile of the investments they make out to a more risky environment. you do not need to take a very strong stand in terms of what you think executive pay is set optimally or not. in the presence of too big to fail, both shareholders and executives are willing to move towards more risky forms of investment and are going to be compensated. i guess i would like your thoughts and my hypothesis. i will start with you, professor stiglitz. >> the important point you're

emphasizing is that the decisions made by the banks are made by managers, not the shareholders. and there cannot be misalignment of interest -- there can often the misalignment between the two dead. i remarked before, there needs to be regulation affecting shareholder compensation, regulations in general, including those affecting shareholder incentives. those incentive structures can leave them to want to undertake excessive risks and there may be limited ability of shareholders to constrain the ability of managers in that way. there is a second problem in managerial compensation you did not mention that i think is important to realize. when you get shareholder stock- option kind of compensation, it provides an incentive for you to distort the information that you are providing. so it encourages non transparent

accounting. there's always going to be a lot of discretion, a lot of the issues that we have ignored the mistakes that have been associated with the ability not to keep on bad mortgages at full value and the whole distortion in the assessing of the asset structure. but the point is, if you have compensation that is related to the seeming performance of the share market, you have an incentive to distort the information provided by the market and to the regulators. >> does anybody have anything different to add? >> yes. if i may, i agree theoretically if the two big to fill guarantee holes, then the interest of management and his guard can be aligned to they want them to take risk. as a practical matter, the kinds of concerns professor stiglitz engines comes into play.

i would refer you to a paper that went carefully through the compensation of the top 14 executives of the top 14 financial institutions in the u.s. between 2000-2008 and on as executive stick out in cash bonus and three stock sales, $2.6 billion in cash. the top executives took around $2 billion in cash. if you're a shareholder in that time, you did pretty badly. that suggests as a practical matter, maybe because of misrepresentations and maybe some other reasons, the shareholders do not do well the when the managers take a great deal of risk and get paid on more less immediate return basis, equity basis, not properly risk adjusted. >> i worried about this problem a lot as a practical thing because i was a chairman of an audit and composition committee for a fortune 500 committee --

company. i face the problem of how your award chief executive and a subsidiary executive. i do not think there is an easy answer. dodd-frank , up with the proposal, and on finding -- non- binding vote. so far, i think the evidence shows that the shareholders do not care much. i think that should be evidence enough to leave alone. >> professor -- >> except in this case. >> i want to ask you a somewhat different question. a more related to your recent paper "paulson's gift." yet estimate that's tarp preferred equity infusions and the fdic debt guarantee costing taxpayers $44 billion. you talk about an alternative

plan. the government could a charge more for both the equity infusion and the debt guaranteed as one of the day when invested in goldman sachs three weeks before the polls and plan. can you elaborate on the difference between private party transactions undertaken at the time of tarp and the actual tarp transactions? >> yes. i think they're two aspects. first of all, the capital infusion that was done was done not in market -- known in market terms, worse than the one that warren buffett got in return. the same is true for the debt guarantee. what is interesting, when the debt guarantee was extended, we observed the overall cost of insuring, the institutions dropped.

even if we take the value of this cost after the announcement -- think about systemic effect an individual affect. even if we sort of take away the systemic effect, the cost of insuring institutions was too cheap and was not really been varying according to the type of institution. for jpmorgan, this was not very convenient. for citigroup or goldman, tremendously convenient. the number are doing does not give a good picture is sort of the cross-section was -- j.p. morgan was heavily penalized by the plan. the market expected them to buy on the cheap and the other worked expecting to sell. citigroup, morgan stanley and morgan were tremendously helped by the plan. there's sort of this cross- section aspect.

it is important because it distorts the market incentives. by treating everyone the same, the good managers are not rewarded in the bad managers are not penalized. >> let me ask a final question. as anoften characterized able to out reached consensus on any issue. i would argue the five independent economists and the war room, i will be arrogant enough to put yourself -- myself in your group, agree about the importance of incentives and the effects the distorted incentives have brought this problem and continue to have today. this is a point i have made repeatedly since being on the panel. i can understand why folks ignore me, but i struggle to understand why they ignore you. and i guess i am curious on your thoughts. what are we doing wrong? what are we doing wrong as a profession? i think these issues are

something the economists do agree about. i guess i would like your thoughts. i am tired of shouting to the wind. i don't know about you. professor stiglitz, i will let you lead off. >> i think what is interesting about this particular case is that there is a broad spectrum of support from the left and right in the economics profession, but this goes back to the particular groups who are big beneficiaries of this particular system. they have a lot of money. they have a lot of money to invest both in trying to shape public opinion and to get what they want. i do not find it that mysterious, and a way, that there is a lot of money at stake. a lot of money. the money on the other side of

try to create a more efficient, more fair system, the point that a number of people have always made, those are lots of people and you have concentrated in fisheries and the alternatives are much more diffuse, very hard to get a fair battle we have this much money at stake. >> prof. meltzer, you have been doing this for a long time. what are your thoughts? >> i'm a strong believer in what is called political economy, that is, making policy the first four letters of policy and politics are the same and the money is very important. we are fighting a battle -- i agree with my old friend who said, our job as economists is to come up with proposals and when the crisis comes, we will be better than the proposals

that will occur at that time. he and we have had a record of getting things done that way in crises. in the ordinary course of events, you're fighting tough political battle in which, as joe just said, is much at stake and a lot of money that goes into campaigns coming from wall that makes a big hurdle to get over. when my bill was produced, there was not much support from the senate banking committee. >> it is a fascinating question. when confronted by these proposals, the bankers were going to move to the u.k. when confronted by the u.k., they said they were going to move to new york.

you have to have the world financial centers. there are people within the federal reserve system and other regulatory agencies who totally get this. i am not saying we convince them. they came by this opinion by themselves. there are other people who have said they are adamantly opposed to apply the logic we have presented here today. they do not come out and discuss it enough and clearly enough. ultimately, the reasons make no sense at all. it was the legendary republican senator at the beginning of the 20th century who said there are two things that matter in american politics. the first is money. and i do not know what the second one is. [laughter] >> i think there are a couple of

reasons. we are reminded that there are people who are well organized and there is a lot of money at stake. i believe in democracy. on some topics, this can be overcome. it requires that the topic is sufficiently interesting and easy to understand -- easy to explain in the media that it generates public outrage. in terms of the developmental issue, people are much more sensitive because you can explain it easily to be ordinary human being. when it comes to capital requirements, it is hard to be successful in explaining or pushing the political agenda

against the entrenched interests. this is not a selected sample. there are people who are actively engaged in public speaking. i do not think you can say the thing about most economists. most economists do not write in newspapers and to not actively take positions and they are not public figures. the type of policy advice you give is not strong. i think they do not care. >> thank you. >> superintended? i say to the best for last. >> we know that liquidity is a firm's failure.

lehman brothers is a good example with respect to the capital position at the time. the impact of short-sellers, the fact that short-term funding can dry up at any point in time. i would be interested in your views on the relationship between capital and liquidity and your views on the proposals out there, particularly under iii and the proposals with respect to liquidity requirements. >> the way that it represents a short-term debt can run quickly. i do not want to take any risk that the other party will fail over night. over a day, it is not large enough to compensate for the

risk. when the market sentiment shift and there is a fear that the, the party is an solvent, the short-term lenders stop lending. that is why it is important to have a cushion of long-term debts. the ball low requirements -- the ball so -- the basel iii requirements for long-term debts are important. short-term borrowing is favored on the part of institutions. the bankruptcy in 2005, by

exempting personal bankruptcies, they made them cheaper than anyone else and make them more fragile. i am favor of some requirement in terms of compositional liability. >> the issue you raised focuses particularly on the question of the shadow banking system. this is a serious problem. a lot of discussion is focused on the banking system. the point where lehmann brothers showed up was the collapse of the reserve fund. people thought they could use the shadow banking system for a substitute -- as a substitute for the banking system. we have to see them as an

integrated whole. we should not use the shadow banking system as a way of circumventing the banking system. that is one of the important aspects. i want to agree with the professor. the incentive structures that are built steadily into the structure, like the banking provision, is an example of something that is a major distortion that got little attention at the time it was adopted. it is an example of the kind of concerns. another example is where you have incentives where some of are done in a transparent market and some are done over the counter. that is an incentive to move things into the dark area where there is no way to regulate.

the way we are going right now is to create new opportunities and incentives to move things away from where we can see what is going on to where we can. these liquidity issues become all the more important. >> i did want to ask about the regulatory reform efforts about riskier activities, proprietary trading, swap activities and moving those activities, the proprietary trading, had to fund -- proprietary trading, hedge fund activities into a holding company. i would be interested in your views. are you shifting those activities into a less regulated area or would you prefer to see them within the bank holding company structure with a higher level of oversight and capital requirements? >> there are two separate issues. we have to deal with the too big

to fail banks and the financial institutions, whether they are banks or non-banks. we have not talked about the to court -- the two core letters that failed. that represents -- the two correlators that failed. that represents systemic risk. where ever they are, there needs to be transparency. and the movement to allowing large segments of transactions to be in a non-transparent been you seems an invitation to problems. >> i would like to say that on the money market funds, the biggest part of the off banking system, how did the crisis come about?

they had to mark their assets to markets until they got to the point where they no longer could do that and pay the face value. they got the sec to change the rules. they did not have to mark their assets to market. when there was a run after lehman brothers, if they had been forced to mark their assets to market, that would have been the normal course of events. that was just a bad ruling. we ought to reverse that ruling and say when the liability is only worth 95 cents, they are only worth 95 cents. that is a mistake. i agree with a comment you made quickly. it is a major problem you have to think about. if you regulate too much, they are going to shift and someone

has to bear the risk of the full movement of the american economy. if we shipped those risks out of the banks, the most regulated -- shift those risk out of the banks, the most regular -- most regulated part of the system, that will not be in the long- term interests of the economy. you have to be concerned about what we do to keep the risks where we can see them. >> the most descriptive is to a-mole.he whack- >> that is another reason why capital requirements are much more desirable than regulation. >> i agree completely. many of the chateau structures were constructed to get around

from -- to get around capital requirements. i agree that we have constructed incentives for too much short-term funding of longer-term assets. they should be funded with equity because of the nature of the risks. i would emphasize we need high capital requirements across the board. we were discussing an incentive for a management to get big enough so they can fail. i would end by quoting someone i know in the hedge fund industry. he said, let's face it, on the too big to fail debate, you lost. now what we are working on in the hedge funds is how did we come too big to fail? >> can i endorse strongly with the professor said. i think the single evil rule is

the one that provides an appearance of safety in money market funds that helps the market themselves as safe deposit when they are not. we have 2000 pages of legislation. we could have changed that rule. i do not think it is subject to congressional approval. it is a rule of the sec and no one is discussing doing it. >> i have been around this place for almost 40 years. i have never seen a paddle or witnesses in the more agreement in my entire life. let me tell you something, i know you know about disparity in the political ideas of the witnesses. there are different use about this about everything between

everyone of here on the panel. it is difficult to get some of these ideas that seem to be straightforward and widely held by people who have been thinking about getting it into legislation. i really want to thank you all for taking time out of your day to come down here and do this. we really appreciated. the record of the hearing will be kept open for one week. i want to finally say, banks. i want to thank my fellow panelists. i came in on this late. the welcome and the ability -- i have never seen a group that is so easy to get along with and is so easy -- so willing to come to common ground. having been a staff person, when

you show up at this point when the staff is in existence, you are a little scared. i want to tell you, this has been a top staff. they are absolutely incredible. naomi and elizabeth do an incredible job. i want to thank everybody. with that, we will close the hearing. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> will there be a public report?

[random conversations] >> the final meeting of the congressional oversight panel. they are due to issue their final report later this month. by statute, the panel has to dissolve on april 3. we will take you live to the u.s. house. a pro forma session only. no legislative business. a couple of bills to regulate

mortgage relief for homeowners. the senate plans to finish up work on the patent overhaul bill. or a couple of test votes. senator harry reid said he would schedule a couple of votes. there will be a proposal put forth by senator innoye. look for those tuesday in the u.s. senate.

>> former delaware senator ted kaufman the chairman of the committee. they are due to release their final report later this month. a pro forma session of the senate -- of the house coming up

later. education secretary arne duncan will speak later. you can watch live coverage starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> i find, more and more, the behavior of professional sports owners to be unseemly in the sense that they want hundreds of millions of dollars from their communities. they do not really participate in the problems of those communities. >> this sunday on "q & a," sally jenkins on the intersection between community

and sports. >>pauline maier has written several books. her latest is "gratification." join us for our three our conversation. we will take your phone calls sunday on c-span.org 2. you can find the entire weekend sketch on booktv.org. this weekend on american history television, live from the u.s. capitol, the 150th anniversary of abraham lincoln's first inaugural address reenacted by actor sam waterson. we will go to the home of h edith and woodrow wilson.

get the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. you can also have our schedules e-mail to you. the u.s. house coming in at under 10 minutes. until then, c-span viewers weigh in on one of the proposed cuts in the house budget bill. the budget debate has come up in 1995 and again in 2005. shourd your tax dollars fund public broadcasting and pbs? jim demint has a piece this morning in the walls -- "wall street journal." our first caller, go ahead.

caller: i think we should continue to cover public television. the fact that we pay a little bit of the budget to support this program is a great thing. it is a shame to suggest that because they are paid a salary is somehow not necessary. host: the corporation for public broadcasting, part of the johnson act that the president signed into law in 1967. the corporation for public broadcasting gets between 15% to 20% of its operating -- annual operating budget from other sources. in 2005, to give you historical perspective from the "washington post," --

bob has this point of our twitter page -- next is mike from warren, mich.. this morning. caller: why you to give me a second to get this out. first of all, these people -- with what is going on in wit wisconsin, these people are making an effort to drown out the voice of the american people. second, who voted for these people? congressman hall was going to sponsor a bill to clean up the

voting system here in america. and i notice wisconsin, michigan, ohio and florida are normally a little left of center stage. that is where the gop made all of their gains. we have here in our area, it was packed all day long. what happened to the votes? do you think after eight years of bush we all of a sudden when brain dead and votel of these republicans in? i do not think so. host: with go back to jim iece -- his peac

bill i-80 has this point on our twitter page -- -- bill beattie has this point of order page --

our question, should pbs go private? it also includes funding for the corporation for public broadcasting and npr. next call from pennsylvania. caller: i think one of the concerns about going private is that since it is public, it is not really ratings driven. if it goes private, you risk being desperate to get ratings. and the thing, it is not an objective resource. host: from "usa today," the

wisconsin government saying that layoffs could come as early as today. also from "the wall street journal," richard trumka point out --

washington journal live every day. the u.s. house is about to gavel in. noer can file legislation and give speeches. it is expected to be short. next week, senators are expected to finish up work on the u.s. patent and trademark law. they are expected to take up a couple of test votes on spending bills.

>> the house returns tuesday for morning hour. a full list of legislation for next week has not been released yet but republican leaders will consider a couple of bills. live house coverage tuesday here on c-span. in the budget the president presented he called for new spending in education. he will be talking about education. it will be joined by a arne duncan and jeb bush touring at a high school. the chinese premier is giving a speech to the opening session of the congress tonight. you can see live coverage on c- span2. >> republican and democratic

leaders continue working on a spending bill for the rest of the year. watched the debate so far. track the time lines and find the full video archives for every member at c-span.org. >> i find the behavior of professional sports owners to be unseemly in the sense that they've won millions of dollars for their communities and don't participate in the problems of their communities. >> on ""q & a" -- >> this weekend on "book tv," this boxer spent 25 years in prison wrongfully accused of

murder. it will discuss that conviction with a journalist. scott brown on his troubled childhood. look for a schedule and permission at booktv.org. get our schedules by e-mail. sign up for our book tv alert. journalists and political analysts in london discussed the recent uprisings in the middle east. they talk about the state of the west relationship with libya. this runs about an hour and a half. >> thank you very much. there are a few seats at the front. please make your way to the front. and i am from the bbc.

thank you all for being here. welcome back if you are a regular. i consider this one of my favorite places in london. there have been a whole series of events on what is happening in the arab world. it has been a remarkable few weeks everywhere. clearly libya is the discussion tonight. we will spend the next 90 minutes focusing on libya. i will ask each of them to introduce themselves and give us an opening fought on what we are seeing in libya. then we shall end at 8:30. >> i am david hill from the

london school of economics. i have been in a media storm over the last 10 days. i had explained several times i am not in the oil business. i am not in the money business. i am just in the ideas business. you can find yourself in very complex debates. my engagement with libya started by accident. a young man knocked on my door and said he was interested in aspects of british idealism. could i explain what he should look for? in the three years that followed i told him -- we

discussed a range of liberal and democratic ideas on the basis of that i had a discussion which brought me to libya on a few occasions and worked with the foundation he chaired which had a growing reputation for promoting human rights, creating a democratic reform and pushing an agenda of democracy. ialogue with him to create

build

american university in paris,

of islamic fundamentalism or

was happening to bahrain and

>> we managed to [unintelligible] and the experts at the time was a model for many countries. i engaged with the foreign process with efforts that had to do with libya. i think we're back to square

one. up,n't know how it will end but it will not be a happy end. i am working with the foundation [unintelligible] thank you. >> you were just back from libya a few days ago. thank you. >> i was british ambassador in libya from 1999-two dozen to. i am the only person wearing a tie. after that i went to tehran and have been an associate fellow for the last three years. libya is poised for at least four possible scenarios.

you are a brave person if you are prepared to choose which. i don't exclude a happy ending in the sense of a pluralist libya that moves towards the standards its people to enjoy it. but i fear the way that is going to be dreadfully hard. these scenarios are libyans' fighting continues. nobody is able to get a handle on the other. muammar gaddafi's support continues to crumble. once the barriers of fear is removed, a large number of people get out in the street to actually affect the calculations

of the populations in the capital. i think a third scenario is some form of internal coup where those considered their best hope of surviving and having a future is to move aside the most damaging elements of the family. the fourth scenario is deepening disorder of a civil breakdown. that is as far as i can get. as of today the situation is changing from day to day. >> this was the first day there was a sense of being in a military face with territory being taken. i could just ask you instinctively if you feel this

is me end for muammar gaddafi. >> i hope it is the end. the country is bifurcated between the east and west. one side bloodies the other from time to time. the other one is of a slow leakage of muammar gaddafi's power. different days suggest different things. my own view is if the west acts decisively and can find some use for these armies in spent billions on by creating a no-fly zone or knocking out his ammunition dump and maybe his military equipment. that could be a stimulus to the weakening of the regime.

now in europe and elsewhere to hasten the end of this brutal mission. >> do you feel an instinct it's the end? >> yeah, i'm starting to believe this is the end for colonel gadhafi. for me, it's not like the end, it's when. he's the most important question. because it's not now, a couple of weeks ago i was certain he was going to last for a long time. we need to start to think about months, you know, at least. talking about days or weeks or something. i think it's unrealistic. because he managed successfully and deliberately to come from a peaceful regime to be a war situation. he was very successful in this tactics. and i'd like to emphasize here, he is successfully as well, immediately switched from the mood of the leader as like a king or president, whatever you are going to label him, to be a

warfare leader. and it's were dangerous. the mood now, he's operating. >> he's very comfortable in that roll. >> he's very comfortable. he was ready for this. we should focus as well. because it's war, you know, we can't talk about just the people protesting outside in the streets. just if you see or if you followed the protest, you know? since it starts in february until today, every day you will see the scene being militarized, increasing of the militarization of the situation, and people liberating his own cities. everybody starts to have the own guns. there's a lot of guns out there. this situation, i believe, it will help colonel gadhafi's force to remain for, i think, a long time. and then from there he will hope to start to negotiate with the west. not with his own people to

secure something. >> does that mean you actually, you know, compared to a couple of days ago, his position is stronger than it was. colonel gadhafi's own position? >> i'm not prepared to say that. i would also like to take some of the emphasis away from the west. united nations is an awful lot more than the west. and the west doesn't always act. and above all it does not have the kind of unity of view on a huge and inaccurate generalization. arabs should not be invisible in the way he suggests as seen from my side of the fence. i can see how you would appreciate that differently from your side. >> i do warn against west intervention. it seems like interventions in iraq and somalia and afghanistan. i don't think it bodes well. i don't think an intervention in

libya will help. i this will it end up escalating the situation. the libyans were probably as hard core as the afghanis and iraqi of resisting the presence of americans there. having said that, i don't think the way back is the way forward in libya. certainly, gadhafi is on his way out. whether they are going to give him a safe passage to join his friend remains to be scene. i think he insists on staying and fighting it out. the army is breaking away from him. that's the good news. the tribes are breaking away from him. that's even better news. his diplomats are breaking away from him. that's the third good news. >> that's the easiest. for those outside libya, that's the easiest break to make. >> actually, even, internally, the minister has left and so on and so force. he has a legitimacy, tribal army, and civilian leaders of

some sort. and they've all -- or are they leaving him slowly but surely. what is left with him are the militias, the militias, he and his sons have armed. but i don't think they have a future in libya. >> thank you very much. if you could raise your hands if you have a question. could we get the microphones to the back of the room there? just while the mike comes, please say who you are. this is live on the frontline web site and filmed by c-span. and if you are tweeting about it, then it has frontline clout. so your name. >> mr. christian, i work with plan international a humanitarian agency. what's your take on the humanitarian fallout? >> could you hold the microphone closer? >> yeah, what's the humanitarian fallout of the violence, if there's a fallout if sanctions are put in place? please remember in iraq, in december 50,000 children died

during the sanction period while it was put in place. your take on both. followed from the violence, as for the sanctions. >> thank you. >> who'd like to start up? what is your fear of what the humanitarian impact would be for the sanks -- sanctions or indeed just ongoing violence? >> honestly, i don't think it's anyone like to advocate for like sanctions affecting the people. no, i don't think. now all of the debate, it's about like no-fly zone. it's still the issue itself that's highly debatable because it's not just you are going to ask gadhafi kindly, would you mind don't fly your make, you know? it's not like this. you need to launch attacks. the situation is highly debatable. i would like to add something. what's they reach gadhafi is

false, it's something like 15 or 20% are domestic. the air force capacity. because since the problems start, one the major european countries, they would draw all of their technical stuff. one the major like airplanes. and they have started -- they are still struggling with others like even the russians make. they have a lot of problems in terms of technical stuff. it's the idea of no-fly zone, maybe it will clear, and help the libyans, but i know it's like a conflict like this start everybody to be like national -- international conflict. maybe it will send like just a clear signal to colonel gadhafi to make -- for him to behave. but just regarding the humanitarian issue, i think it was planned a couple of weeks ago, there's a huge lack of food supply, especially in the eastern part of the country and western cities as well.

i believe it was planned, you know? to create a war situation obvious a civil war situation. and now a lot of countries, include qatar, and they are involved in food. the libyans, we've never been in this situation. usually, we used to see it in the news. now libya themselves starts to be a recipient of aid and medicine. it's painful. myself, i can't feel it. i think this is the situation. st libyans are in need for the national aid, unfortunately to say that. >> richard, are you in favor of the no-fly zone? >> under certain conditions, first it has to have legitimacy. you could get legitimacy from a united nations security council resolution, or if that was not

going to pass, you could as in other humanitarian interventions, obtain legitimacy through regional consultation, and through the receipt or there wouldn't be anything formal of a sense or a request that the libyans under pressure inside libya want intervention. >> but it cannot be a british-american effort? that would be wrong? >> it would make much more sense if it was a spanish-italian effort. they are in the front line of this issue. it's their world supplies, for example, that's at the greatest risk. it's their immigration problem rather more than the uk. maybe the u.s. and uk would play a part. i think people who advocate armed humanitarian intervention need to think quite widely about the kind of coalition that would be put together. >> yes, you had a question in the back. >> i'm maria, i'm a postgraduate

student at the african studies. i've been very much following what's been happening in the past month, being from the middle east myself as well, and of course, it's very interesting. and my question is on something that i've been thinking about is the definition of how al-jazeera is defining the professionalism, so to say. the western ethics of journalism, and i put western between two quotations. i wanted to know your upon about how al-jazeera is kind of playing with the idea of distance, the emotional distance. it's not like any other channel. when you watch specific, you can use egypt and libya and tunisia, and i you feel like you are part of the news. al-jazeera has redefined the concept of coverage in the last

events. and the other question is what do you think about the exclusion of the al-jazeera to the exclusion that gadhafi gave to abc, and nbc, i think. >> abc, bbc. thank you. my bosses maybe watching this. >> i'm not going to take too long just because the subject matter is libya. i don't want to think i'm promoting al-jazeera and promoting or defending it. we did pride ourselves for a long time of being a voice of the south, and the voice of the people. we have an hour program that people phone in and speak endlessly in the morning and so forth. has it been an emotional moment? of course. imagine this was the french television after the second world war, or the british television after the second world war. this is probably the biggest

moment in recent history in this region. imagine someone like gadhafi for 40 some years. the generation of libyans have lived under him. for young journalist, and young people in the arab world were for a young channel like al-jazeera, having it all, or living and being in the midst of all of this, of course, it's something. but did they keep a certain distance? yes, i think they did. in a sense, until today, leaders of the world would become al-jazeera. before it all started, as many of you might know, we were banned in kuwait, we were banned in morocco, we had a big fallout in egypt, and now we are banned in libya. this is, of course, a certificate of good behavior. when urbanned from dictators, you must be doing the right thing. >> the final bit was about the exclusion of al-jazeera.

i mean that was -- none of us know the inner workings of colonel gadhafi's mind. the fact that al-jazeera was already banned precluded that. >> we should have had one libyan official comment on al-jazeera and say we will let you come in only if we start behaving. when asked what they mean by behaving, when they start being good journalist. so you are not giving us certificate of good behavior. they said no, all of the media outlets are good, expect al-jazeera is bad. until you behave, you can't get in. i think they have blamed the disturbances in yemen and israel on al-jazeera. >> thanks. lady over here. then the gentleman there. thank you. >> i'm zoey from the university.

when i talk about the west, i'm meaning britain and the states. it seems from an arab perspective, and perspective of many in the west that the west relations in the middle east have been defined by self-interest mostly over the past decade. i'm wondering what you think the sort of policy that britain and the states could adopt towards libyan that might redeem this kind of behavior or morally rectify the situation in the middle east. >> you are looking for a single, coherent approach for the region? >> yes. on the part of britain or the states, not necessarily unified. >> david? >> well, i profoundly agree with your question. i mean the relationship between the united states and european's big powers in the middle east has generally been a movement between on the one hand a movement of red carpets to the

middle eastern leaders and on the other hand when things go wrong, the cardboard box. there's been the shift in coherence on middle east policy. on one hand seeking to pursue political advantage when it suits, and on the other hand, in another point in time, not necessarily a consistent point in time, suddenly saying this is the crucial task. i think the wars in the iraq and afghanistan, of course, have backfired. the war on terror has caused, you know, great damage. not just, of course, to the countries. but the heart of those wars, but to the west of the eyes of the young arab populations. one the things to me that's different in 1989 and the extraordinary arab uprising now was in 1989, the peaceful movements had a common purpose and common goal. which was to embrace the west. they wanted western democracies. they wanted higher standards.

they wanted markets. the image of the west now in the extraordinary arab spring as it is being called is much more tainted. it's been tainted exactly for the reasons that you've said. >> do you want similar things to what was wanted in eastern europe? perhaps it's not -- perhaps not overall articulated as clearly and not as organized. >> the point that i'm -- the only point i'm trying, yes, absolutely, i agree with you. however, because the war on terror had such negative consequences for the reception of the west, i think it's made the political demands that are emerging from young people and other groups a more mixed and their direction is not always entirely clear. whereas, gadhafi's incredible and remarkable movements to bring down the regime is one thing. to turn those on democracies is another. which is another important question. what can the west do now?

the one thing the west can do is to respect the determination of their peoples, listen to their voice, engage more in dialogue, and if and when they intervene and wish to support the arab movements, they build up the infrastructure of the autonomy of the movements, and determination rather than in other words bottom up politics rather than deals in the old style to suit interest of the level of autocratic states. >> bridget, obviously, you know what's it's like to be part in the region. would you accept that mistakes have been made? it hadn't been made a coherent approach or consistent. >> if mistakes have been made, they have been supposed by the democratic system of the united kingdom. the point that i'd like to start, yes, states act in accordance of their self-interest. that's international policy 101. you wouldn't expect egypt, or brazil, or the united kingdom to

behave differently. second, british people have a right to jobs. british people have a right to the attempt to influence on human rights in their democratic value. british people have a right to security. so when you frame as a foreign policy person, the objective is for your foreign policy, you frame it in accordance with that which the british people want and express through the parliamentary representatives and in turn through the selection of their governments. this is always been the case. it was in the case when we were working with the soviet union to sell things to the soviet union. to export our culture to the soviet union, to discuss the future of the region through the conference and security and cooperation in europe. engagement differs from region to region and country to country. but those principals are eternal. now the next point to emphasize is that if you are trying to

achieve certain objectives like security and like jobs, you can't expect to be able to insult and demean and oppose the government you are working with in other matters. and inevitably, when the foreign country wants to work with us, we at the uk set the term. the same is true for international relations when you want to achieve your objectives with another country. so what you try to do is maintain a balance so that you advance on a broad front. now the instruments that we chose to assist in the extension of civil and political and human rights to arab people while at the same time trying to pursue a national interest of the british people was one, the action programs under the european neighborhood policy study very carefully the conditionality on the extension of the trade privileges and the european union in those agreements, the

dialogue on agreements and human rights. and secondly, bilateral program of the a civil society. >> let's make it specific to libya. at the time that you were the british ambassador in tripoli, which is the same time that tony blair's government was carrying out. did you have doubts that we are making all of the advances in the relationship with libya, but this is still an absolute regime, it is still a police state, there's not going to be an election here or anything close to an election? >> yes, indeed. as did my colleague and ambassador in moscow as he watched the deterioration of public life in moscow. clearly there are degrees to these things. i'm not trying to say all international villains. the consensus in our country about the advancements of people's interest and national interest you have to accept that you can't pick and choose your partners and you can't force

them to change so they fit into our mold. >> you wanted to say something on that? then back to you sir, and the question over there. >> i just came back from washington this morning. and i -- throughout our discussions about libya, i always -- i tried to distinguish between washington and the rest of america. i think there's rules between london and the rest of the uk. i mean by london, the politics and the special interest, and the lobbying and so on and so forth. the arms lobbies and oil lob business. no, i think it's a cop out, mr. ambassador, we were for national interest and that's it. that's not how democracy functions. democracy has values and positions. they don't want to deal with someone that's oppressing his people and killing his people for the last 40 years. >> the point that you were making is the british people didn't rise up in the streets.

>> the british people didn't know how tony blair was sitting in a tent making deals in the dark with colonel gadhafi about what's next. the contracts to be given to the uk, just like america and other cynics, french and so forth. i don't mean the french as the french people, i mean paris. as a human being and citizen, what is the government? why does the bbc exist and other media outlet? to put you folks in power your view with the principals and values. sometimes you don't. most of the times you don't. it's a cop out. you need some serious soul searching on the question for libya. this was a regime. you did business with them. knowing what they were doing. i think we need to do this. [applause] [applause] >> i think you know what's going on now with libya and i think in egypt and tunisia and the rest

of the middle east. myself and, i believe everybody that i spoke with, they believe it's undermining the arabs themselves as countries or as ethnic group or whatever you are going to classify them to talk about their destiny within the context, okay, the opinion of the uk or washington. or even the west. i think this approach, it's a completely wrong. and i believe all of the arabs, including myself, we don't like to discuss the issues from this approach or perspective. i am starts to believe i cannot claim the uk or any other european country about why i don't have a democratic system in my country like libya or any other arab country. it's because i believe they can't create it themselves. but if you start yourself, and here's what's going on now, the people when they are fed up and

they go out on the streets, i'm always good it's 100% transparent referendum. this is what the people want. not al qaeda, not a political group. this is the people of the middle east, one country after another they are protesting outside the streets. and they start to ask for democracy, a political system, so what's the role here for the west? because they start to see what's going on there. what the people they want. here's what the libyans, they want. i think, yes. many western countries, they can help what the libyans they want. so they can help them, they can support them to justify, or really to make us believe, yeah, this country, or these societies, they stand for the democratic values they believe in. this is, i think, the most important thing. but practically to be honest with you, i know exactly how these things works, you know. i think maybe because myself i'm not academic. i'm very practical person, you

know. i spent like 25 years of my life very practical. [laughter] >> academics can be practical too. >> no, i am very practical. >> okay. [laughter] >> so, you know, everyone -- no one can just go appear in front of people and start to talk about very sensitive issues. i would like to make it clear like this. what's going on now in the middle east, i think, creates one heck of a vacuum. excuse me my language. in many western capitols. why? because they start to see other leaders, they have no profile for them. other likes, i will say groups, not political parties, they aren the ground and reclaiming the states which they used to do business with. we don't need to fool ourselves. there's no country on earth that can just accept this and okay we'd like to help you to establish your democratic system

and we will support you in terms of human rights or whatever. it doesn't work like this. believe me, it doesn't work like this. first of all, it's always what's for me on the table? if there's any other foreign country, why should i help you? why should i take the risk? especially in this time. this is what i'm trying to say. i think it's a very critical moment, but i still believe it's a very good opportunity. >> but it's an opportunity for the libyans. >> and the libyans, and libya it's very sensitive area. you know why? i'm going to explain the situation maybe later on if there's other questions. but just the area there, it's part of europe. because this is the southern part of the mediterranean. >> thank you, noman. i'm good to take the question. out to you. >> is there any possibility that the toppling of saddam and creation of democratic iraq has actually positively contributed to these series of revolutions

in perhaps even libya? >> who'd like to start? >> that was a good question, by the way. >> i wonder how many people are viewing intervention in iraq differently. >> i actually think what's happening today happened despite, not thanks to. meaning, we were passing sort of around november of last year, i think the darkest moment in our region. most of it part of the domino affect from the war in iraq. i've never seen the region so divided, so burdened with tension with some bitter violence. i remember that i listed nine cases for al-jazeera in preparing what i call the hot winter coming up in the memo. but the use of the arab world surprised us, being far more mature than all of the rest. what they have done, they have raised two issues.

one is: democracy is possible out tanks and airplanes and invasions and death of 1 million iraqis in one form or the other. democracy is possible because democracy is the business of the people, by the people, and for the people. not on the back of a tank. i think that was the message that we don't want to go iraq's way. there was an alternative. how it's happening, it's a work in process. in egypt, tunisia, and morocco and so forth, it's a start with comparison on what has happened and what is happening in iraq and iran. i think the arabs have proven that george bush was wrong. you could create a situation peacefully almost where freedom, the arabs by the way don't like to call it a democracy in the liberal sense today. they call it justice. freedom and justice is possible today without more tanks. >> david, then to you.

>> yeah, i think a few historical examples of successful creates of democracies from above. look at the examples that we have, after the second world war, the reconstruction of germany and japan. these were total wars on the conditions of total defeat. in the age of post em -- imperial empires, they do not bow down. the most extraordinary and bizarre statement ever made in contemporary was rumsfeld shock and awe. we had shock people and from that they will bow down and consent. what makes the new arab revolutions difference -- different is these were from below. with the international or national conditions.

here you had the extraordinary pressure on local economies and arab economies, rising commodity prices, rising food prices, which impacted directly on the dire and stance of living. at the same time, you have a hugely young population wired together more than before with rising expectations. an educational system that works and turned out educated people and educated people driving buses. nothing wrong with driving buses, but finding the roles and occupations lower than the expectations that they have. this produces the blow. that seems to be historicically creates greater conditions for the democracy than anything that the britain or america were trying to do in iraq. >> does the end result and the process to get there? >> i think if you go to iraq and in the process kills tens of thousands of people and displace

hundreds of thousands more, and turn the authortarian regime into a failed state, you cannot claim much achievement for yourself and you should be judged by those promises. >> richard? >> i agree completely with manwar, and david. i would only add that i think one useful way of looking at what's happening in the arab countries is to look at the social contract. this helps one to explain why some countries are rather slower to catch on to what's happening than others. in saudi arabia, the social contract is still much stronger. it's got religion, it's got deference, it has a popular king, and cemented together with a lot of cash. where you see the countries that have burst into flame most quickly, it's where the social contract is weakest. jordan, it's stronger. the big mystery is syria.

if anyone can speak to us about syria, that would be helpful. >> just talking on the subject of cash. because it has been to be very in sync to see how much. is there a point where however much money you spend, and clearly saudi arabia has a lot of money to spend in this department, it will not be enough? >> absolutely. this is not about money anywhere. it's about grievance. and some of the grievances are about money. the tunisia revolution, i believe, was fundamental revolution. it was discussed and that gives me the opportunity to say that i think one the remarkable things is how little ideology there are in the revolution, and how much raw emotion. that's where the international satellite television broadcasting element comes in, led by al-jazeera, a lot of others because people in the

region channel hop. it's about bringing into your living room, the family discussion and the sense of shame you get if you are suffering under the same condition and haven't done anything about it. so that's so much more important in galvanizing people than the twitter aspect or the social networking aspect which is about communication. once something has gotten going. >> thank you. i'm sorry. you've been waiting far long time. >> craig with international. we've seen the middle east that the change has been driven by young people. why do you think the young people in the west and across the world can do to support the positive change that we're seeing and hopefully move international relations to a more positive future? >> okay. can young people in the west, noman, do you think, support the positive changes that we're seeing what the use of the arab world are starting to voice? >> from a very practical, very

practical -- >> yeah. >> that's why it is -- i think -- the way i understand it, it's like we have two levels here. like international governmental help which is more effective, way more effective. and none government held. so we talk about in the west, i think it would be part of this like a government efforts to help what's going on in the middle east. now like the work of the ngos or social movements, or whatever. but practically, as well, i can't see it honestly. you know, now they can deliver unless they can help to either to push for like certain policies to be taken by their own governments. with every possible like means and tools available for them. including like going outside protesting outside in the streets without causing any damage. but it's -- the only thing. but practically, i think it's

still in the middle east the work of the government rather than government politics. or the groups or ngos or whatever. >> by the way, just for your information, i think -- they will be helping in a very, very interesting way. >> the tunisians and egyptians weren't able to break the fire wall imposed by the government, but by the help of the young serbs, young bulgarians, i think also a bench of french-americans, a lot of what was going on in the social network, sometimes when they created the tweeting, a lot of young people were actually involved over the last several weeks already. not only in solidarity and the universities and other places, but actually in, you know, if bloggers -- if bloggers and -- if bloggers and the new insurgents seconded the use

around the world and have joined the arabs in social. >> thank you. the gentleman there has a question. then there's some questions at the front, thank you. this lady here. i'll come to you after that. thank you. >> they told me a month ago that a young man called muhammad committed suicide in tunisia, and this set off the events which is causing this discussion and the world in it's way looking at the whole events of the middle east. what role do you think the press has in this whole event? and what -- what -- how will it actually develop into reporting events beyond the middle east? >> so you mean the press coverage initially from tunisia, how that essentially -- >> yeah, the effect of the whole thing, which only happened what, a month ago? >> a little more. december. yeah, thank you. i'm going to allow you to speak about the power of the arab

media of al-jazeera again. >> no, no, i won't mention it even once again. actually, it can be conceived that way. when muhammad azizi set himself on fire, the image of him and in the hospital went on the web. that came part of the social network. when they got interest, the social, especially arab, media got interested. what started as social networks rooting for social justice became massive demonstrations, spreading through entire cities. it turned into an uprising. it had to be covered by the rest of the world. that became a national uprising. then it became a revolution that will start spreading to egypt and yemen. then no one else could avoid.

what started as social networks rooting for social justice because the arabs were invisible in social media. they were working on various media outlets on what's going on in the world, it caught fire, the world, not the person, putting conditions in the west notably, but also elsewhere under the spotlight. they had to do things, and they started saying things that weren't eloquent. eventually, they did catch up because of the press. because the media did catch up. yes, the bbc, yes, when the cnn folks as they call them in america got beaten up in cairo, believe me it was not longer cultural calculation. >> equally if you look at libya, we are not able to tell the same kinds of stories that do exist. because no one has that kind of access and that kind of ability to operate.

david? >> well, i agree with what you have said. but i would just say this is not just the story of the west, it's also the story of the east. two articles in the arab 199 -- 1989 and sent it to a variety of newspapers. they accepted it. the next day they turned it down on the ground is that chinese policy of what was happening then in egypt was a matter for egypt alone and not an issue for wider concern and consideration. i think right across asia, many of the same points apply. it's not just the west of all ages has in the sense not seen the development and the changing dynamics of the arab world. it has seen in in terms of awe cattic -- autocratic regimes that are stagnant, and they have been stagnant in the academic literature for generations. while it's true, the east also has had little comprehension of what is now going on. and those that pursue their

dominance international interest in the area, china, increasingly. >> by the way, china banned egypt news. >> china, but increasingly in india, they also fall under that. >> thank you. go ahead. another question. thank you. >> i'm a journalist from finland, journally writer, journalist fellow from oxford. i will actually go back to the beginning, and what kind of role does the son of gadhafi play in this situation at the moment? is this a sort of a father/son joint venture thing? or most important allies for gadhafi at the moment? :

>> i am struck now by how much i did not understand. we talked over years and engaged in different places but the thing that struck me at all this is not just talk the talk but was creating a foundation that was invading libya and pursuing the human rights agenda in a significant way. it was because he had a record of action that i was willing to engage with him to help develop this program to create the bridges. it is very clear at the moment of crisis which overwhelmed libya, he had a choice between [unintelligible] in that sense, we would have

murdered your father? but not many people do. that is a very important question. all i can say is i knew muammar gaddafi that had a side of him we have not seen since the 20th- century. the question is [unintelligible] or was there something

i think there was a sustained project there. i think history will have to think about this issue, the relationship between before and after, but different views. >> how did you feel when he gave that speech where the talk about fighting until the last bullet, a drop of blood? >> i was appalled. i could only describe it as everyone else. he had the moment at that time, as i know, to reach out to the divisions in his country to offer the possibility of a transitional government based on new for herndon that he had talked about before that might have created the basis for a transition from the qaddafi regime to a new popular representative government. at that moment of choice, and he failed.

catastrophically. >> at the moment, i'm going to ask richard and someone who has met the gadhafi, was he putting on the front and going through the motions before? >> no, i think it was genuine. i think your explanation was that if your father's life is threatened, then you have to make a choice. you will do what you do. most people would. i think there's one point that we should just mention, that speech also contained a promise that there would be a new political dialogue. in other words, he did offer genuinely or not, we can never tell, the process that the iranians began in the dialogue between rulers and people. those watching that speech thought there was precious little chance of the colonel agrees to that. we saw the libyan people that would regard it as far too little, far too late. that is, indeed, what happened. >> the offer of reform in that speech seems to me entirely

uncompelling and plausible. if you are ravaged by a beast or form by any shape or form, and then the beast offered to take you to prada store and buy clothes. what does that mean? the speech was violent and portrayed the protesters of drunks, then the offer is hidden by the language of violence. >> so the choice has already been made? >> absolutely. noman? >> it's very complicated questions. but it's -- yeah, i am 100% support the idea since like 2007, or maybe before that. let's say 2005 when he started to act as a political figure within the libyan scene. i think he took a lot of like very radical actions or moves which is always faces a lot of like obstacles and objections

from not just his father, but the radical hard core in the libyan regime. i know as a matter of fact, not just because of my like personal contact with him, but other people as well, he included from his father they used to label him as someone, his mind being corrupt by liberal values. including his father. they used to label him like this. someone being corrupt with liberal values. because the time he spent outside in australia or -- and in london. anyway. as professor david mentioned, he worked hard on the ground and the people in the west, they know that. they are involved with him in many projects. but it's all -- we should say it's the reform plan. but it was filled within the context of the -- colonel gadhafi's regime. say if you thought at time,

maybe it's the safest way, you know, to start to reform the country and at the same time don't destroy the structure of power. >> okay, so you believe he was june june -- he was genuine at that time? >> yes, definitely. i would like to say what happened on the 17th of february, he decide, that's his decision, and i believe that's a historical decision to, i think, stand not just with his father. it's very simple to say his father, you know, the radical, hard core of the libyan regime, you know? people they still believe they are revolutionary, they are like freedom fighters or whatever. and they decide we should carry on the fight. it's a conspiracy against libya. he decided by himself, i believ? i wish he'd decide otherwise.

so now it's his decision. he switched himself to be a warrior rather than a soldier. >> let me disagree. 100%. just for the held -- hell of it. i would say 80, but for the question. just because i'm talking to this audience. maybe i would talk to the same way to whatever audience that i'm talking to. there's something to say when you talk to one the oldest democracies and one the most ethical democracies in the country, the united kingdom. the people aren't going to solve the intelligence. on this question, i don't know if you are as cosmopolitan as i am, has anybody followed "keeping up with the kardashians"? this was sort of like that. sex, lies, and video tapes, you can add arms to it. the son's safe is the sexier

one, the playboy, the one that hates the servants, the one that cheats on the money. we were keeping up with them for the last seven years. who the hell are they? why does gadhafi -- he doesn't have a single political position. his father that fought the revolution, liberated the country, i don't know his father's buddies. who is he? why does he run a foundation? why does he get on the press conference and speak on the behave of libya? >> because he's from the part of the world -- >> we can't accept the safe value when the son of the dictator can play with money at the university, at the foundation, at the charity. he's giving. it's not his money. there is, aside from the kardashians, there is another thing. and it's not liberal. liberal is something completely different. to be a playboy is not liberal,

to be a playboy is not to have any morals in that sense of the world. what's happening in libya is the same as i said started originally in egypt and tunisia and elsewhere in the arab world and the third world. i will follow from your point, david. we had his father pursuing the regime, and son pursuing the washington consensus. father wanting from the top-down, army, tribes, whole towers, and maybe see how you can do state capitalism. son's graduating from the west, coming back with ideas of the washington consensus, opening up the market, opening up the oil industry, opening up everything, private as it is, giving it all to the british and the french and the italians and the spaniards, and the americans. >> i wish. >> this which wikileaks described the capacity to charm

the west at the expense of the libyan people. that's what he did. that doesn't make him a good guy, a liberal guy, or a guy like his father, it makes him a thug, and a son of a dictator. i'm saying that objectively. not from an opinion point of view. but going through the facts of this guy's being over the last ten or fifteen years, i cannot come up with another conclusion. son of a dictator, like father, like son. >> let's move away from gadhafi. i know there are lots of people waiting for questions. sir, to you, then the questions here. go ahead. >> my name is lana, i'm a freelance journalist. i firmly believe that these uprising throughout the arab world are going to lead to a completely different middle east, and there's no going back. >> keep it a bit closer to your mouth. >> okay.

i think they've revealed that the arab people have a sense of justice and a common policy that's inherent to that culture. they have also revealed the historical hypocrisy of the west and it's dealings with the middle east. the fact that it's a bottom up uprising in all of these countries is very important. because -- sorry. this is kind of distracting me. i'll just move on. can you please comment on the fact that on the one hand america can come around to condemning the dictators, but on the other will not veto -- will not support the condemnation of continued settlement building in israel? when clearly, you know, it has changed and there is no going back from this exposure of

western hypocrisy and it's dealings with the middle east? >> okay. richard dalton, as somebody who served in jerusalem and elsewhere, can i ask you to respond before we move on to the next question? this feeling that you've -- that there would be condemnation of israel settlement policy at the same time as support of these democracy movements? >> of course, they should be. and the american position was idiotic on the one hand vetoing the resolution, on the other hand saying, of course, we do condemn settlement building. if there was a display on the weakness and approach to the major international issue, this was it. on the broader question of high we progress the middle east process of nonpeace, between the israelis and others, i don't think we really want to get into that now. but my view is that we need to

turn ourselves around 100%. chiefly in israel, but also in the united states. >> okay. gentleman at the back there. >> steve summerville, freelance. would any members of the panel, includes former ambassador, like to give any credit at all to tony blair in his dealings in the dark in the tent in the desert in persuading colonel gadhafi to disabling his nuclear question? and supplement question, did he ever had a nuclear program? and are there any vestages of it to our knowledge? >> did he have a nuclear program? >> yes. and the government's involved in that negotiation. british and the united states and libyan deserve credit. i think the important thing in the history of involvement with libya is to look back over the

slow and study way in which this change in libya's international behavior established itself from the mid 1990s, i won't give you a history lecture, but just register that much press writing about how it all happened all of the sudden in 2003 on the weapons of mass destruction issue is nonsense. and the second thing that's also nonsense is that somehow tony blair had a special role. he was one the last european heads of government to go to libya. and to talk -- >> what about he said he went further than he had to. the foreign office wasn't saying you have to go personally. you know, he kind of did and decided to go further than others. >> that's not how i remember it. i mean i was in tehran at the time. but plain fact of the matter is that after the suspension of the sanctions in 1999, negotiating

with the libyan government for oil concessions was legal and it was in the interest of europe to do that. and that's why everybody did it. while also the united states did it. and the way libya and other countries work whether there's a heavy political element to trading is that on the biggest issues, the heads of government need to get involved. now it's entirely free to all of us to go to our members of parliament and say we don't like life if that's what life requires. so please stop it. don't, david cameron, go around the world with businessmen in training. that's not your job as our representative. if that's how you believe, you've got to use your own democratic system to establish that. >> thank you. i'm going to try to get a few more questions. then i think you had a couple of questions here at front. and yes. we'll take your question there.

and then can we get the other microphone to the front? thank you. >> my name is samaya, i'm a phd student studying about tehran. i'm wondering egypt, the new role that egypt might play in mideastern politics. do you think it's too early to see a stance from egypt on hamas and israel and iran? >> you know, the question has always been as we were speaking earlier, it's not who will replace mubarak, but what will replace the mubarak regime. although we have an affirmative on the first question, the second question is still a work in progress. what will replace the mubarak regime? just in the last 72 hours, there have been changes. assets being frozen, ministered being kicked out, prosecutor acting independently and so on

and so forth. so there has been some movement. there's two ways of judging what egypt can do. once with the dominant role of the arab world, it can play like brazil or role of china, in a more positive way than china, more like brazil. second to the domino effect. if it happened in egypt, it will continue to happen. even if libya poses to be a bit more difficult. i think sooner rather than later, they will have to lift the city of gaza. you can't have freedom for egyptians, and not freedom for palestinians. sooner or later, they will be rattled and they will have to start requesting the intelligence of the egyptian people more than the intelligence of mubarak, i think something will happen in the united states, washington in particular, it will start treating those countries like egypt and new sisters of tunisia and so forth, not like clients,

but countries with whom they will have mutual interest and perhaps mutual security, mutual respect as president obama put it. >> thank you. i'm going to ask you to pass that microphone to the gentleman here and come to the front row. >> i'm a freelance journalist. we've been hearing gadhafi talking repeatedly about an al qaeda threat. what do you make of that? and is it just another lie? or is there something else behind? >> is there an al qaeda threat, david, i was going to ask all of you briefly. noman? >> yeah. >> it's a refrain in the last few days. >> yeah, i think it's a symbol of that. first of all, i believe it's a pasteless statement. and just before that, let's say like four weeks ago, everybody knows and libya itself prides

itself on one of fewest countries to get rid of al qaeda. how come out of the sudden al qaeda appears as the driving force behind it? i would like to put it in a different framework. now we have a coin with two faces, you know? there's opportunity and there's a tip as well. the opportunity is for the libyan society with the help from the west as well or the international community to help the libyans to achieve what they want. which is like democratic states. so i think when we talked to the media or talk to the people, this is the message that we need to deliver. when we talk about the other side, i'm not naive to say no, it's safe. when you have chi -- chaos, especially like now, there's opportunity for al qaeda and aqim near the doors now and statements which are crystal

clear. we don't need to go through arab lists, i believe they have force claimed when they said two days about the aqim we will help fight in libya. it's what gadhafi is using now. there is a threat. i strongly suggest we don't need to talk about threats to the media, it will undermine the libyan revolution, all of the lives being sacrificed and the main issue of people protesting outside looking for freedom and the symbol of that and to start to talk about threats. we need to talk about threats, but behind closed doors. what is behind the libyan revolution, it's the libyan people. it's 100% transparent referendum from libya. >> later here, then i'll come to you. >> i'm from a news agency. gadhafi seems to have closer

ties to subsahara and afghan countries, we have reports of him arming local tribes. how does that change the dynamic of the uprising in libya to the others that we've seen? and on a wider question, egypt, yemen, libya, they are all presidents. what happens -- what the likelihood of success in the uprising in countries where they have essentially going against a ruling family? a royal family? >> okay. the links to subsahara africa, was that always there? i mean he's been nelson mandela in the past has called him his friend. >> yes, nelson mandela was crucial in persuading libya to hand over the trial in the netherlands in 1999. and if there was to be an attempt to persuade gadhafi, it would have to involve african

states, and it would have to involve people that gadhafi may still respect and through the african union have an institutional connection with him. the libyan -- gadhafi wants a stage. and he decided that he was never going to be to make it big on the arab stage after the bad history that so many arab countries have had with him. so he created an african stage for himself, in so doing, reviving the au, and turning it in a constructive direction through the creation of african union. whereas, while he listed some resentments for the way in which he tried to strong arm the african countries, on the whole, it's something that has resounded to his credit in africa. and the second issue, of course, is that if the hand of a libyan

central authority is weakened for a prolonged period of time, we may get a resumed search of economic migrants, thinking this is diplomatic territory. >> all of the african leaders that have been polled in recent days, noman, is it your understanding, i'm conscious that actually that we haven't talked much about that. i wonder whether there was initiative that is we missed? >> to be honest with you, i don't think it's the other way around. he's always telling gadhafi how he sees it. especially the african subsahara, sharing the borders with libya, they are in the position to influence colonel gadhafi's decision. he would say in libya, he would never want to leave. i think the most important thing regarding the african subsahara,

not just the libyans, but other cities there, because we have two kinds there. some of them are libyans, there's a vast majority of them they have no stats. they have cards, but they not are not libyan. some of them move. algeria is getting angry about that and the army near the border. if the situation carries on, we will start to see other conflicts there. >> let's talk briefly about the second part of the question. is he operating different in different parts if it's a ruling or monarchy essentially that a ruling family that people are up against. can we have a different tone? jordan and bahrain? >> i started to see the similarities, but i do' a common

threat. it's baffling that the republicans with the willing family. republicans with the willing families and contradiction in term. they have absolutely no problem creating inheritance for the rule to be divided among the on, that's the first layer, and then the end row and the second layer, or the tribe on the third layer. they call it a republic. there's something that republics we've seen will weather it's yemen, they were hoping for it, in egypt they were planning for it, in syria, it's happened. in libya, of course, it was happening and so on and so forth. you have the republics that have created de facto ruling families, not too different than monarchies. because they have the real monarchies, one actually more capable as in morocco and saudi

arabia to hold on to power. while the absolute phony republics ruled by pseudoruling families, the gadhafi ans, to to say. they were to transparently aggressive and democratic, and so transparently unrepublican. >> we begin to see a reform movement in morocco, jordan, iran, and saudi arabia. they published a manifesto for constitutional change in saudi arabia. if this is happening on saudi arabia now, on the serge, i think it's going to go a lot further than we currently anticipate. i think in morocco, the king has

initiated a more liberal regime over the last several years. his position, i think, is relatively secure. but there will be significant constitutional changes on the back of this. the big change may affect that everyone thought the gulf wasn't going to be affected. no one imagined that 1/3 of the bahrainian citizens would be on the street. now with the manifesto for change in saudi arabia, would they affect saudi arabia? would have enormous repercussion s for us. >> sorry. you have been waiting. >> yeah, we talked about arab and the social contract and the uprising have happened in countries where there was less transparency and worst regime. given the power that social networking that we talked about

and satellite media, i'd be interested to hear the panels and ambassadors thoughts about how far the social uprising might well spread. i guess i'm talking about different regions, such as iran, given the social attention that we've seen there, do you see this as encouraging renewed social upsizing from the ground roots up, and on the flip size, encouraging reform from the top down which may have it's own lead into revolution again coming up from the bottom as say in the form of soviet union. >> well, iran is one the countries that's been blocking some of the coverage of the events in egypt. >> that's the general point. electronic media facilitates oppression, and once the movement has begun, it helps inspire people, yes. but you are constantly trying to keep ahead if you are organizing the effect of a police state's

ability to use those same tools against you and your fellows. second question -- second point. iranians like so many others in the middle east have family living in completely different situations from the ones which they are experiencing. they know from annual visits what it's like to live under those poverties. so it's not the medium that makes the change to the arab spring. because this technology has been out there they are mall treated and there's a better way of doing things. it's the barrier of fear. and that has happened as a result of the success of revolutions beginning with tunisia. so, yes, i believe that an academic who spoke at chatham heist maybe right when he says this means the end of the stability. because the barrier of fear is

down. now in iran, a present, the forces of the establishment are well ahead of the current of protest and rejection of clerical rule. and short of some tremendous misstep by the authorities, such as major slaughter in a public care or group demonstrations, i think it'll be some time before the barrier of fear comes down far enough to get the people who are shouting on the roofs in anonymity in the dark into a more coherent, political force. it'll come. but whether it comes in a year or five years or ten years is impossible to say at the present. >> okay. david? >> yes, i would just add briefly that the -- the emergence of the

i.t. revolutions and the new forms of social communications is just the beginning. these technologies are only ten, 15 years old. and new implications emerge from them all the time. they clearly have an extraordinary impact on the authoritarian regimes. because authoritarian regimes want to control the information. once you get the network linkages, the capacity for the control of implications breaks down. this has implications for all autocratic regimes whether they are not middle east, iran, and further into the east. i should also say it's has radical implications to be worked out in the west as well. democracies on many respects. but the implications are not just autocracies. they are also for the west. if the united states is the model, or one the most advanced model of democracy, it lived with a congress which is

gridlocked where most political issues can't find a winning coalition of support. this affects everything from climate change to financial reform. the impact on the technologies, i predict would be just as significant as the impact of the old. >> i'm going to ask for closing thoughts on noman and wrap it up. >> just to say when we talk about the region, we have officially 22 countries, arab countries, you know, members of the arab countries. i'm wondering if anyone would disagree with me, none of them is a democratic modern state. none of them. all of them, they belong to the history who should be very afraid either we talk about republicans, or kingdoms, all of them in terms of the legitimacy, they belong to the history. but this is one the pain that we have to deal with as an alternative, otherwise we have to go to the iraqi situation or

what's going in libya. if it's a real concept and values that we believe. you know why, because of one thing, the civic culture doesn't exist there. so to build a civic state, this is first of all i would like to clear it up. there's something very significant here about libya and why the battle here is very strategic. you know why, what colonel gadhafi is doing now, how he countered the wave will not just affect libya. if he succeeds, it's stopping the wave. it's not going to be peaceful anymore. and it will really, really, i think, affect what's going to happen in iran and syria as well. if he managed to be a civil war, and started to be an international conflict, i think he will be capable of stopping this wave to be spread as a very peaceful, people will get further and they don't accept so-called the social contract or corrupt contract. in terms of like, okay, provide

to us security and accept as a subject. this is the situation. what's going on now, i would like to say the people, they decide because all of the past like experience, it's failed. like nationalist, markettist, they have failed. they decided to go out and claim the nation's states. >> noman, thank you. manwar, i know you can do this. you have 30 seconds. i wouldn't do this to the others. to you, i think it's fine. >> yeah. let's just say i'm very optimistic about what's going on. this is good new. it's good news in the sense that it happened. it's good news in a sense that it's a work in progress. we are moving in the right direction. there are no guarantees. this would be a long way. actually the hard work is ahead of us, not behind us. but we are here and we are heading in that direction. it's not simply because there's social media and there's young

people. suddenly there's nothing sudden about it. i think we should pay respect due to the hundreds of thousands of arabs who were tortured, jailed, picketed, demonstrated with the hunger strike. why the arab world were not reported, those are the invisible arabs. the hundreds and millions that were displaced by their regimes from iraq to morocco, those -- the torture, the prison, the strike, the activist, the young and the old, the man and the woman, they are the ones who should be thankful. i think in that sense, that's why i'm hopeful and optimistic that's it's going in the right direction. >> okay. thank you. [inaudible] >> everyone, thank you for being here. thank you for taking part in the debate. i wish we had more time. please join me in thanking your panel for tonight. [applause]

tv this weekend. she has written many books. join our conversation sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2. what previous programs at booktv.org, you can find the entire weekend schedules. >> this is central high school in miami, florida. he is here with the former governor and the education secretary. he will talk in just 30 minutes. it could start sooner. we will have it for you live once it does start. it is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. in washington, not much legislatively. speaker john boehner said he is launching a legal defense of the federal law against gay

marriage. in the senate today, not much legislatively. they are setting the scene for the debate next week on spending legislation with majority leader harry reid saying on the floor today that the house bill passed 10 days ago will go down as one of the worst pieces of legislation drafted in the history of this congress. we will show you harry reid's congress -- harry reid's comments. it is about 30 minutes while we wait to hear from the president in florida. absence of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer:ithout objection. mr. reid mr. president, thank you very much. i have a longer statement that i'll give after we finish this colloquy here. yesterday afternoon at 4:00 we met back here in the vice president's office. it was a very fine meeting. vice president biden was there,

my friend, the republican leader, the speaker, and the -- the majority -- the minority leader of the house of representatives. it's hard for me to get this term down since this change in house leadership. anyway mcconnell, reid, boehner and pelosi were there with vice president biden. and we spent about an hour there and the arrangement was that we would have a vote on h.r. 1 sometime this next week and also a voton the bill that we just laid down, which is our alternative as to what we think should be done with the economy. now, i know, mr. president, that -- that our bill, because it's a -- it's the way we have to do things around here, it's a long bill and i'm sure there -- the minority wants to spend some time looking at that. but one way or the other we'll either do it with an agreement or we'll do it through my filing

of different procedural motions and get to a point next week ere we will vote on h.r. 1, which we democrats want to do and we'll vote on the bill -- what's the number? what is the number of the bill that we have at the desk. the amendment? mr. reidanyway, it's been here a while and i need -- whatever the number is, it's the democratic alternative that senator inouye has laid down. mr. president, we believe, and i'm confident that the speaker feels the same way, that the thing that we should do is vote on h.r. 1, which we've had calls for voting on that for more than a week now. i've had statements to the press -- from the press why doesn't reid setup a vote on h.r. 1. and that's wt we're doing. we'll either do that with a

consent the agreement with the republican leader or a procedural motion that i'll file later today. the amendment to that is numbered 149 and that senator inouye's cuts of som some $51 billion from what the president's budget was. and to move the process forward, i think thathis is the place to start. we have some confidence that we'll get -- we'll get the votes on our bill that we'll move this matter forward. but, regardless, if h.r. 1 doesn't pass, and it won't pass, and if ours doesn't pass, we at ast know where we stand, mr. president, to move this ball down the road a little further. the speaker said that that would allow t negotiations to start and i think i'm paraphrasing, but i think that's what he said. and that's what all of us in the room decided to do yesterday. today i seek society those two votes for tuesday an. one vote on passing h.r. 1 as it

came over from the house and we would, after that, we would have a vote on passing the alternative, which is the chairman inouyeas drafted and it's amendment number 149. and once we got that, it would seem to be a fair proposition to move forward. as i said, mr. president, i know that my friend, the republican leader, has scheduling problem, and i understand that. i would like to have come here earlier today, and so would he, but we weren't able to do that. i will give a fl, more explanatory statement in a few minutes. right now, what i do, mr. president, is i ask consent that upon disposition of s. 23, which is this -- the patent bill, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 14, h.r. 1, the defense appropriation long-term -- that senator reid be recognized --

reid of nevada be recognized to offer a substitut amendment, the text of which is at the desk. that there be four hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or the designees, upon the disposition of -- let me read that again, mr. president. sorry about that. there will be four hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or designees prior to vote in relation to the substitute amendment. upon disposition of the substitute amendment the senate proceed to a vote on passage of h.r. 1 as amended if amended with no iervening action or debate and no motion be in order to the substitute amendment. that the substitute of the amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold, that h.r. 1 if it does not achieve 60 votes, -- affirmative votes, it that we return to it -- return it to the calendar. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object. for the short time i'm going to

object at least for today. we received this 350-page amendment at 11:45. we need to have a chance over the weekend to take a look what the our friends have offered here and it could well be that by monday we will conclude this proposal that -- that the majority leader has laid out as the best way to go forward. we'll continue to talk about that over the wkend, but for the -- for today, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent upon disposition of s. 23, the patent bill, the senate proceed to h.r. 1, the defense appropriation long-term continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: for the same reason, i object. the presiding officer: the obction is heard. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 14,.r. 1.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 14, h.r. 1, an act to make an appropriations for department of defense and other departments and agencies of theovernment for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a clotureotion that's at the desk and i would ask that the clerk are report that. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 14, h.r. 1, an act to make appropriations for the department of defense and other department and agencies of the government for fiscal year ending september 30, 2011 signed by 17 senators as follows, reid of nevada, inouye, nelson of florida, whitehouse, conrad,

begich, udall of new mexico, casey, shaheen, klobuchar, cardin, boxer, franken, feinstein and bingeham. mr. reid: i ask that the mandatory quoru call under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now withdraw my potion to -- my motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mr. reid: mr. president, when an american family sits in the churchillen at their table and sorts through their finances, as they often do, partisan polits don't figure into that equation. when the families we represent calculate their own budgets when they add up the cost of gas and groceries, tuition in some instances, and other necessits, they care more about the bottomlines than news headlines. when a family desperately counts the dwindling number of weeks when the unemployment insurance

runs out, that famil doesn't have time to keep track of who scored the political points. when you have to make the tough decisions going into any budget those decisions have to be practical, not political. we often tell ourselves and our colleagues that we should be as responsible as the american people. as theirepresentatives, we must be sympathetic to the challenges outside this chamber and we need to come quickly to a resolution that benefits them before we worry about whether it benefits us. as careful as we must be not to waste the american people's money, we must be just as mindful not to waste their time. regrettably, though, the budget debate has turned into a political exercise. and i'm sorry to say, mr. president, not much more. that's counterproductive. we need to be as serious as the challenge before us. i'm much more concerned with actually keeping our country

running and investing smartly in our future than in this political game that we see. when they wake up in the morning, the american people want to send their children to a good school and then go to a good job and, mr. president, now they're saying a job. they want their families to come home to a safe neighborhood at night. they want to go to sleep knowing our country is safe from those who want to do us harm. they don't care about who gets credit. they don't care who thought of how best to do it. they just want us to do it. the time really thousand then for political -- now for political posturing should be over. we setup a procedure. it was agreed on in the vice president's office to get this h.r. 1 out of the way. everyone knows it's not going pass. it's a very very difficult, bad piece of legislaon.

we'll get rid of that. we will do what we think is responsible and cut spending b by $51 billion and not have all of those mean-spirited riders that are attached to h.r. 1 that on their own couldn't pass anything over here, mr. president. is a mad rush to see who could do the most essential amendment. bring it over here in the day -- in the light of day, refer it to a committee, have a hearing on it, and once that was done, none of it would come to the floor with rare exception. they weren't willing to do that. so the time for pragmatism is overdue also. so this is what the senate's going to do. we're going to vote early on democrats plan and the republican pn. let the american he people see which is the betr of the two. everyone will have ahance to

be on record supporting whichever they use to do. whichever plan. let me talk briefly about the per are its of each of -- the merits of each of these plans and what they will do. first of all, h.r. 1, which will go down in history as one of the worst piece of legislation ever drafted in this congress. first, this reckless republican plan that the tea party has pushed through the house, that irresponsible proposal slashes investments, cuts jobs and sacrifices security an education. yes -- and education. yes, it cuts a lot of money today, but america would lose so much tomorrow because these cuts ar made arbitrarily without regard to the consequences. that's why leading independent economists agr it would slow growth and cost jobs. the day before yesterday on national public radio they had more than 300 economists who

were saying with one voice, don't do this. we can't be blinded by the big numbers in the house republican plan. we have to scrutinize how they cut $63 billion, and the truth is that it adds up to to $61 billion through a significant subtraction of programs the american people don't want to lose. it slashes more than $1 billion from social security, security, $1 billion, which means half a million seniors who paid into social security their entire lives and now are eligible for it wouldn't be able to get theenefits promised to them. there is nobody to process the claims. it cuts $700 million from education, which means a million sadvantaged students could lose funding and more than 10,000 teachers, aides and school staffsould lose their jobs. it would even take $200,000 --

i'm sorry, 200,000 children, i'm sorry, mr. president, out of the head start program. what's the head start program? these are not just words. they're programs to educate the poorest of the poor children. it's worked out well. try to find somebody that criticizes the head start program. these little boys and girlsave no alternative, and it's worked out well because the parents are involved. they're going to eliminate 200,000 children from this wonderful program of head start. the republican h.r. 1 closes poison control centers and cuts cuts $100 millionrom food safety inspections. that means the food we eat could be both less safe and more expensive, and that's really a lose, lose proposition. it cuts $750 million from renewable energy investments.

the reason that's so important, mr. president, is these investments are incentives for people to do these kinds of jobs. you can drive from my home in searchlight, nevada, 36 miles, you get about to the 31-mile mark, you look off to the left and there is a million solar panels being installed there, a million solar panels, producing huge amounts of electricity, summer and winter in what we call the great dry lake. that was done because of these programs. so we don't have to be holden to the middle east tyrants there who are shipping us oil. it cuts three quarters of a billion dollars from renewable energy investments which will cost us jobs, threaten our energy independence and delay the day america lives and works in a clean energy economy. it cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from border security, port security, federal emergency management agency. when an emergency comes up, we need to be able to respond to

that. even republican congressmen are said and are admitting it's not so smart to pittsburgh much pennies on the backs of our national security first responders. in my conference room right across the hall, one of the shriver boys came in to see me. the shriver family has done so much for our country. the eldest shriver who just died was head of the peace corps, but their -- probably their number one mark has been how they've worked with children, young men and women with challenges. physical challenges, emotional challenges, and they brought >> we will show you senator mitch mcconnell's statement from

the floor soon. now we have the president with jeb bush. >> secretary duncan, president obama, i am incredibly honored to be here to welcome such distinguished guests to our beloved state and to introduce people who are leading the state of florida in terms of educational achievement. because of the florida system of high expectations for students, a focus on reading, accountability for schools, rigorous college prep courses and the broadest array of courses for families, sunshine state students, florida students, are above the national average in reading and math and more students are graduating than ever before. there is a lot more to do, a lot more to do. mr. president, as you have

said, education achievement is not a republican issue or a democrat issue. it is an issue of national priority. states must be held accountable for presenting high expectations for all students. every child, regardless of their family income, should have access to a quality education. it is vital that high school students graduate with the knowledge and skills to be successful in college and their careers. children only have one chance to receive a quality education. they deserve to learn from excellent teachers. those teachers deserve to be rewarded for their incredible work for equipping the next generation's elite. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] [cheers]

we know this is possible. we are seeing it happen here at miami central high under the leadership of principle turner. [cheers] secretary duncan, thank you for your commitment and service to our country. i give you the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] [cheers] >> hello. thank you. thank you, everybody.

everybody have a seat. have a siege. -- have a seat. it is good to be here today. [applause] i am excited. i am thrilled to be here. it is good to see all of you. i want to thank somebody who is going to be one of the best education secretaries we have ever had, arne duncan, for being here. [applause] we also have your congresswoman, fredericka wilson.

give her a big round of applause. congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz is here. give her a big round of applause. your outstanding school superintendent. give him a big round of applause. [applause] and a very impressive principle, renita turner. [applause] i gather we also have some members of the football team here. [cheers] i understand you guys were state champions.

is that right? [cheers] they look pretty big. and some of them are not smiling. they have their game face on. we are also honored to be joined here today by another champion of education reform, somebody who championed reform when he was in office, somebody who is now championing reform as a private citizen, jeb bush. we are grateful for him being here. aside from being a former governor of this great state, jeb is best known as the brother of marvin bush. [laughter]

[applause] apparently, the the rest of the family -- back in the day. the truth it is that i got to know him because his family exemplifies public service. we are so grateful to him for the work that he is doing on behalf of education. thank you. [applause] to see thed a chance school here at miami central. i met your outstanding principal. i talked to some of the great students. we went the lab, at their robots, computers, this and that. i was confused, but i nodded pretending i knew what was going on.

it is inspiring to think about to where you were just a few years ago and were you are today. right? you came together to turn the school around. i think the rest of us can learn something from that because that is what we will need to do all across the country. right now. we are at a pivotal turning point. we just came through a tough recession. it has taken a big toll on families here in florida and all across the country. to the accelerate our recovery, we took some essential steps to spur higher -- spurred hiring and economic growth, including tax cuts that are making paychecks bigger. i am proud the republicans and

democrats came together to get that done. you are seeing the steps make a difference. this morning, we learn that the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level in nearly two years. [applause] our economy added 222,000 jobs in the private sector. our economy has not added 1.5 million private-sector jobs over the last year. that is progress. but we need to keep building on that momentum. in a world that is more competitive, more connected than ever before, that means answering some difficult questions. how do we attract new jobs? how do we attract new business? how do we attract new industry

to our shores? how do they grow our economy? how do we make sure all of you, all of our students, whether they go to miami central or anyplace else, how do we make sure you have a chance on the american dream? that is why i am here today. i want to talk to you about that. in today's economy, companies are making decisions about where to locate, and to to higher based on a few key factors. they are looking for reliable transportation and communications network, like high-speed railroad, high-speed internet. [applause] they are looking for a commitment to innovation and investment in basic research. so that companies can profit from new ideas and discoveries. most of all, the single most

important thing companies are looking for our highly skilled highly educated workers. [applause] that is what they are looking for. more than ever before, companies hire where the talent is. i want all the young people here to listen. over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs are going to require a level of education that goes beyond a high-school degree. first of all, you cannot drop out rate you cannot even think of dropping out. [applause] it is not going to be enough to adjust to graduate from high school. you will need some additional education. a good education equally good job. -- equals a good job.

we need to make more investments in education carried as a nation, making these investments in education, innovation, infrastructure, they are essential. what makes it tough is that we are in a difficult fiscal situation as well. the government has been spending more than it takes in. in order to make sure we can keep doing our part to invest in miami central, to invest in your schools, to invest in your education, we will have to get serious about cutting whatever spending we do not need. i have called for a five-year freeze that will cut the deficit over four built -- $400 billion over the next decade.

to achieve those savings, we have proposed eliminating more than 200 federal programs. we are freezing the salaries of hard-working fellow servants. we're finding ways to save billions of dollars. that is just the start. we will have to cut spending more and ebert -- excess of spending wherever we find it. spending on entitlements, spending on the tax breaks and loopholes. i will be sitting down with democrats and republicans to figure out how we can reduce our deficits. our job is not just to cut. even as we find ways to cut spending, what we cannot do is cut back on investments like

education. that will help us create jobs. [applause] either we cannot sacrifice your future. -- we cannot sacrifice your future. think about your family. say something taza happens, somebody gets laid off in the family or there is a medical emergency. if your family has to cut back, what do you do? you give of things that you do not need. you give of vacations. maybe you eat out less. you do not buy as many new clothes or that new car that you thought you needed. the last thing you give up on is saving for your child's education. blasting you give up on is -- the last thing you give up on is making sure that your children have the books they need and the

computers they need. you know that is going to be the key to his or her success. in a lot -- in life. over the long term. this industry for our country. when we sacrifice are committed to education, we are sacrificing our future. we cannot let that happen. our kids deserved better. our country deserves better. over the course of march, what we are calling education month around the white house, i am going to be traveling the country. we will be talking to parents and students and educators about what we need to do to achieve reform, promote responsibility, and deliver results when it comes to education. [applause] i decided to come here to miami

central ticket of education month -- to kick off education month because you are doing what i challenged people to do shortly after i took office. turning america's lowest performing schools around. this is something that has not received as much attention as it should, but it could hardly be more important to our country. right now, there are about 2000 high schools in america, about 12% of the total number of high schools in america, that produced nearly half of the young people the drop at a school. -- drop out of school. we note these schools are often found in rural areas or in big cities like miami, many of these

schools have a lot of haitian americans, african-americans, and other minority students. miami central used to be one of the schools. used to. [applause] but it is important for us to remember where we has been so we know where we need to go. this is to be a place where the problems on the street followed kids into the classrooms. it was hard for young people to learn. where the dream of college was out of reach for too many. or there was a culture of failure -- where there was a culture of failure that brought everybody down. turnaround these schools --

turning around at these schools is not easy. money is not going to do the job alone. we also have to reform how things are done. it is not easy to turn around and expectation of failure and make that into an expectation of excellence. in fact, it is one of the hardest things that you can do. there are always plenty of naysayers out there that will say that it is not possible. turning around a failing school just means throwing good money after bad. they say we ought to give up on those schools and focus on places that have more breaks and more going for them. here is where i think. i am not willing to give up on any child in america. i am not going to give up on any school in america.

[applause] i believe the status quo is on acceptable, it is time to change it. it is time we came together. we come together as americans to lift up all of our schools. to give every child in america a chance to make the most of their god-given potential. the good news is the that we know what works. we can see it in schools and communities across the country. every day.

we see it in a place like bruce randolph school in denver. this was rated one of the worst schools in colorado three years ago. last may, it graduated 97% of its seniors. [applause] most of them are the first and their families to go to college. [applause] we can see it in mastery charter school in philadelphia, where four times as many students are proficient in math and violence is down 80% compared to just a few years ago. [applause] and of course, we can see it right here at miami central. [applause] a little more than a decade ago, when the state exam started, miami central scored a d.

then it scored an f. halls were littered with garbage. one of the buildings here was called the fish bowl because it was always flooded. in one survey, only of third of all students said they felt safe at school. think about that. only a third. today, mrs. turner, all the outstanding teachers here, the students, you put those days behind you. [applause] you put those days behind you.

[applause] i know you still face challenges. i know you still face challenges, things are not perfect. over the past five years, you started to excel academically. performance has skyrocketed by about 67 percent in math. 40% in writing. graduation rates went from 36% to 63%. i expect him to be at 100%. [applause] you are probing the naysayers

wrong. you are -- you are proving the naysayers wrong. you are proving that process -- progress is possible. it is possible because of your principal, because of all the great teachers that are going above and beyond for their students, including the teach for america corps members that are here today. [applause] to all the teachers here, i hope you will stay with the miami center of family as long as you can. -- miami central family as long as you can. i was reading the other day an article in the new york times about how teachers were feeling just beat up. just not feeling as if folks understood how much work went

into teaching. and how dedicated they were to their students. i want to be very clear. we are proud of what you guys do, each and every day. [applause] we are proud of what you do each and every day. we need to honor teachers. countries that are successful right now academically typically teachers are considered one of the top professions. let's face it. i mean, we also have to make sure that there is accountability for our schools. turning things around here meant replacing a principle, and replacing some teachers. that is tough work. it should not be undertaken lightly. but your school did the right

way. with a process that had the support of teachers and their local unions. you recognize the partnership among teachers and schools administrators and the community, that is the path to reform. it is not easy. but i want to thank the school board and the superintendent and the unions for working together to do the right thing for your stay in. you guys deserve a lot of congratulations. possible because of math and science coaches. saturday school. summer school. i did not get as much applause about that, but it is good. for do guys to get more learning and be in the classroom more. -- for you guys to get more learning and to be in the class and more. you still have time for video

games. you guys never catch a break. you did not even get snow days down here, do you? you have got a technology program that is preparing kids to the manufacturing jobs of tomorrow. i saw some of the work that they were doing in this lab. it was outstanding stuff. it notched up when i go to factories all across america, -- you cannot work on a factory floor today if you do not have training in computers and understand technology. those are the jobs of tomorrow. you have mentors from local business communities. you said at a paris academy to make sure that parents are meaningfully engaged in their children's education. parents have to step up, too.

[applause] i said this were ever i go. when i hear people complaining about the schools, nothing we do let's go will make a difference unless us parents step up at home. and in still our kids with self- confidence. and work ethic that is at the heart of success in school and life. school is not suppose to be easy. nothing worthwhile is easy. nothing worthwhile is easy. the football players understand that. i know training to be state champs can not be easy. why then do we expect people to be working hard on the football field and suddenly, they are surprised when you have to work out hard in the math class?

you have to work hard. [applause] outstanding teachers and principals, a common mission, a culture of high expectations, that is what it takes to turn a school grads. that is what accounts for progress here at miami central. that is why we are going to support you would school improvement grants. you are one of nearly one tells the schools across the map that we are helping to turn around. the approach that we are taking with school improvement grant and school turnaround is the same approach we're taking on all of our education reform efforts. the idea is very simple. instead of pouring money into a watched them, we've

competition, raced to the top. perot that you are serious about reform. -- approved -- prove that you are serious about reform. if you show the most innovative plans, we will show you the money. for less than 1% of what we spend on education every year, raced to the top has led 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. those standards were not developed by bureaucrats in washington. governors developed these reforms. that is the kind of bottom up approach that we need to follow. we want to work with congress this year to fix the current education law and make sure

that it focuses on responsibility, reform, and results. because we know the single most important factor in a student success from the moment they step in to school here is the person standing in front of the classroom. we want to recruit and prepare a new generation of teachers, including 100,000 new math and science teachers over the next decade. we have to get them into the classroom. [applause] with all the steps, are incompetents that by 2012 -- i am confident that by 2020, america will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. that is our goal. that is how we will out educate other countries. that is how we will count compete with other countries. that is how we will win the future for the united states of

america. i am going to keep the pressure on everybody in washington. i know jeb bush and superintended and everybody here will stay focused on students in the sunshine state. i know mrs. turner. she will not let up until miami's central goes from -- until miami central goes all the way up to then -- to an a grade. [applause] mrs. turner means business. she has that nice pretty smile and she is all quiet, but you -- but you can tell that she is, like, do not mess with me. that is right. ultimately, she would say this for herself.

she is not the reason that miami central is making progress. the most important reason is you. the students. [applause] a few years ago, when it looked like the state might have to shut down miami central, the students took matters into their own hands. you took control of your own destiny. you said some things that are worth repeating. cure are some of the things that the students said. we are going to do more than pass the state has. we will kill it. i do not want my school to close. we cannot let that happen. we tried hard this year, we do not give up. we will get through this

successfully. we have to come together as a student body. that is what you guys dead. you came together as a student bo. -- that ishat you guys did. that is why i am leaving here with -- so full of hope. i am full of hope because of -- about your future. if you keep on reaching for success and sw the same passion and determination, the same hard work, the same devotion to excellence, i am confident that we will not only left up our schools, which will produce the best educated people in the world, our country will prosper, and a better day will come to the american people. thank you, everybody. god bless you. [applause] ♪

♪ ♪

>> president obama will be at boston tech's academy next tuesday. you will get another chance to see the speech again tonight. it calls for a freeze in domestic spending, he agrees with that. but not on educational needs. you will see the speech again tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. at a p.m. on c-span2 premier wen jiabao gives a speech to the chinese national people's congress. that is live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. president -- the prime minister of australia will be meeting on monday and speaking to a joint meeting of congress. we will have that live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of votes coming up in

the u.s. senate on fiscal year 2011 spending. senator dick durbin of illinois joined us this morning on washington -- on "washington journal" to talk about the nation's deficit problems. it is about 45 minutes. " continues. host: we want to welcome back to c-span senator dick durbin, the said it.mocrat in the cen guest: it is shabby when you think we cannot reach an agreement. democrats, republicans, on how to fund government? we have big challenges ahead. we face a debt ceiling in a couple of months, literally whether or not because -- whether or not the united states of america will default for the first time in its history, which the -- which would be catastrophic for our country. we need to put together a five-

year budget resolution that we think will move us toward a approach that will reduce our deficit. if we cannot fund government for the rest of the year it does not speak well for our prospects. host: i want to guess to a procedural question neither side has enough to offset a filibuster. what will happen next week procedurally, and what happens beyond those votes? guest: we will demonstrate, what i think it's obvious, that hr1, which cuts $100 billion out of our budget this year is not realistic, goes too far, and cannot pass the senate. we then hope to propose a more honest and balanced approach, cutting up to $51 billion from president obama original -- president obama's original

request. host:. this week president obama -- earlier this week, senator john boehner spoke about this. >> pass in the short-term bill gives senate senate -- senate democrats two more weeks to either consider hr1, or all when their own plan for how we move ahead. americans have a right where the democrats plan to cut spending to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year is. host: he has been quick to point to you and senator harry reid for that plan.

guest: our plan is to do it in a sensible way, and not go too far. i think the house picked a number. it originally said 60 billion, if you remember. a group in the republican caucus said let's up the ante. they went way too far. they made deep cuts to education, worker training, cuts in research and innovation, and the basic infrastructure of america. i pointed those out in my home state. those cuts would be devastating to medical research. our national laboratory at oregon. in out of every student's private college in what draw -- dry up because of the pell grant reduction. we said let's step back, and this in a measured, thoughtful way. let's bring the deficit down.

i hope we follow the model of the deficit commission, which i served on with erskine bowles and alan simpson, appointed by the president. that reduces the budget in a sensible way. host: that same deficit commission also look at entitlements -- medicare, medicaid, and social security -- president obama, so far has not address specifics on that item of the budget. why? guest: he has not because this matter is evolving in the national debate between congress and the white house. first, let me make a couple of things clear. the commission addressed social security. social sector does not add one pay toward deficit. -- social security does not add one penny toward our deficit is not the problem. they do have a problem by the year 2037 if we do not do something before then. we will see it 22% reduction in the social security checks that are going out.

until then, it is solvent, and will continue to be. what i believe the commission said and the american people will embrace is we have to look at the entire federal budget, from the mandatory entitlement programs, as to that tax expenditures, which means breaks in the tax code, reductions, and defense spending, and domestic spending. speaker john boehner and the house has said we do not want to talk about anything besides discretionary spending. everything has to be on the table. host: republicans have said that the debt and the deficit did go up when republicans had control of the house of representatives and when president bush was in the white house. now, we are at $1.50 trillion dollars. it is a huge increase with this president. guest: i have to challenge you on that. let's go back to when bill

clinton left the white house. the national debt in his last budget was $5 trillion. he said to the incoming president, george w. bush, i predict a $120 billion surplus. we have been running surpluses in the budget now. that is the economy he handed to george w. bush. fast forward eight years. now look at president george w. bush's last budget. the national debt was no longer $5 children in his last budget, it was $12 trillion. he said to president obama, welcome to washington, we are losing money, and the next deficit shows the to the next budget shows a deficit of $1.20 trillion. for republicans to say we

should step back, and they will deal with that, it ignores history. during the bush administration we fought two wars without paying for them, and he did something no president has done, cut taxes. it is counter-intuitive. to cut revenue during a war is something no president has done for obvious reasons. it drives you deeply into debt. host: why did you agree to continue the bush era tax cuts for the next two years? guest: we need to stimulate the economy. the earlier stimulus package which the president suggested and passed in congress, avoided what could of been a global depression and the united states economy could been in a much worse position than it is today. this time, we reached an agreement. let's use not spending stimulus,

but tax stimulus to see if we can keep the economy moving forward. there were parts i did not light reaching the ideas of tax breaks for the wealthy -- did not like. the ideas of tax breaks for the wealthy, i did not like. extending benefits for the people they need, and extending tax breaks for middle class families and working families, they were worth it. host: we have the newest jobs numbers. the unemployment rate is now down to 8.9%. guest: it is good to break the barrier of 9%. i do not think anyone is happy. i am not. we need to continue to make sure we do not spoil the recovery. it is very sensitive. if we want to cut the money for education of young people for the training of workers, for

research and innovation so that companies can make new products and create new jobs, and we cut the basic infrastructure, this fragile recovery could fall backwards. host: the unemployment rate was 9.8% in november. guest: which have come a long way, but i do not think anyone is satisfied. host: we will get to your calls per the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. you can also send us an e-mail or join the conversation online at twitter. you supported president obama. how often do you interact with them on a one-on-one level? guest: not frequently. i do not insert myself into his life. he is been kind enough to invite me over for lunch. i have sat with him in the oval office. we were colleagues in the senate, and close friends. i was the first senator to

endorse him for president, and for 12 months, i was the only senator to endorse him. i am very proud of that effort. i think the american people made the right choice. is it tough agenda, but we are moving in the right choice. host: is the job he expected it to be? guest: i did not know if the president expected to inherits an economy in this trouble. we are going through a transformation. sometimes, i think his critics do not give them credit with trying to deal with restructuring our economy. many of the unemployed in america will never return to a job like the one they left. we need to make sure we have the resources available to train them, educate them, and make sure they have the resources available. the alternative is we will fall behind. host: carroll joins us from

north carolina. if good morning. caller: how are you on this beautiful morning? guest: could not be better. caller: i feel i should not help bailout america, because i did not cause the problem. i never over-stepped my boundaries, and my personal opinion is a misuse start dragging out people like bernie madoff from wall street co. they are not going to make the money. there was a wall street article written in january 9, 2009, and what is called is bullish on jobs. if you type that in the computer, you have the charts that goes back to the full term presidents of the way back to 1945. it says that of the six democratic presidents, the

democrats created 21 million more jobs than the republicans. that is almost 1.2 million jobs per year more than republicans. host: will get a response. gerald, thank you. caller: the old same, if you want to live like a republican, both for a democrat. by and large, the economies have improved under a democratic president and there has been more business expansion. i mention of the clinton era. it has been one of the more positive in recent times. i want to address what he said about not making a sacrifice. we need to overcome that. i would say, and gerald, you might not be able to identify what this government has spent in that effort to help you, but a lot of it has had to do with the security of our nation and building infrastructure.

we all consider to be the greatest nation on earth, and we need to make certain that we right the ship, which means in dealing with the deficit in honest terms. the deficit report was a bipartisan effort to put everything on the table and deal with our issues. here is the thing that is not sustainable. for every dollar we spend, we borrow 40 cents. we bar would primarily from china and the opec nations. these are not the easiest creditors to have. if china decided they did not trust the dollar, we would be in deep trouble. they would demand higher interest rates. it would put our economy in peril and raise interest rates. we need to deal with this an honest terms. i said i was questioning of a lot of the republicans pointing fingers at democrats, but the fact is there is a lot of blame to go around. what we need to do now is say

let's stop the finger-pointing, and talk about the future care what will we do together. host: we are seen -- with what we are scene played out in wisconsin, tell us what you feel about the union protests? guest: i support the union movement. i think that collective bargaining led to my family receiving fair wages, a safe workplace, and had -- having an opportunity for a safer future. i think collective bargaining, and the union movement after world war two caution the greatest prosperity in the history of america. american workers continue to be the most productive in the world. the idea that we need to solve budget problems state-by-state by destroying the idea of collective bargaining i think is wrong.

we respect so many people like the firefighters and teachers, and the fact it they want to bargain and stand as one for dignity in the workplace is something we have enshrined in our culture. as the new republican governors in wisconsin, ohio, a challenge that, i think people will say even if i am not a right -- a member of a human, i have the rights to decide if i want to be. host: it is known as the gang of six that includes yourself, senator mark warner, kent conrad, sex be chambliss, -- saxby chambliss -- what is the agenda? guest: it is to reduce the deficit in the world, so that

people will say that the united states has acknowledged the problem and is doing something about it. what we do about tax expenditures. but the tax code. the tax code -- look at the tax code. every year, it gives away $1.10 trillion in tax breaks. a lot of the things are for what we value -- health insurance premiums, mortgage interest -- but, believe me, there are many things that just come off as favors for individuals in certain sectors of our economy. $1.10 trillion in the tax code. do know how much we collecting personal taxes? $1.10 trillion -- of the money paid by and. -- individual taxpayers. we are going to step back and look to this.

how much are we going to change to reduce the deficit? some of the things we are protecting, maybe should not be protected. can we be honest? if we put all of the spending on the table, can we put the tax breaks on the table, too? host: diane joins us from back and ruche, and -- louisiana. -- bought some ruche, louisiana -- baton rouge, louisiana. caller: you have given us apply for of things to talk about. -- a plethora of things to talk about. i call on the republican line, but my family has been a democrat for many years i have been a grandmother. i do not feel that the region

that i left the democrat party. the democrat party left knee. i have become a republican. i'd like to challenge some of your statements. you say that there is solvency in social security. my husband and i are baby boomers. i understand that if more is going out than coming in, i do not understand how there can be solvency. he cannot kick the can down the road. -- you cannot take the can down the road. he need to address that more is coming out than is coming in. you also talk about president clinton and his surplus, but following politics as i have, because i have become so concerned about my future, my children's future, my grandchildren's future, i feel that during the clinton years -- and i voted for president clinton -- i feel that he

somewhat, or his party somewhat, cooked the books. guest: thank you for calling. congratulations on 14 grandchildren. so security and solvency -- here are the facts. not changed and not touched, social security will make every payment that has been promised's 2037. she says -- promised until and 2037. it reflects the apply -- the fact we have been putting more money into the social security trust fund and we have been paid out. we saw you coming with the baby boomers. the idea was to build up a surplus. which covered the need. i did not know that much about

social scared when i was elected. they said it was broke, so we fixed on a bipartisan basis. president ronald reagan and tip o'neill came together and literally save social security -- 50 years of solvency. what happens in 2037? she is right about that part. in 2037, that payment goes down 22%. that worries us. my feeling on the deficit commission is do something today, small in comparison to what it might require 25 years ago, that will guarantee is the guarantee solvency beyond. some of my colleagues say do not touch it. i voted for the commission. the question is how much does a social security program add to the nation's deficit?

the question is -- the answer is zero. we borrow in a way that the general treasury those social security. on the clinton presidency cooking the books, we enjoyed two or maybe three years of surpluses, and helped to pay down the debt of this country, and to make social security solvent for an even longer period of time. there was greater growth than we have seen in modern memory in business ownership, home ownership, and the overall growth in real wages for american workers. i would stand in defense of what happened during the clinton years. i do not believe they cooked the books. i believe they balanced the books, which has not happened since. host: jackie, and the penn line, cape cod, massachusetts. good morning.

caller: how much does the government get in royalties from natural -- natural resources? you have been on that committee, so i assume you can answer the question. why did we decide to become such a big trade partners with communist china? guest: good questions. i am going to need a lifeline. i do not know the amount of royalties we have received for natural resources. i do not think we have received enough. the rights we give to private companies, i do not think are adequately compensated. host: that was the issue from a report that said the federal government could get more revenue to offset losses in other areas. guest: there is no question about it -- is a sweetheart

arrangement. whether we are talking about grazing rights, or the use of federal land for the extravagant of minerals, i think the taxpayers deserve compensation. some of these deals go back 100 years to laws that are just ancient. that is one of the realities. host: one last call from rick in fairfax, virginia. caller: how do you explain your national taxpayers union of f, and are the democrats not protecting the wealthy by capping the insurance tax deduction? guest: i do not know anything about the national taxpayers union. if we are not honest about revenue and spending, we will not deal with this deficit. be honest approach is that we

need to know what people will pay. i think it is an honest approach it goes to the question, are those that are better off, should they be pay more? i think yes. host: public broadcasting, that is one of the areas republicans want to see cut. take us through the debate. guest: if we are serious, loading it up with every political issue, might be a great political exercise, but that does not solve the basic problem. we need a clean spending bill that deals with the bottom line. we need to get through this year, and work for the debt ceiling, and our deficit and spending for the next five years. those are overwhelming challenges. let's not muddy the waters with

the bill that was to include everything about funding the national public radio. that just adds clutter. let's get down to basics and get it right. host: should tax reform be a part of this debate? guest: i think it should. easy for me to say. . . here is news. special favors are going through the tax process. i think we ought to look at it. host: democrats are being critical of the budget process. bill daley, your friend from chicago, and jack lew, a second meeting has been scheduled.

when will that be? guest: i do not know yet. there will be one. on monday or tuesday next week we have taken this -- taken the senate votes, we will have a better idea of the position. we will be willing to sit down and negotiate, as well as the democrats being willing to sit down and negotiate. host: as a member of the house and now the senate, there has always been his back and forth. senate democrats upset at the house floor. is this what the framers intended? >> it's the old thing they used to say in the house. the republicans are the adverse sarry and the senate and tension is a positive thing in the long

run. in the short run, it can frustrate you and make you angry. the senate and rules that slow things down >> the senate continues work on monday for changes for issuing federal patents. that treats a formula for adding up damages. a vote to limit the debate is scheduled for monday afternoon. after finishing up the bill next

week, the senate is expected to take a pair of test votes on two bills dealing with federal spending, current funding expiring on friday, march 18. you can follow the senate on c- span2. the president earlier today told students at miami central high school that employers hire where the talent is, and backs is skilled and educated workers. you can see these remarks tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the chinese premier it gives a speech to the opening session of the chinese national people's congress tonight, and you can see that live on c-span2 at 8:00 p.m. >> over a thousand students entered the documentary contest. c-span will announce the 75 winners of the competition

wednesday morning during "washington journal." >> , mccleskey is the senior vice president and joined us to talk about social issues. you can find the entire weekend schedule. host: our guest is tom mcclusky, the senior vice president of the family research council action. thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me on. host: let's begin with having you define how you view marriage in looking at the domestic marriage act. guest: for generations, for centuries, it is existing between one man and one woman. what the president is doing is purely a political move in dupont -- in instructing the department of justice to drop

any facades of defending the defense of marriage act, which is under fire in at least six different courts right now. i say facades, because earlier, the offenses that the justice department were giving work half-assed at best. there's one previous case in the defense of marriage act and it is probably a blessing that the president decided to move away and now the leadership in congress against a ban and a point attorneys -- and a point attorneys. host: what about a civil bond between two men or two women? guest: it is counterfeit marriage. even on the other side, homosexual workers say it is not enough. they see it as it harder for a

marriage. host: as you look ahead to the 2012 presidential race and the elections for congress, how will the specific issue played out in the republican party and in the larger political debate? guest: it is very likely to be part of the political debate. the cases i mentioned in the defense of marriage act, also the proposition a case in california, a state of marriage amendment, they are very likely to be at the supreme court next year. if you're going to have a supreme court willing that is going to mobilize bases on both sides on what the definition of marriage is, the presidential candidates are certainly going to have to comment on it. host: but gays and lesbians would argue that this is a civil rights issues, similar to what we saw in the 1960's with african-americans.

guest: a number of african- americans would find that pretty offensive. one of the leading groups that redefiningd to d marriage in these terms overwhelmingly voted for barack obama, but at the same time over the -- overwhelmingly voted for the defense of marriage at. host: is it safe to say that as you look at the new republican party you have 80 party that is primarily concerned with -- you have the tea party that is preventing cancer was fiscal issues and spending and then you have your party that is more concerned with social issues. guest: there are social conservatives, national defense conservatives, fiscal conservatives. i have spoken to a number of tea

party rallies and gone to a member of tea party rallies. the crowds are extremely similar, if not exactly the same. in your 20s the pro-life signs at a tea party -- you are going to see pro-life the signs at a tea party rally and vice versa. a conservative is someone who was more concerned about his family, his job, where he is going to get these grow trees next then he is about whether he is socially conservative or fiscally conservative or whichever way you want to define it. host: one of those individuals is in the cramer, a single mom from florida, a flight attendant with delta and one of the early organizers in the tea party.

the we talked to are about the agenda of the tea party movement. here is what she had to say. >> we want fiscal conservatives, even democrats. everybody is for fiscal responsibility. when you are talking about left and right, most of the time people are talking about the social issues. our thing is the fiscal issues. we do not dwell on the social issues. host: can to come together? will they? guest: no doubt. in the 2010 election, there were issues that concerned fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. the issue of abortion was one that probably helped prolong it come out everything from mr. back amendments -- i usually try to define -- during health care

debate, you had a number of pro- life democrats on the issue of life. there are a number of ways that we work together and that we do work together. host: carla has this on our twitter page. guest: in a lot of ways is like the frog in the boiling pot. is it going to affect my marriage directly? not likely. however, is going to define marriage down until it is defined as nothing. it is defined by government because of the benefit it gives societies, the stability it gives generations. in other countries that have had gay marriage or so would unions for lumber, it affects not only the -- for a longer, it

affects the whole community. host: we have been talking about -- one thing that republicans are discussing is the line-item veto for planned parenthood. is that going to happen? guest: in the budget itself is a zero sum. the title 10 funds were removed, but the amendment having to do with planned parenthood had more to do with family planning. in the last performance where you have seen from planned parenthood, in december they admitted that all of their affiliates have to perform abortions or they have to leave the network. an abortion doctor and pennsylvania who should not even be called a doctor. he was a butcher.

he has been known to have killed at least two women and buttered seven children after they were born alive. while he was not -- butchered a seven children after they're born alive. while he was not affiliated with planned parenthood, they were involved in the trying to shut down the laws that would shut people like him down. host: an ad that was recently put together by a planned port -- planned parenthood is now on the air. let's watch. >> i am a mother of two. i was diagnosed early with cancer because of planned parenthood and i have been a survivor for the last 30 years. planned parenthood kills a huge gap for -- fills a huge gap for

women like myself and my daughters. without planned parenthood i would not be here today. host: tom mcclusky, senior vice president of the family research council. your reaction? guest: planned parenthood has recently admitted they do not even do mammograms. there are other services, including public services, that cover a lot. that is where title 10 funding goes to hell. plan. it's more -- goes to help. planned parenthood goes to more abortions. there are 23,000 babies that are not here because of planned parenthood. i supplies with the woman on the commercial. i'm glad that she got some help, except that plan. it is not the only game out

there and it hurts a lot more people than it helps. host: water the chances of roe vs. wade being over the -- what are the chances of roe vs. wade being overturned? guest: i think the chances are pretty good that it will be overturned eventually. but even then, that does not end abortion. existed before roe vs. wade and will exist after. that is why places like pregnancy care centers, counseling centers, adoption services to let people know there are helps out there when you are in that situation. host: family research council's web site is frcaction.org.

what will people find on the side? guest: we are about to start out on a project educating people on henry hyde and the issue of abortion. host: we are beginning to see the republican field take shape with newt gingrich announcing plans to explore a run. candidates will be in iowa next week speaking at a christian organization care and we will cover that on c-span. as you look at the republican field, will you endorse a specific candidate? guest: i am going to be there as well, but i would like to announce that i am not running. i usually push against endorsing a presidential candidate. i think when it comes to presidential politics -- when it

comes to lower prices, we can influence " by getting the right people. -- we can influence by getting the right people in there. i do not see ourselves endorsing -- actually, senator santorum is on my board. i would not see us endorsing any time in the future. host: newt gingrich is among those speaking on monday evening. we will have that live on one of the c-span networks. we will also have that live on c-span radio and streamed it at c-span.org as we look ahead at the republican field in iowa. lawrence joins us from cincinnati with tom mcclusky. good morning. caller: good morning. how're you gentleman doing?

i am calling because i think it is a good point when mr. mcclusky refers to the african- american community. inohio, where i'm from, 2004, african americans overwhelmingly voted to ban gay marriage. it is just like california's deal proposition 8. many african americans, even those who i know, are pro-like individuals, and there is wide agreement in the black community that abortion is wiping out generations of african-american babies. i think the gop could agree is the ticket that is the basis of agreement. guest: he brings up an excellent point. it goes back to the divide you were talking about earlier

between social and fiscal conservatives. there was a debate cpac, and there were people doing outreach to organizations that define themselves by sexual orientation. my philosophy is that there are a bunch of clowns. the republicans are serious about attracting new voters, and especially at the demographics, they are more serious about issues like marriage and life, which are very important in african-american and hispanic communities. they will be missing out on a huge voting block by failing to do that. host: joe writes this on our twitter page.

guest: i think that is a common misconception about some of the things that social conservative agencies and push for or should be pushing for. many of the things the government can do is get out of the way on social issues they can defend -- issues. they can defend what other aspects are attacking basic institutions of our society, like the definition of marriage. legislation that we support on capitol hill is, in a sense, trying to plainfield, trying to insure that taxpayers never have to pay for something as atrocious as abortion. host: might joins us from houston, texas. good morning. caller: i wanted to talk about the african-american family, too. it is an observation about things i read and see.

the african-american family -- about 50% of african-americans graduate high school. their illiteracy rate is very high. their family has been completely broken down and become completely dependent on government since the 1960's. family life is so not structured. you can look at the movies by tyler. . they generally show how terribly unstructured -- the family unit does not even exist. it is like a war. the 30% of the abortions are of blacks, and they represent 14% of the population. one more statistic -- there is another statistic. their life expectancy is lower. they do not have any family structure. they never realized talents because they are completely dependent on government.

the gop should be making inroads into the black families in the form of vouchers that president obama took away from them. being pushed back into the public schools that are sold stealing -- is a disaster. it is a tragedy to the black family. host: would you call your comment a generalization or across the board? caller: studies confirm it. look at the inner-city. the kid youngstown, ohio. look at detroit. look at buffalo. african american families do not have a mom and dad in the house. governments become the father. how do kids realize their talent or what they're capable of when all they get is a check from the government wants a month? host: that is something that president obama has also discussed. guest: i would see it more as a

generalization if you want to see the important role that parents can play in the family structure, i would go to youtube and go to the video of alan west, the congressman from florida, of talking about the role his family played in his upbringing. one of my old home state senators was centered -- was senator patrick moynihan. he was a democrat, yet he wrote about what the programs were doing to the african-american community. it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. if it goes back to my earlier statement that sometimes the best thing the federal parliament can do is stay out of the way. host: kathleen has this point. guest: well, i know my wife is watching this, so i hope she is not using a different name on

twitter to try to trap me. host: trust me, that is not your wife. guest: ok. it is none of those. it is the failure of society at large. i wish i had all of the answers, if i thought i did, i would be wearing a congressional button right now. you can point to the culture and what is on television. you can point to the government programs. you can point to a failure of the churches. to try to pinpoint that it is one deciding factor would be very difficult to do. host: james is joining us from chicago on our line for our independents. caller: might still my first point, but i will add to it. we never considered others when it comes to rights. what we want our world to be, we

do everything in our power to force said on others, totally forgetting the struggle is, in fact, the same. we love to pick and choose what rights people have in america, but we get upset when the shoe is on our foot. it always goes not discussed because i guess it is just too painful. my second point is, he used the frog in the pot thing. if that is gay marriage, turning the heat up really slow, divorce would be putting the cover over the pot so the fraud could not jump out of it. if no one is trying to make divorce illegal because it would not be palatable for us to support someone staying in a relationship they feel is detrimental to them. host: james, thank you for the call.

guest: there are a number of divorce reform programs out there. divorce is devastating to american families. we are trying to address that. it is true, you cannot force two people to stay in a marriage, except right now, it is seen as an easy out. to say that that should not apply to gay marriage is saying you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. host: joe, democrat line. good morning. caller: i want to say mr. mcclusky for his fight against this homosexual disease we have in this country. i do not know where these people think they get their rights from. he is a sick, perverted things

they are doing, if the they are trying to legitimize, and i hope there are many like mr. mcclusky tried to fight against this disease. i am an african-american male, and i am disgusted that they clump this year with my race. the caller from texas is a racist. thank you. host: is it a disease? guest: we need to remember that everyone is a human being in this debate, and everyone deserves respect. it is when others are asking for things and special rights, and special definitions, sometimes for validation. i think that is when you start running into problems. host: part of the issue is when you have those in same-sex marriages saying they want the same health-care benefits, the same rights a husband and wife would have, especially when it

comes to wills, as states, and those type of things. guest: there are packages you can put together that can do all of that. you can go to an attorney and a range that stuff. heterosexual couples do that. brothers and sisters can do that. however, it is a validation aspect, and it is a matter of there being certain benefits that are reserved for married couples. it is what i mentioned before. it is the benefits that the married couples return to society are much greater than the benefits received by any government. host: vice president dick cheney, who is a conservative, has a daughter who was a lesbian and he has supported her rights. what would you say to him? guest: i would check to see if he was armed. i would tell him, and members of

my organization have had conversations with him, he is simply wrong. i know people that are homosexual. it can be a very personal issue, but that is not how you make policy. if you do not read the fine institutions -- you do not read the fine institutions because of an emotional sway. >> lowry joins us from erie, pa., on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i wanted to echo some of the prior statistics. this president should have at initiatives that are rewarded not only traditional marriage, and keeping life, because like the previous caller said, more black babies as a percentage of the population are being slaughtered.

abstinence directors -- this man calls himself a christian. he is not only supporting planned parenthood killing of babies, but encouraging premarital sex among youth, when the standard should be for all school-aged kids, abstinence. we know that abstinence before marriage would completely reduced rates of poverty, because the number one group trapped are simple, female- headed households. we spend $500 billion on poverty related issues but simple- mother homes with no father. we know they are more likely to end the be engaged in criminal behavior. -- to engage in criminal behavior. we know poverty and stds are

destroying minority populations. this president, was to take on issues like obesity, should be addressing that is harmful for people to be engaging in liberal, premarital sex. host: laura, thank you for the call. we will get a response. tom mcclusky? guest: we are supportive of abstinence programs. there are a number of things that this president has done that are very harmful, we believe, to society, and is also kind of counter to what he espoused for his own family. that is what we are asking for. it looks like he is a great dad. he cares about his children very much. that is what we are asking for. the opportunity for other families to be able to be in a

stable environment, and to dream, and to actually achieve one day being president. it is unfortunate that his policies to not reflect that. host: new jersey, democrats line. good morning. guest: you should use bristow pailin --bristol pailin for the absence program. that worked out so well. marriage is nothing but a legal contract all citizens are due the ability to have that legal contract so that they can visit their loved ones in a hospital, so that they can have the financial situation any married couple has. any married couple would say they should have the ability to share the misery of marriage as

well. let's get back to that caller from texas, and all those african-americans whose lives have been ruined. the largest percentage of people receiving social service r. white, single females. for a party that speaks about personal responsibility and taking your softball -- picking yourself up by your bootstraps, i would not have brought a child up into this world unless i was capable of raising that child, physically, emotionally, and fiscally. once the fetus is born that you love so much, the child you hate because the child and that mother are on their own. there is no one else there to put a roof on that child's head, food on the table, or other necessities. as far as african-americans

doing poorly in school, it is hard won a single mother is doing -- working three jobs to keep it together. they're not home to do homework. if they're not there to care for the child. they are not financially capable. host: are you a single mom? caller: no, i am not. i waited seven years to have my wonderful daughter. i started a college fund before she was born. i was a responsible person. if you have no right to make us breeders. we have a choice as to whether we are going to be a responsible mother or not. you have no right to take that away from us. you have no right to put my daughter in that situation. she has control over her uterus, you do not come and do nothing to say on the matter. host: we will give a response from tom mcclusky.

guest: actually i do have a response to that matter. i do not have any policies that want to make you a breeder of any sort you attack bristol -- sort. you attacked bristol palin. i would applaud her being a spokesperson. she made a mistake. she knows. she has been there. she knows the pressures that young women are involved in. on the issue of welfare, and i know this was directed towards me, i come from an area of new york that has a lot of welfare recipients and is mostly white. welfare is not racial. the discussion crosses racial lines. now, the policies that we, as

conservatives, try to push our ones that would help single parents by getting the government out of the way and making sure there are more jobs out there, and sri in them up so that churches and other private services can help out these women not just before babies are born, but also afterwards, where they might need even more help. host: our topic is social conservatives and the republican party. our guest is tom mcclusky of the family research council action. some news from this morning. former presidential candidate, arkansas governor, mike a to b is out with a -- mike huckabee is out with a new book. in an interview with a talk-show host he said he is questioning the comments of natalie portman "peoplescars saying

see natalie portman or some other hollywood starlet who boast we are having children, we are not married, and they are doing just fine. there are not a lot of single mothers that are making millions of dollars every year from being in a movie. she should not glamorize single-motherhood." is she doing that? guest: have not heard the comments, it is difficult to comment on that. it is difficult. when you start talking about trying to use hollywood stars, which are sometimes based out of reality, in trying to make a point -- i think the point being made is dead on. sometimes our culture does glamorized and makes things look a lot easier than they are, including single-motherhood, and i think governor mike huckabee had supported programs, like i

mentioned, especially abstinence, to try to educate children on that. when you start using movie stars, i normally hear about britain spears representing traditional marriage. she does not represent traditional marriage anymore than elton john represents the homosexual community as a whole. you have to be careful about those comments. host: there is a survey on the sexual habits of americans in a cold the washington post." the biggest fine mike -- and bob "washington post." the biggest finding might find that there is no sex at all.

host: so, 25%, essentially saying they have not had sexual activity. guest: i am glad to see that the numbers are up, and i think it is reflective of our youth, especially on the life issue, are even more pro-life than the generation before them. it is more troubling, as you point out, the 75% number. part of that is planned parenthood, as robert talking about earlier, and programs they try to push in the schools. that is more troubling than natalie portman, the way they glamorize sex. if that is why we try to level the playing field, and we do not think those organizations should be funded by tax dollars. host: this comment from twitter. do you want to respond? guest: if shows that you need to

be careful. bristol palin did try to make it work. it did not work out. once a baby is produced, you cannot force these women to get married. it is certainly the best path for them with the right mate, and that is why society needs to help them. host: is reminiscent of the program we saw in the vice- presidential campaign with dan quayle? guest: i think it is much easier to mock him since it was a fictional character he was talking about. host: someone you work for. guest: yes, on the campaign. i thought you meant murphy brown. host: good morning ,kieth, what

is on your mind? caller: we are supposed to learn from our mistakes carry the true choice is before the man and woman laydowns -- mistakes. the true choices before the man and woman lay down to produce a baby. i am over the marriage thing as a constitutional conservatives. there is nothing in the constitution that says these people cannot. the government ruined marriage when they took it out of the church. a prime example of that is you are penalized. if you are single, you can make $200,000. if you are married, and both people are making $20,000, you have to pay higher taxes -- making two hundred thousand dollars, you have to pay higher taxes.

it should go back to the churches. if the charges do not want to marry a gay couple, then, the government can do the marriage or whatever. it seems to be a fight over the word "marriage to." in answer to the same the family unit broke down, it was cause with the invention of the day care. it should be taught in schools. it used to be taught that the most important time of a child's life is between been born and five years old. there should be a parent there always, whether it is a male or female. when a child reaches out their hand, it should not be a stranger, or the government. guest: i certainly agree. one parent needs to be home. there are more than enough studies that show both the benefits of two parent families,

and the benefits of having one parent stay at home. on marriage, you say it is a fight over the definition of the word. it is not that. it is the fight over the definition of an institution. one of the main reasons the government gets involved is because they recognize the benefits that marriage gives to society. to totally ignore that, you are ignoring marriage as an institution within society, and the foundation of it, and that will crumble the society shortly afterward. host: chris is joining us. charlotte, north carolina. independent line. what is on your mind? caller: the previous caller brought this up. it seems to be a fairly simple answer, and maybe that is why it will not work. if you will hear me for a second

-- humor me for a second -- you have an issue with the gay marriage on religious grounds, and those who are for gay marriage want it for legal grounds. it seems to me that the easy answer is if you take all of the rights that are afforded to those in marriage, legal rights, and put those into the idea of a civil union, and then no longer have the government actually recognize marriage, return that to the churches, so that those who believe in gay marriage will then have the legal rights they want, and those who disagree, their churches will essentially be allowed to say whether they will support matt -- marriage or not. the pope disagrees with gay marriage, and i do not know by religion's very well, but he

speaks for catholics, so there should not be a catholic church allows gay marriage. host: chris in alabama essentially says the same thing. guest: well, this goes back to, i think, the marriage lite that i was talking about. just to reiterate, there are certain avenues that others can pursue to get certain benefits like hospital visitations and other issues that have been brought. to the caller's statement, the opposition is not just on a religious ground, and it is not just about benefits. the homosexual community is not just about equality. it is about validation.

they do not want to force the only on government, they want to enforce it on society. there is a group that created an app, where you can report if during a catholic mass you think the priest is talking against gay marriage, which is a tenant of the catholic church. it is obvious that it is not just benefits that are being pursued here. it is not just a government ok. they want validation from society at large, and are willing to tear down religion as a barrier. host: a vix, houston, texas. good morning -- dick, houston, texas. good morning. caller: i will keep it quick. i am a republican. of the president's -- of the republicans that ran for

president have television shows. the gentleman who called in about the blacks on welfare, i can understand that, but you have a bunch of illegal aliens that are on welfare that are taxing our school systems and our hospital systems. i want that guy to address this. i am half indiana. we, as black americans, spend 500 million to $1 trillion dollars and we cannot get it back in our neighborhood. i would not let a homosexual man go into a public rest room with my daughter. guest: i am not sure what i'm supposed to respond to. illegal immigration is not an issue that the family research council action covers, except

among the african-american and hispanic community, i will reiterate that you find overwhelming support for issues of marriage and life. i think those are issues that are big time issues. >> the president today said he agrees with a freeze in domestic ion.ding, but not in educat the chinese premier gives a speech this evening to the opening session of the chinese national people's congress. we will have that live at 8:00 p.m. that will be on c-span2. >> i find the behavior of

professional sports owners to be unseemly in the sense that they want hundreds of millions of dollars from their communities, and yet they do not participate in the problems of those communities. >> this sunday, sally jenkins on the intersection of sports and public policy. >> next wednesday, the house and senate meet together in a joint meeting to hear from the prime uliaster of australia, jolie gillard. earlier today, p.j. crowley spoke. this is heated press reports 37 people died today in and around tripoli, libya. he also answered questions on

the mexican president's comments on damage to u.s. relations due to the cables by with the leaks. -- wikileaks. >> you have been hanging out with those white house guys. [unintelligible] >> i wish to accentuate the word "briefly" today. the briefing has not started yet. we have to formally banged the gavel and declare this in session. let's do that. we will ban the gavel and declared this is in session. good afternoon and welcome to the department of state.

if we could start off with a brief tribute, today we are saying goodbye to wgtwo very god friends, press officer jenny staub. she is leaving washington. she has been a great supporter of many of you to the last couple of years. she will be reassigned to portugal, as cultural affairs officer. we will have to find a reason to go to portugal. we certainly thank jenny who has been an outstanding press officer, and a great friend and colleague of ours. likewise, shortly, the secretary will bid farewell to rich furma, who has been a tremendous friend

and colleague. most recently, rich and the secretary in her testimony last week. his last day he extended into overtime next week when she does one more hearing on the hill, that he helped shepherd the effort throughout the executive branch late last year that led to the ratification of the start treaty. we will bid a fond farewell to our friend rich furma. secretary this morning at a bilateral meeting with the minister of foreign affairs of costa rica. she thanked the foreign minister for his leadership, working to enhance citizen say, promote economic development, science, and technology, and ensure environmental sustainability. they discussed collaboration to the region.

not only working issues that strengthened multilevel organizations within hemisphere, on the issue of citizen safety carry turning to europe, the united states remains gravely concerned over the continuing post-election crackdown by the government of deloris on civil society, independent media, and political operation -- opposition. the government of belarus is creating new political prisoners. we urge the release of prisoners and the free expression of political views, a development of civil society and the ability of citizens to expand their contacts with open societies. for example, there were nine presidential candidates for presidential officer. seven have been charged under

these draconian actions by the government of belarus. turning to the middle east, the united states posited in shifted -- becoming its 63rd member. irena formed in 2009 in response to the growing international interest in the adoption of renewable energy technologies to meet the challenges of sustained economic growth, energy security, and climate change. to expediteion is transition to renewable energy use by helping identify and facilitate adoption of of corporate policies, practices, and technologies. to date, 140 countries dateirena and torras, and the united states --

as the secretary mentioned, with regard to libya, and tunisia, two c-130 sports have landed in tunisia, delivering supplies from the united states agency for international the voluntary each aircraft carried three counts -- three pallets of supplies, and they have been offloaded, heading for the border between libya and tunisia. as we have observed during the course of the last 24 hours, the situation could easily change. the estimate of the international organization for migration at this point is that an estimated 200,000 people have fled libya. of those, 108,000 have

repatriated thus far. there is an international airlift in progress, which has helped in easing the crisis, caused by the influx of migrants in to pitch in asia. these aircraft are carrying humanitarian supplies. we anticipate that tomorrow they will return and participate in the flow of migrants from tunisian back to egypt. >> they are libyans who repeat treated? >> these are all third-country nationals who, as we have said, the estimate is there could be as many as 1.5 million third country nationals working in libya, and many of those are still in the process of making their way out of the country. >> they were concerned that the flow could be dropping a bit, people are being prevented from

crossing the border. i am wondering if you -- the monks -- >> we have seen dramatic drop-off in people at the border, and we share that concern that perhaps there are some security elements in libya that are inhibiting this flow. we are looking at that. i do not know if we have yet seen any specific evidence, but that remains a concern. [unintelligible] like chad and other places. are you urging these countries to allow passage? >> fact it is a tribute to both egypt and tunisia that notwithstanding their own transitions, they have been able to effectively work with

the international community and manage this tremendous influx between -- out of libya in both directions. the international community is prepared to help them. the situation on both sides is remarkable. >> >> there are many injured -- indian internationals in libya. >> i am not aware of any specific help, but what we have been doing for the past couple of weeks is sharing information probably across the community. when we were chartering aircraft, up to a week ago, we were opening seats for countries who were able to get their citizens to the ship dock or the airport.

likewise, in the succeeding week, we have been working with other countries as well in a small number of cases, been able to put americans on board ships and aircraft that are leaving libya. i am not aware of any specific requests, but this is something we are cooperating with as much as we can. >> could you send -- shed light on the number of americans working in the oilfields of what is the status of these folks? >> we have to evacuate did a very significant number of people, and we have as a government, but also private companies, have also made own arrangements for taking employees out. i cannot know at this point we are aware of any citizens who are still in the villa who have

not -- who are still in libya who have made the choice to stay. we continue to work with anyone who is contesting us in seeking assistance to leave libya. there is something approaching 6000 people in libya who are dole nationals caught u.s. citizens as well as having libyan citizenship. just from a practical standpoint, it is more difficult than those cases because libya does not recognize dual citizenship. anyone who has a dual national test to use a libyan passport. >> the you know of any oil companies who are keeping their employees? >> i am not aware of any employees who have not found their way out. >> trying to recapture areas

dominated by a -- and they are using rockets and helicopters. how can you help these? >> we continue to watch the situation closely inside libya. we know there is ongoing clashes between elements that are still supporting or sympathetic with the gadaffi regime, and those who are now an opposition. as the secretary indicated this morning, we continue to evaluate options as to how the international community might influence the saturation inside libya. planning continues to provide the president with a range of options. we remain in discussions,

including nato, about possible actions. as she did, again, we offer the best solution is for the colonel to cease his attacks against his people and to step down. >> is there a discussion about a no-fly zone? >> we continue to have that optn under active we view. the state department is on one side and the defense department is on the other. >> you are talking about a full range of options. the military says we need to choke off the talks. >> i do not see any daylight between those statements. what the secretary of state rightfully said and what the president emphasized yesterday

is that we are developing a range of options. no option has been taken off the table. as the secretary of defense reminded us, he is absolutely right. you have to understand the implication of establishing a no-fly zone. it is not something you can do with the snap up a thing. there are implications and costs for this. that did not preclude that this could well develop into an option that we have to seriously consider as things go forward. >> the discussion took place today between the secretary and her counterparts in the state department? >> i am not aware of any specific conversations today. we continue to have and inter- agency process and continue to develop the options that the president has requested. >> what is your opinion of these

rebels who have taken up arms against the libyan government? does the libyan government have the right to defend itself against these particular people who have taken arms against them? do you consider him attacking our armed civilians? or is there beginning of a civil war in the country and he is entitled to defend himself and his forces against those who have arms? >> the fact that the government has turned lethal, overwhelming force against this population is of grave concern to us. it has de-legitimated gaddafi as a leader. we have called for him to step down. we are greatly concerned about

the ongoing violence. there is a risk that this violence could turn into something like a civil war. we want to do everything we can to avoid that happening. the best solution here is for colonel gaddafi to give up the fight, step aside, and opened the door for new leadership in libya. >> i am understand that. but the question is -- i am not talking about civilians. i understand you would have an issue about him attacking unarmed civilians in the streets. i am talking about armed rebels fighting the government and government forces. what is your opinion of military action? is this an act of war? is it some kind of civil war? or do you consider it the same thing of him attacking --

>> the united nations resolution passed one week ago made clear that the violence needs to stop? . >> on both sides? >> that is something we have a spouse from the outset of these developments across the region -- espoused from the outset of these developments across the region. it has been colonel gaddafi who chose to carry the fight to those who stood up in opposition against him. those around him have a responsibility. there will be accountability based on the actions they have taken. he could have opened the same kind of dialogue with his people that we are seeing in bahrain, that we are seeing in the other countries. he chose to turn his weapons on

his people. he will be responsible and accountable for those actions. >> this is not answering the question is if you are using that argument that you are saying that in egypt or tunisia or bahrain or anywhere where those governments have used force against the people, that those people are entitled to use force against them. are you saying -- you have not said in libya that you urged both sides to exercise restraint like you have with regard to other countries. are you saying the rebels have the right to carry arms against gaddafi or not? >> it is difficult for me to comment on what is happening in one corner of libya versus the other corner of libya. it was libya who turned the guns against its people. they defend themselves in light of the aggression that the

libyan regime has carried on, not just by military forces, but by the mercenaries that are in the employment of colonel gaddafi. there was and remains the opportunity for dialogue in which colonel gaddafi, who first chose to claim the unrest in libya occurred because the population is drunk -- then he claimed it was all about al qaeda. ultimately, it is all about him people these people are demanding a new day in libya and they are entitled to that new day. >> how can you say there is room for dialogue and in the same breath say he has to go? you are not giving him any faith in that dialogue. >> we think he has crossed the line in the actions he has chosen to take in the past three

weeks. when we look at the situation, we want to say, as the secretary and the present have said, we want to see general reform. it is clear to us that gaddafi is not interested in reform. >> the dial-up you are proposing would be between whom? -- the dialogue you are proposing would be between whom? >> gaddafi has chosen to use violence against his people. that is why the president and others have called for him to go. there is dialogue to facilitate the doctor's departure from the same -- facilitate gaddafi's departure from the sink. there is a political opposition that has developed. there is clearly political

opposition that has developed in libya. there was the opportunity for dialogue involving colonel gaddafi. we are likely past that point. at this point, the dialog needs to be between those who want to see a brighter future for libya, a democratic future for libya. in order to see that happen, it is time for colonel gaddafi to step aside. >> do they have a general right to self-the finned? -- to self-defend? >> there are rights and responsibilities. gaddafi has been a brutal dictator for four decades. he has turned his weapons against his people rather than

engaging them. we believe he has forfeited the right to leave libya. >> they are asking the united states to provide them with some kind of ammunition. are you ready to cooperate with them? >> right now we are focused on humanitarian implications of what occurred in libya. it may well be the case that there are too many weapons in libya already. we want to see this peacefully resolved. we want to see the violence and the bloodshed stopped. we are evaluating options as things develop. our preference is to see a peaceful resolution of this. that is why we have called for gaddafi to step aside. that is the most likely step that will lead to the end of the violence. i am not ruling anything in or out.

we are aware that people have called for arms and weaponry. we have made no judgment on those things. we would prefer to see this resolved in the best way. the best way is through gaddafi's departure. >> who are the rebels? does anyone know their political identity? >> you are talking about rebels. that has implications. i am talking about political opposition. there are people who are standing up. there are tribal figures, political figures, military figures, business men who are saying they want to see a different system emerge in libya. we are reaching out to as many of those figures as we can to understand what is happening now and to understand how we can be most helpful in bringing this current situation to a successful and peaceful

resolution. but they are a wide ranging group. we see signs that they are beginning to organize and coalesce. we will be watching and communicating with them and trying to find appropriate ways to be helpful. >> is there a command and control structure for the rebels? >> in our conversations, there appears to be an emerging structure. this is something that is still in its nascent stages. >> they have appointed a replacement for the u.n. ambassador. have you heard anything from them regarding the ambassador in washington? >> not send the facts earlier. -- fax earlier.

libya has the ability to talk to us. >> with there be any visa problems? with the u.s. except his credentials as the libyan envoy? >> we have official responsibilities in supporting the united nations. there are agreements that died that support. the first step in that process is our -- that guide that support. the first step in that process is for libya to declare that person. >> libya is not listening to the united nations or the international community. do you consider him still be present or ruler of libya? and how long will the options

ago before moradabad -- more deaths occur in libya? >> it is a dangerous situation. mr. gaddafi is responsible for what is happening in libya today. we and the international committee will hold him accountable. >> the president said he is considering all options, military, non-military. people are being fired upon. you said gaddafi has unleashed lethal, overwhelming force against the people. had deteriorated to the point where you must intervene? >> that is a question that defies an easy answer. we will continue to watch the situation closely. we are concerned about what is happening. as the situation evolves, we will see the options that the

president has called for. we will make decisions as appropriate working collectively with the international committee and others in the middle east. >> is there a benchmark? >> we are watching and developing and we are prepared to act and respond as appropriate. >> it seems to me your government has no real plan on what is the next step to raise the pressure on him. the protesters are not making further inroads right now. >> we want to see the people of libya win. they win with the doctor's departure. -- with gaddafi's departure. >> will there be any more c- 130's going in?

>> they will be prepared to move egyptian citizens out of tunisia. we remain concerned about the swell of people. the conditions there are still arduous. it is cold at night. these people are exposed to the elements. we want to get them back to their home countries. a significant number of these people are egyptians. that remains a major focus. we are working with other embassies and as people come to the border and identify themselves as citizens of a particular country, iom and others will look for ways to ensure safe passage. >> "the new york times"is

reporting today that there was a bilateral meeting at the white house. after the meeting, will the u.s. have a relationship with him? >> the ambassador has done tremendous work to advance u.s. interests. they are addressing mexico's security challenges and issues within our relationship. >> president calderon said relations with the u.s. were strained. how can you say the relationship is going naturally? the president of mexico is

saying the relationship is not particularly good. >> we understand the challenges we have with mexico are difficult. there is stress on mexico and the united states. we are working hard with mexico on security issues that are of great concern to both of us. we recognize the extraordinary burden that this has placed on mexican institutions. that is why we have the initiative to help men -- to help mexico in every way we can. the president said that we are doing more on our side of the border. we have to keep up the pressure on these international criminal organizations on our side of the border as well as helping mexico and others in the region. we are doing that. these are difficult challenges.

the ambassador is working effectively under difficult conditions to manage our bilateral relationship and to help deliver the kind of assistance to mexico that we have pledged. as though it sound is an issue that the mexican have a problem with u.s. policy. it sounds like it is specifically personnel to the ambassador. you have always said you have relationships with countries and not with individuals. is that the case in terms of ambassadors? if a country does not like or does not get along with oil does not feel a particular ambassador has a feel for their country, are you going to let the relationship suffere? >> that is a hypothetical question. the ambassador is, in our view,

doing a tremendous job with the bilateral relationship. i have no plans to adjust his status. >> you have reached an amazing level of progress. is it possible that due to this lack of [inaudible] >> i have given you the perspective. i did not know me with the subject of discussion yesterday. we have ambassadors around the world to serve our interests. in doing so, we believe that

serves the interests of the country and the region to which they are assigned. as i read that story yesterday, i believe president called iran raise the issue of wikileaks. we fully understand -- president called iran -- president calderon raise the issue of wikileaks. we are determined to work through it whenever tensions have been created by the emergence of these cables. that said, what these cables show is that u.s. diplomats serving in difficult circumstances all around the world are addressing the common challenges that we have with our partners around the world and solving problems. that is what the ambassador and his team is doing in mexico city.

that is what other ambassadors at our embassies are doing every single day. he and his team are absolutely serving the united states' interests and the interests of mexico. >> you withdrew the ambassador because of the wikileaks revelations. he was perceived not to be able to do his job. >> that is not the reason. >> are you sure about that? >> i am and sure about that. we brought back the ambassador because of general concerns about his security. right now, the ambassador is on the job working hard to understand fully what is happening in libya. and to see what we can do to

help the people of libya see a better tomorrow. >> do you have any concerns that this will be taken by the mexican government as a challenge? >> i have given you our perspective. >> on the israeli issue. do we have an answer on the status? >> i have asked the question. i have not received an answer. >> it has been said that the united states is not to be trusted and it has been lying about its plans to pursue a peaceful settlement by september 1. what do you think?

>> we are doing what? >> you are not advancing the cause of peace and you are lying. >> i have not seen those specific comments. all i can tell you is what the policy of the united states and the obama administration is. we continue our efforts to pursue a comprehensive peace in the middle east. we are focused on trying to help the israelis and the palestinians achieve a framework agreement and a two-state solution. and viableocates of a stron palestinian state that can live in peace and security with its neighbors. we are determined to continue this effort. the best way that the parties

can advance this process is to return to direct negotiations. >> he said that in the context of pushing the europeans to go on their own. would you support that? >> our view is that the only way to resolve the core issues is through negotiations. in other efforts are sideshows that we do not think will be successful. >> will you go to the general -- they are saying they will go to the general assembly. >> david pale was in the region. we expect to have meetings in the coming days with israeli officials. we have not stopped doing what we are doing.

it may not be evident every single day but we continue to work with the parties to try to narrow the existing differences. we understand that they exist. we understand this is going to be harder. just because there are fewer formal meetings that might have been the case six months ago does not mean we are not determined to move this process forward. >> did mr. [inaudible] to go [inaudible] >> it was said that he was going to be given an armored vehicle before he was assassinated. can you confirm that? >> we shared our genuine concerns about his security.

>> were there any efforts that you recommended held up by any [inaudible] in the bilateral relationship? >> we were quite aware that he had received multiple death threats. we were concerned about his concern -- his security as we would be about any prominent individual subject to death threats. we encourage the government of pakistan to do everything possible to provide for his security. beyond that, we will not comment. tragically, his funeral was today. the ambassador and other members of the embassy staff attended. >> pakistani people are saying they will bring murder charges.

you talked with the doctor. where will this case continue? [inaudible] 1 of the pakistani nationals. >> there are court proceedings that are continuing. we look forward to a march 4 high court hearing. we continue to work with the government of pakistan to resolve this as quickly as we can. >> the pakistan government is [inaudible] >> i would not comment on the security. as the secretary has made clear, this is a great tragedy for pakistan. we remain concerned about

issues related to tolerance in that country. >> can i go back to you a statement yesterday? you are speaking for the united nations security council. you did not say that -- does that mean you have to tone down what you are seeking? do you know what you are seeking at this point? >> what i said was that we are consulting actively within the security council. ne of the possible outcomes would be a presidential statement. >> why did it come out at this point in time that you started raising this?

doesn't have anything to do with the chinese government or the chairman's position? >> i do not know if there is any particular timing of it. we continue to focus on the implication -- the implementation of the security resolution. we have made clear that in our view, the korean peninsula has to take into account the enrichment program. >> have you been trying to talk to china? >> about this program? yes. >> it was said in an interview that