video and other winning document these -- >> next on c-span, we are live at the national press club where ted turner and t. boone pickens will be talking about renewable and alternative energy and focus in on the pickens plan for energy. this will get under way momentarily, live on c-span. >> good afternoon to. if i could have your attention please. good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i am the broadcast journalist for the associated press. i am still asking for the attention of the people in the far corners. i am the one offered fourth president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for

journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming and events such as this while also trying to foster a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, visit our website at www.press.org. and you can donate to programs. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speakers and those of you attending the event today. we have a full house. our head table includes guest of our speakers as well as working journalists were club members. if you hear applause in the audience, members of the general public are in attendance and we are grateful for that. it does not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic object i would also like to welcome our cspan and publicly audiences. our luncheons are featured on our weekly podcast from the national press club available on itunes.

you can also follow the action on twitter. after our guest speeches conclude, we will have q &a and they will get at as many questions as time permits. i would ask each of you to stand up briefly as your name is announced. beginning with charlie leoka, editorial director with consumer travel alliance. bill loveless post ofplatt's energy week, joe rothstein, allen beurga, bloomberg news. we are grazed by the presence of mrs. madeleine pickens, wife of mr. pickens. maryland gewak and vice chair of our speaker committee. we will speed over the guests and myself. a list of charbonneau --

elissa charbonneau and kate. elizabeth dewberry is a guest of mr. turner. terlinsky, mightsorhan, robert uhn from cnn,tomgdoggett, please give them a round of applause. [applause] our guests today are a pair of businessman turned plant the pressed coming to us with a plea and a pledge parliament toward alternative energy sources. ted turner is the founder of cbs

and cnn and the chairman of ted turner enterprises. he has been devoted to environmental causes, politically and financially president in the alternative fuel debate. he is developing a message for people of all ages on the importance of rescuing the planet. he is also taking on solar energy projects. he is pursuing making the rounds to speak to students in colleges where he tells them that the informant is the most difficult challenge the world will face, more important than iraq, and he also appeals to you with an animated series called "captain planet adn the planeteers. " he is putting his money where his mouth as with the multimillion-dollar stake in solar, the world's largest maker of thin film solar powered modules. he has more than a passing interest in wind power.

mr. turner has a habit of speaking freely. on the charlie rose show, he said steps were not taken to address global warming, but most of those people will have died in the rest of us will be cannibals. he is the largest private landowner in the united states. he has owned the largest bison herd and found a restaurant chain serving by some meat. some are in the located in washington. t. boone pickens whose background is oil maximize self- declared surprising environmentalist. he chairs the bp capital management. he is returning to our luncheon series to give us an update on his energy policy proposal called the pickens plan which calls for a reduction in u.s. dependency on foreign energy, particularly oil through the

introduction of various alternatives. he tells us today he believes the plan as a good chance of passage with the support of president obama. he announced his intention to build the world's largest windfarm which was postponed due to financing, his company is now betting largely on natural gas as an alternative for transportation. he has been named one of the world's most influential people by time magazine and the american wind energy person of the year. he gained the endorsement of the sierra club and has written two new york times bestsellers. he spent $62 million of his personal wealth to support the plan and has enlisted people in his pickens' army. he writes that the first billion dollars is the hardest and his biggest beef with the government is that the u.s. has not adapted a strategy, any strategy for adopting alternative energy sources. our speakers interests include sports but mr. turner was owner of the atlanta braves and said to have been hands-on.

he founded the goodwill games. mr. pickens has given hundreds of million dollar of dollars to oklahoma state university and says he does not miss a football game. that includes the largest single donation to university's collegiate athletic program in history. both are signatories to the giving pledge, a campaign to encourage the nation's wealthiest individuals to promise to give most of their money to charity. mr. turner is known for founding cnn, they both also share a background in journalism. both delivered newspapers as boys. [laughter] before we turn things over to mr. turner, i would like to know that tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of the deep water horizon explosion was led to the bp oil spill. please give a warm national press club welcome to both of our speakers and mr. turner will begin. [applause]

>> my main concern is survival of the human race. as important as i think queen and renewable energy is, as part of that, i don't put it as number 1. i say the existence and danger of nuclear weapons is the greatest danger that we face and a top priority is to get rid of them as quickly as possible. i am not talking about nuclear power. that is a home other issue. i'm talking about the weapons like the one we dropped on hiroshima that killed 250,000 people in one day and later at nagasaki. we could get rid of those weapons. the security council of the un voted last year unanimously to get rid of them. we need implementations. we are lacking in that at the

current time. it is complicated but it is real simple. get rid of all of them. that is the only way it will work. it will not work for us to have 2000 a clear weapons and iraq to have two. that will not work. we have to all get rid of them at the same time. the second tremendous challenge that we face is the growth in human population numbers. there are just too many people in the world right now, 7 billion, 1 billion of us already live in under and deprivation. if we add, as is predicted, another 1 billion over the next 10 years and it goes up to 9 billion over the next 10 years after that, we will have 3 billion people that are starving. we just really have to get serious about family planning and it needs to be voluntary, in

my opinion. if we cannot restrain our numbers voluntarily, maybe we don't deserve to be here if we have to have laws and penalties for having children. i don't think that would be good the third challenge that we face that is overwhelming is the environment, the whole issue of the environment, not just the energy policy which is the most important thing right now under the environmental heading. the oceans are collapsing from over-fishing. the range land all over the angered and dang end farming in an unsustainable way. we have to straighten out our care of the environment and cutting back on the growth in

human numbers is the most important thing we can do. the more of us there are, the more pressure is put on the environment. next but very important is clean, renewable energy. i think we need to move very quicklyboone will talk about natural gas. i described as a bridge fuel, particularly, i feel that the fracking situation, we have to feel better about that and make sure it is not to environmentally damaging. clean, renewable energy, i foresee 20 years from now, a world where there is no more fossil fuel being used. it served us well for several hundred years, since the industrial revolution but it is time to move on to clean, renewable energy. for economic reasons, too.

in the end, it will be the least expensive because it is basically free. as part of claim renewable energy, we need a modern grid. we need a modern energy system and that is clean renewals. bles. we will have a world without pollution. that will be pretty amazing. our kids will not be getting as ma and it will be quiet. it will be a nice world and i hope i live long enough to see it. i hope you do, too. if we're not going to do it, we will not live very long anyway. we will either do it or we will diverted is present all. [laughter] thank you very much.

>> i want to talk about energy security for america. we have gone 40 years in this country and we have had no energy plan, zero. we are the largest country in the world, the only country in the world without an energy plan. we have used more fuel than any other country in the world. today, there is 88 million barrels of oil produced everywhere in the world and we are using 21 million of it. the oilmost 25% of all used every day and we have 4% of the population. if you look at that, we are using 25% with 4% of the population, we could be the cause of $100 oil. we are way out of balance with the rest of the world. we have no energy plan. 40 years, no plan. why?

because we had cheap oil. that was it. neither party, republican or democrat, had an energy plan. somebody said that is an obvious bipartisan effort to not do anything. [laughter] and maybe so. nobody had time to tackle it. we are now at a critical point. if we go forward 10 years like we have operated for the last 40 years, in 10 years from now, you will pay $400 per barrel for the oil and we will be importing 75% of our oil. today, we are importing 66% at $100 of oil tenures will be all it takes to get to that point because oil is a finite resource and it is running out. when we look at the fourth quarter this year, you will be

able to check whether i know what i'm talking about, in the fourth quarter of this year, demand is projected for 90 million barrels per i don't think the world can produce that. if they can't, the only way you can kill the man does with price. price will go up. it will kill demand. we will go forward with demand that will be in balance with supply. do we have resources in america to take care of it ourselves? absolutely. you've got the green ables, wind and solar they do not replace transportation fuel. 70% of all the oil used everywhere in the world goes to transportation fuel. you have to get something that will stand up with oil to reduce the importance of oil. we are paying $1,500 million per

day for imported oil two-thirds of our trade deficit is not sustainable. nobody ever speak to that. if you go back over the president's from nixon ford, nixon said in 1970 that the end of the decade we will not seek -- import any oil. at that point, we imported 24%. at the end of the decade, we imported 28%. he never spoke to the question again. you have one right after the other. they all say the same thing, he let me and we will be energy independent. nobody ever says you told us, like obama, in 10 years, we will not import any oil from the mideast. that was very clear. bob schieffer and i had lunch

and i told him to ask how long we will import oil from the enemy. >> he did not know whether he could get away with that. they did ask about imported oil and obama said the same thing. in 10 years, we will not import any oil from the mideast. we are now three years into that. . i have never seen anybody say that you said in 10 years, how are we doing on your plan to cover oil from the mideast? nobody ever asked him the question it does not happen. i am in a place where i am talking to people in the press. one of you please, ask the president -- [applause] ok, can get it fixed? we can. we have lots of natural gas. that is 700 billions of barrels

of oil equivalent. that is three times what the saudis have. we do not have one politician that has said that we may not be as bad off as we think we are on energy. we have plenty of energy here. we can take care of ourselves. it can happen. it can be fixed. natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, abundant, it is ours, why not? we will use dirty, imported oil from opec and now they are talking about exporting our natural gas. ok, we will send a clean, cheap, stuck out and take a dirty from the enemy. we are starting to border on not looking very smart. [laughter] stupid is about where we are. we have resources that can solve the problem and we still do not have any movement. is this president's fault? it is the last 10 president's

fault? not one had ever done anything. this president is starting to talk about natural gas. he even used my name in his last energy speech. he said this legendary oil man is working in this field. my wife should cancel the president -- my wife shook hands with the president and he said to her that your husband is working hard for the energy problem that the united states faces. we are in communication, sort of. he never calls me but -- [laughter] i am always available. you have heard my problem. it is a security issue with us. ted is a little bit brighter green and i am. i am green. the epa must allow the test -- if you gave me a saliva test, i would pass. my primary focus is on the energy security for america.

i am all-american. i will take anything here in america. c takeoal, anything american and -- i will take coal, anything american in place of middle east oil. [applause] >> ted, did you have a an immediate response? >> we don't agree about everything. we agree mostly. >> why don't you tell us what you don't agree on. ? >> well, i am a little greener and a little cleaner. [laughter] >> that's right [laughter] >> i don't think we should export coal. we should capita and let it sit there it whinnied hydrocarbons for plastics anyway.

our children will ask why we burned up all are hydrocarbons. it will be valuable to build things than to burn. the sun is setting their free every day going to waste. solar works like a charm and the technology is already here and so is the winds technology. we spend more on research and start implementing wind and solar and geothermal, we will develop a better technology like we have in computers and it will be even more efficient. >> on the cost of kilowatt-hour is, the most expensive is solar, $6,300 per kilowatt hour. second, because we have changed how we c inoal, it has moved up

to 5300. then you drop to 2400 for went. then you drop to 1500 for natural gas. we are capitalists. we are trying to find the cheapest deal that we can make the most money off of it. that is what capitalism is. there's nothing wrong with that. if you are going to look at it on cost, i tried to build the web -- biggest win farm ever built. the wind is priced of the margin. the price is natural gas perwind gets a natural gas price. natural gas at the time was $8. today, it is $4. $6 i have to have to finance that wind farm. i may deal with general electric four years ago.

i bought the turbines and they are starting to be delivered in my -- and my garage is not big in [laughter] to take 500 turbines. i will build a wind farm in ontario, canada and minnesota. it will not be in the panhandle of texas where i wanted. i did not get the transmission there. they promised transmission and they never delivered. i would like to leave you with this point -- one mcf of natural gas is $4 and is equal to. the only thing that will move an 18-wheeler will be either diesel or natural gas. a battery will not move an 18- wheeler. what are the options? that's it. the only one we have that will replace foreign oil to move the 18-wheeler is natural gas. one mcf of natural gas for $4 =

$7 apiece -- of diesel. 7 gallons of diesel is $30. the cleaner, cheaper, cheaper, cheaper compared to the forum, dirty diesel, you are talking about the cost would be 25% very you have to do some compression and there are other factors. if you had in 18 deaths wheeler today and you bought a natural gas one instead of going diesel, your fuel would be $1.50 cheaper. that is overpowering. if it is so cheap, why doesn't it work without h passingr 1380? because i want direction. i want this president to say this is where we are going. this is what we will do. we will get on our own resources and this is the way it will work. we'll take the 8,000,018- wheelers -- we will take the 8

million 18-wheeler's. $5 million is a lot of money. we've got 8 million vehicles. they would go $60,000 for a tax credit because the incremental difference in those vehicles is $60,000. don't make your truckers pay to be patriotic. it will be a hurry up program $8 billion per year will only get you, at the end of five years, 143,000 trucks. you don't even have enough money to do the job. i don't have to have the money to get it started very he give me the money to get started. give us the direction, mr. president. we will go in that direction because we are patriotic people and we are not stupid. we can save $1.50 per gallon and

get help just to get kicked off. all this will happen ve. i made another speech, a starter [applause] >> how do you retool those trucks? >> infrastructure. i have a model for everything i do. by don't dor &d. r takes to in years andd takes 10 years and that puts me or the line. i looked at california because they dealt with air quality issues there for 20 or 30 years. cs -- the south coast air quality districts as air quality issues in southern california and the guy that runs it is a smart guy. he now has to reduce his emissions in southern

california. he asked who the biggest polluters are. trash trucks because there were 24-7 and i idol and they have an inefficient burned. what is the incremental cost differences? 50,000. on a scale that maris. he said to give them $50,000 and when they buy a new one, they have to buy natural gas but they do not have to get rid of their diesel. when they do get rid of their diesel, one diesel taken off the streets and southern california is equal to 325 cars. one 18-wheeler taken off the highway is equal to 1600 cars. on emissions. it is that much cleaner. he said to do it. the southern california trash trucks, natural gas, all trash trucks built this year, 75% of

them will be on natural gas. that was started by the california model seven years ago. i know it works. infrastructure will come with the trucks. that is a business in and of itself. you don't need to have a government building filling stations. can you imagine? go back to henry ford when he said that everyone will have a model t ford. they asked if he realized that they have no filling stations. we cannot do it. [laughter] forget the idea. was a bad idea. maybe a little inconvenience. what to the 8 million do for you? in seven years, it is 2.5 million barrels per day and it cuts opec in half. we get 5 million per day off

them and we are paying for both sides of the war. there was a great op-ed piece april 9 of 2010. it said that we are paying for both sides of the war and i truly believe that is the case. we don't look very smart doing that. >> is there anything you have to add? >> i don't like war either. for it andaying losing, what everyone in afghanistan and iraq and what we want in libya? the last time we won the war was world war two because that was the last time anybody surrendered to us. not even grenada surrendered. you don't win unless the other side admits they were beaten. >> i agree 100% on this point

guard with to get those people out of afghanistan. >> that would save a lot of money right there a d themeamn right. [applause] >> next time send scientists and engineers and doctors and maybe a few lawyers over to help out rather than send soldiers. the bombs did not do any good. >> let me ask questions from the audience. i will paraphrase in the interest of. time you are both essentially unhappy with the status quo. you say we're going back at least 40 years. have there been structural or political impediments to getting these reforms in place? does it have to do with how campaigns are financed? why is it that it has taken until at least this year that we have not weaned ourselves off foreign oil?

>> there are two reasons. by embracing an answer is, believe it or not. your leadership in washington did not understand the problem or did not feel it was important not to pursue and second, you had to boil. cheap oil is -- you had cheap oil. i have had conversations with the saudis and they say to me that if you come with alternatives, we will lower the price of oil. they said that to me. i believe it. that is exactly what they do. we don't come up with anything. we could have some control over our energy future if we just understood what the situation was. we don't have time to address that problem. we have cheap oil. >> what is keeping reform from

happening? >> the oil and coal lobbies who have all the money have done a masterful job of confusing everybody. i go to bed at night praying for clean coal and i know there is no such thing but have seen so many ads for it -- [laughter] they are persuading me that it is possible. , almost. if president obama had just taken the energy and climate change bill and put it first before health care, we have gotten it through. we were ready. he spent all this political capital and that was more contentious than we thought.

then the call and the oil industry counterattacked with their ad campaign. the solar and wind industries ran out of money and could not match to them. which is got beat. we have to be really careful because this law that was just upheld that corporations can spend all the might want to on political campaigns, that worries me that we may lose our democracy. we're close to losing it now. [applause] it really worries me. the government is supposed to serve the people but it is not. it is not serving the people's best interest it did, we would have clean energy now. we would be doing the smart thing rather than the dumb thing. i am really worried about it. i keep hoping that things will get better, but that law,

letting the corporations spend anything they want to, it is likely koch brothers in kansas. they are smart guys. they are in the oil business and they spend millions at the heritage foundation. they are kicking our butts. we cannot continue to let it happen without serious negative consequences which we are already experiencing. >> the koch interest and the heritage foundation are not for me. >> i did not say they [laughter] word. were. >> i didn't say you are. >> those guys are not helping me. >> i am not happy with gas and

our 18-wheelers. >> the major oil companies, see them for what they are. they are international oil companies. take exxon, is it a good company? of course it is. is it will run? absolutely. they work for shareholders. they do not work for america. they are international company. a 4% of the revenues come from offshore. -- 84% of the revenues come from offshore. alas president bush, there were one of his biggest advisers on energy and make america. that is not who you go to for energy in america. you go to energy experts in america, not an international oil company agreed it does not make sense. [applause] >> another question to mr. pickens. a recent report from the cornell scholars found that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas may result in excess greenhouse gas emissions, possibly worse than

cold. al. how does this change the plan? >> those of the only figures i've heard a that says coal is cleaner than natural gas. there is no question that natural gas is cleaner variant natural gas was the fuel to clean up california. some of you are old enough iam,, ted you're not. [laughter] you flew into los angeles and you could see it. they have a bad smog in los angeles. it was yellow/brown. that has all cleaned up with natural gas. 2800 buses in la mta . the largest bus company in the world is in beijing.

paid cornell to do that. that guy has a half a dozen things in that report. i have never seen anybody and with those conclusions that he ends with in that deal. there will be people that will look at it. m.i.t. responded and they did not think much of it. who paid him to do this study? that is the place to go. >>ted mentions that he wished the environmental downside of natural gas extraction could be better address. what about that? >> the firstfrack job i saw was in 1953. how did that with my first well. a 1957 until now, i have fracked

over 3000 wells. he is talking about that the will -- well is drought -- drilled -- he is talking about that the well is drilled down. the hole is drilled to 1,000 feet, they run a string casing and close it off. i work in an area where sand of aquafer.stfe korf we were conscious of this. we put in cement and rolled down to 15,000 feet. you complete the well there. you are 2-3 miles below the freshwater sand. you tell me how they frack job to mile down can get back up

into the fresh water sand. i never had it happen and i know nobody else where it happens. all the complaints are coming from pennsylvania. that is a m in thearcellus. they have drilled over 800,000 wells in oklahoma, kansas, and texas. i do not know of any losses or any complaint or anything else. why is it all right there in pennsylvania and western new york? they have now said that you will frack these wells in the watershed. that is where it rains. but don't know what that is. it rains and the watershed and runs into a lake. frack the lake or the watershed. you go to a thousand miles under

the surface. they don't know what will happen to the water in new york. they need someone intelligent, a leader to say this is what the deal is. don't worry, watch what i am telling you. check the facts. that is all you have to do. it is not complicated. it is very simple. they want me to feel guilty. i feel like i did yesterday. [laughter] >> are you as confident about the environmental implications? >> he knows more about it. he is an oil man. i was a tv and [laughter] man. >> i trust to godte is,d. do you trust us? [laughter] >> do you -- do you believe the

climate change is a natural phenomenon? fewer americans believe to be a real problem. >> your than what? it before? >> i don't know. how serious do you believe the problem is? >> i think it is a life or death issue. i am a real expert when it comes to nature and of the temperature goes up six degrees fahrenheit, it will make life on earth very difficult for most of the creatures including humans. >> how do you feel about it? >> i made geologist and we can take you back in time were you had drought that would extend over maybe 1 million years. we have had ice ages that were hundreds of thousands of years. we know the temperature can

remain constant or fluctuate or whatever. believe it or not, i am one of the few geologists that believes in climate change. [applause] i think all of us skirred up a lot of what -- i think a lot of us screw up what we emit into the atmosphere. i don't think it will happen real quick. it is like a problem with energy and america. you had a cheap oil. you have climate change but if you're cheap oil had run up to $200 per barrel, something would have happened. somebody would have figured out a better way. on climate change, it does not go up fast enough. it goes along and some people

think that as part of the change. i am ready to take measures to restrict emissions into the atmosphere. if i am long, i did not heard myself. -- a did nothurt myself. if we find it in 20 years that there is no climate change, i did not do something that hurt. i did not do anything wrong, but if i go out 20 years and i keep saying there is no climate change, and then i say that it did mean something, and if i did not do anything about it, that is bad. high pay to set up things that make all of us look stupid. i feel stupid sometimes about

the way things go. why do we let it happen? i am not in the role of leadership. i cannot stop these things. ted is a leader. he stepped up. [laughter] he says $62 million, i spent $82 million on this. that will get to something. have i got my money's worth? i will win i pass hr 1830. ted has been on this. i did not agree with him and we talked at 10 years ago and i said i am not going for the climate change stop but i do now. i am ready to throw in. [applause] >> other than talking to ted, what changed your mind a [laughter] ? >> i am interested in polar

bears, too. but icecap is sure disappearing fast. i don't go for the funny whether. i can remember when we had tornadoes and flooding and all kinds of things. the way the ice is disappearing fast, i had some experience with of the glaciers and you can see what is happening there. it is getting warm where the ice is. that is not normal, i don't think. >> here's a question for mr. turner. you have a partnership to build solar power. do you plan to do without federal subsidies? >> it depends on the situation. there needs to be some subsidies. we are now subsidized coal and

oil big time. over the years, they have been the source of economic subsidies. wind and solar and geothermal are not being subsidized because they were not here to get in line to get their spot at the feed trough. levelingally playing field, wind and solar have a better chance with subsidies stacked against them on the fossil fuel industry. we are subsidizing the wrong thing but we did it over 200 years of the industrial revolution. we have been giving them breaks all the way along.

not having the polluting companies paid health care, i think the polluters should do the paying. if they were, claim renewable energy would be competitive. [applause] >> if you look at where the most wind energy and solar energy is, do you know where it is? >> in the midwest? germany. terminate they don't have wind or saw [laughter] on. they're really down. germanyey really don't gets their natural gas from russia. i was young but i remember stalingrad and leningrad and there were 5 million people killed there.

there were about 3 million germans and 2 million russians. those people in russia and germany remember that. the germans do not want to get dependent on the russians. they take gas from them but they went in and subsidized wind and solar and paid a hell of a price for it but that is what they thought of as security. that is my pitch here. we have a security issue with opec oil. we don't even address the but they did. we ran some of those ads is that you may remember this show the globe and the lights are on and said ", and then one day one person does not have gas it clicked off eastern europe pic." guess who came to see made?

e? they sat on the ad, you are cutting off our service area. i know, i meant to. they don't like it. they watch this stuff that i put up. two weeks after we launched the pickens plan, i was at the democratic convention. was aon't remember i letter this -- that i was a republican. i get out of politics and went to the democratic convention. that surprised many people. i had never been to one in my life. they are a bunch of nice people. [laughter] i am their and my wife who was born in iraq and her mother is lebanese and their father is english and emigrated to the

united states when she was 18 years old. she has friends from that part of the world and she got a call at my friend and wanted us to go to dinner. we went to dinner and i thought it would be 15 or 20 people. it was five people. the first question was asked of me. what is your pickens' plan? i said i want to get off of your oil. i smiled when i said it. but we are friends. i said i know we need to get on our own resources. they're watching that close. in two weeks, there were asking me what this plan was. they could see what i was going to do.

i was going to get on our resources in -- and get off of their oil. that's what it was. [applause] >> you both earlier talked about the inability of our policy makers and leaders to forge an effective energy policy. just yesterday, there is a headline that standard and poor's essentially warned that the u.s. is at risk of not forcing an adequate solution to the deficit and in the near term, the debt ceiling is looming. how do you feel about how washington is managing the financial situation in the united states right now? >> i'm not happy with it. i am concerned when your credit rating is downgraded and that is what happened yesterday, that is not good. >> they warned on the outlook which was longer term.

they said it was along the road to downgrading the credit rating. do you think republicans and democrats can come together and find a solution? >> i am not comfortable with the way the parties are getting along with each other. i am concerned about our ability to compromise and run our country in an intelligent, forward-thinking manner. >> what do you think? >> i think they are doing a fabulous job. [laughter] they are working so well together and act like they're not but i know they really are. do you feel that way? no >>. >> i am not here to express my opinion bit. >> i'm not a fool. i agree with ted. i try to let myself to my

subject. i feel like i can represent that i am five-feet wide and 50 feet deep on one subject i think congress has accepted me that way. they realize i am a serious person with a serious plan. i have both sides that call me and ask me about energy. question s. i made a speech last week in california. there -- in this county, people are very liberal. they asked how i think they've view me. >i said i think they view me as a patriotic old man with a good idea and i got big applause. i think i am viewed that way and that is the way i want to be. [applause] >> ted, everybody knows

originally as that c founder cnn.he founder of how you feel about that as an enterprise today? >> they went in for more serious news and more international news like they used to. i am an old geezer, too. i am not there anymore. there's nothing worse than asking somebody in my position what they think of the company based thereon is being run today. that is not really fair. >> i wrote ted a note any probably doesn't remember. i said you have done more to open up the world than anybody i have ever seen. [applause] you showed people all over the world how we lived and what opportunities they would have if

they had a democracy. you are the guy that showed the world what the world really look like. >> what you think about that? >> it makes me feel good. [laughter] >> on the other side of the television equation, you have not always had kind words about the perceived competition which includes fox news. do you sample across the media landscape? how you feel about rupert murdoch and news corp. and a job at fox news does? >> i think he has done a real good job with "the wall street journal." he is a little far right for me on television. with fox news. that is me. i think they have every right to do it.

it does not seem to be irresponsible >> since you gentlemen are no strangers to the news business and this was a return trip to the national press club, how do you feel like you are treated by the news? >> i feel fine. [laughter] >> we are glad to hear that. >> if i could write the articles, i would write them a different light. [laughter] having said that, i think they treat me very fairly. they are better as i have gotten older. the use to jump on my ass pretty bad. [laughter] i have gotten older. they introduce me as legendary oil man. most articles say t. boone pickens, legendary oil men. what does that mean? [laughter] that is a guy 75 years old and still has a job. [laughter]

i am 82, though. >> we are almost out of time. before we ask the last question, a couple of housekeeping things to take care of. i would like to remind our guests about upcoming luncheon speakers. on may 16, general james jones, the former national security adviser and marine corps commandant will be our speaker. on may 20, t richardrumka will speak. we will have a fox news contributor. juan williams will deliver a rebuttal on the npr issue. next up on our regular business, i like to present both of our guests with the traditional npc coffee mug. [applause]

you are collecting a set. we are grateful for that. next is the last question. there's another wealthy individual these days making the rounds and that is donald trump. he seems to be flirting with the notion of running for president. what advice would you give him? >> good luck. [laughter] the more the merrier. maybe we will find somebody that will shake things up. >> would you vote for him? >> i know him. [laughter] i kinda like him, to tell you the truth. he is colorful very [laughter] >> you have that uncommon. >> i know him, too.

was oncnbc and he was talking about how to solve the energy problem. he said the way to handle the zero pack crowd is you tell them what you will pay them for the oil. -- he said the way to handle the opec crowd is you tell them what you'll pay for the oil. >> i came on after him and i said i'll tell you what, if you won't say any more about energy, i won't ever mention real estate. [laughter] [applause] >> how about a round of applause for our speakers today? thank you. [applause] thank you for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club's staff including our library and broadcast center. you can find more information and www.press.org.

thank you and we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> just a reminder, if you want to watch this event again with people and pickens and ted turner, we will have it on line shortly at c-span.org. also on there, the president's

town hall from earlier today, one of the three he is doing this week. we will show that to you as well in our pre-primetime programming at 7:00 eastern. we will take you to a discussion on the future of a divided sudan. we are going to hear from the former president of south africa, burundi, and nigeria, all members of the implementation battle for sudan. they are expected to speak at the u.s. institute of peace in washington about the situation in sudan. vice-president biden met with the former african leaders on monday and told them that the embattled western of darfur region be part of any agreement in the separation of northern and southern sudan and brought the republic of the south sudan is scheduled to declare its formal independence on july 9. again, u.s. institute of peace in washington, and it should get underway shortly.

this is the united states institute of peace in washington. we are here for a discussion on the future of the sudan, south sudan, set to become independent from the rest of the sudan on july 9 of this year. among the individuals who will participate in the discussion this year, thabo mbeki, a former president of south africa, joined by the former president of burundi and nigeria, members of the african union high-level implementation plan 4 sedan. it should get underway shortly. news from the ivory coast. they are reporting that the french charity action against

hunger delivered the first emergency food rations and the last holdout of militiamen loyal to former president and strong and lon gbagbo -- and strong and laurent gbagbo opened fire a round refugees. that is from the associated press.

>> it looks like it will be amended or two until the discussion gets underway on the future of sudan. while we wait, we will bring you a conversation with one of our studentcam winners. >> is year's theme asked them to produce a video on a topic that helps them understand the world through washington. hi, ian. >> hi. >> why did you focus your documentary on the elkridge national laboratory? >> first of all, it is right in our backyard, secondly, all of my group members were interested in energy and efforts to get

more efficient energy. thirdly, we felt it fit the theme well, where we were excited -- wrote back in world war ii is completely funded by the federal government. oakridge is known as the secret city. it was started back in world war ii as part of the manhattan project to make uranium for the bomb. it is known for that, and today it is known for continuing that research and innovation, along with its close ties to the federal government. >> what impact does the lab have on your community? >> the big thing is that it's a prize jobs, not just research jobs, -- it supplies jobs, not just research jobs, but community jobs. an entire community came out of that lab, thousands and thousands of jobs.

one of our interviewees actually workedwith [unintelligible] and a funnel people to make supplies that would build new buildings there. that in itself gave about 1000 jobs, i think. >> what role does the federal government play with the lab? >> the biggest thing it does is that it funds and national lab. it does this through programs at the department of energy. >> you interviewed michelle buchanan, the director of the physical sciences at the lab. what did you learn from her? >> the biggest thing we've learned is how woodworks financially. we learned how date basically apply for grants for the project. that is how they get the money for all of the variety of things that they do. we also learn about different projects that they do, and how

those projects affect our daily lives. >> what types of projects are being conducted at the lab? >> there is a huge range of projects like a what, from computer technology and biotechnology. there is this gigantic adam collider -- atom collider is a smashing two atoms together to find out how they work. you also have hydrogen cars, and the ongoing cleanup othat they started back after world war ii. too many projects it to even name. >> what is the message you would like to share with people for your documentary? >> the biggest thing i would like to share is that i would like people to appreciate all they have done in world war ii, what it is doing now, and what i hope it does in the future. >> here is a portion of the documentary.

>> a lot of different projects that deal with energy technology. we go from fundamental science to applied science. we would like to advanced nuclear concept so that we can get more electricity, better materials for the electric grid, all sorts of different types of energy. >> computing is a huge. the have a great computing center out there. as i mentioned, the neutron source, which is a great use the facility to look at materials and learn some of the most fundamental things about things we use every day and how we can improve them. just too many to even talk about. >> as stated by the doctor, ornl contains one of the finest at some smashers in the world. >> to cr -- the kind of research that goes on is really one of a kind. >> you can see this entire video

and all the winning documentary's at studentcam.org and continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> on your screen is the former president of burundi, one of three former african president here this afternoon at the u.s. institute of peace to talk about the current situation in sudan, this as a southern sudan progress to declare a formal independence on july 9 of this year. at the podium is the executive vice president. the discussion just getting under way to live on c-span. >> president of nigeria from june 1998 to may 1999. of course, in addition to all but one of all the things that the president has done, he was also the envoy, very difficult assignment, from the u.n. to the condo. he is part of this wonderful panel today, and i'm just

delighted that he could be with us. were to join me in welcoming president -- would you join me in welcoming president abubakar? [applause] >> mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, i have been asked by my colleagues to introduce the conversation.

as you know, we are a panel, african union -- [unintelligible] sudan at. we started to work in march 2009 on our four, and then in october 2009, our mandate was extended to the whole of sudan. we have been working with the sudanese to follow up the implementation. then we have been asked by the sudanese also to facilitate the talks on what is called the post-cpa of arrangement.

maybe the best ways to tell you -- the best way is to tell you where we are on these matters, and it can trigger a discussion, question and answer -- maybe it's the best way. first, as you know about the implementation of cpa, we have gone a long way. i recognize here those people who played a very important role in the organization of the referendum. professor -- [applause] we were working with them on the issue of the referendum, and you know what happened.

we couldn't with the contribution of everybody have a peaceful and credible referendum, and the outcome of which has been accepted by the sudanese and international community. i think it has been a very big achievement. but now work is left in the implementation of cpa. three matters. one is the issue of -- [unintelligible] this issue seems to be the more complicated 1. but what i can say is that we are working on it. we have agreed with the president bashir that at the end

of may, our panel is going to make a proposal, after consultation with the sudanese and the other international stakeholders. we hope that we can then come to an agreement. the second remaining issue is the issue of borders. there is a committee on borders, and there are two issues remaining. one is to agree on what is called disputed areas. there are five that disputed areas on the borders.

and there is a tactical committee and political committee, -- technical committee and political committee, and the two are working on it, and we hope that before the ninth of july, we will reach agreement on those five it disputed areas. the second remaining issue is the demarcation of the borders. between north and south, there is almost 2000 kilometers of border. we think that maybe at the demarcation exercise will go on even after the independence of the south. it appears that it is impossible to complete demarcation in the time period leading to nine of july. the third remaining issue in the

implementation of cpa is what is called popular consultation, in the two areas. in one, popular consultation has been completed, and what is remaining is to come to a conclusion. it means the talk between state authorities and the government of khartoum in the south, popular consultation is not done yet, because the election is scheduled on the second of may. we hope that soon after, popular consultation is going to take place, and you see, also, that

the exercise of popular consultation will certainly go beyond the ninth of july. at those are really the three issues remaining in the implementation of cpa. then there's the second state -- or set of issues, what we call post-referendum on management brought the sudanese has been negotiating on the issue of citizenship, the issue of the security arrangement, economic arrangements, especially three important matters -- oil currency, and debt.

also, the discussion has been gone a long way. we are about to conclude the negotiations on the economic issues. we have that many seminars in ethiopia. even last week we were there. and we think that maybe we need one more session to come to a conclusion. and there is only a few issues where the party don't agree at. on the issue of currency, there is only a matter of resumption of the currency, what to do with the towns which are circulating in the south -- the pounds which are circulating in

the south, once the south creates its own money. on the issue of debt, the parties agree on what they call 0 option. it means that khartoum takes the responsibility to deal with old debt of the sudan, and the two parties then agree to a make a joint advocacy for debt relief. here in washington, it has been one of our main -- currency, debt, with imf, world bank, creditors of sudan. things are moving in the right direction.

the other remaining issue is what the sudanese parties call the financial transition .rrangement an in other words, how to share oil revenue after independence of the south. related to these, what will be the ownership -- >> we have lost our signal from the discussion this afternoon at the u.s. institute of peace on

the southern sudan. we apologize for that, and we're looking into the problem. hopefully we will resolve the problem shortly. the discussion expected to run until 3:30. we hope to have it fixed soon here on c-span.

we are working on our video from the u.s. institute of peace, and while we wait for that to get resolved, he was one of our studentcam winners -- here is one of our studentcam winners. >> this year's studentcam competition asks students across the country to consider washington, d.c. through their lens. >> as i look up to the sky, there tends to be a of voice as loud and sharp as undthunder. would be shown visions of a what -- i would be shown visions of what be held this land. [unintelligible] there would be a signal. they would be building things

and there would be great confusion and the earth would shake. >> with those words, a local man accurately prophesied the creation of oak ridge, years before it happened t. it all changed does of world war ii. several plans were constructed for the war effort. >> the other three, the big plants, cost $478 million. 25 cost even more, five with $12 million. those two plants together cost $1.1 billion. 50 was kind of an afterthought, and cost $16 million. >> today it is the biggest government-owned allowed in the

united states of america. it has many fields of the study, including computers and biotechnology. >> oh, at a lot of different projects that all deal with energy technology. we go from a very fundamental science to be applied science, we like to go to advanced nuclear conference so that we can get better as electricity, better materials for the electric grid, and better energy technology. >> computers are huge. they have a great computing center out there. a great use of facility to look at materials -- user facility to look at materials and learn some of the most fundamental things about things we use every day and how we can improve them. to many to even talk about.

>> as stated by the doctor, it contains a neutron source, one of the finest atom smashers in the world. >> the kind of research that goes on is really one of a kind in the world. >> with great projects, great fiscal responsibility. >> we don't get money from the government directly. there are grants from the government. >> ornl gets a substantial amount of money from the government each year. they receive $1.67 billion each fiscal year, and $34 million approved from it fiscal recovery act. $143 million is approved for future usage. >> i think the nation understands that energy is a big problem, and a couple of years ago we had very expensive

gasoline and it was very front and center on people's radar screen that you need to do something about getting energy that is less expensive and more abundant. >> instead of depending on a farm in oil, we should depend on american resources, american ingenuity, american workers. i believe in this new industrial revolution, america's workers can lead the world. >> without a doubt, but the projects the want ad o -- the projects that go on at ornl better at the american community. >> the scientist don't just sit and think deep thoughts and my papers that are not relevant to people. they're coming up with the new ideas that are going to translate into technologies and into jobs. >> however, mr. hanlon is of a different beliefs. >> it will not immediate impact

of nearly life, but is this the kind of research that will make a something worth defending. >> ornl is arguably the center of the surrounding area known as oak ridge. suffered -- if the center does appear, the economy would suffer and jobs would be lost. >> we have a 4500 s staff members there. a good part of them come from oak ridge. in surrounding counties, a lot of our employees are there. >> dr. buchanan went on to talk about how everybody would be affected. >> it would be devastating to oak ridge, and if you look at our community, oak ridge, anderson county in particular, we are doing pretty good in terms of the economy. if you look at a lot of the surrounding counties, rural counties, they don't have a lot of industry and industries that

have been there. counties have gone away, unfortunately. oak ridge employs a lot of people in the surrounding counties. as devastated as some of those communities are by now, it would be very tragic if oak ridge national lab loss to the funding -- lost the funding. >> even though it would be devastating if ornl lost funding, it will not be doing at any time soon. >> on like universities and other research institutes, we tended to resolve major problems -- tend to work in large teams to solve major problems. i think the investments in this country are needed in an edg -- in energy, not only to have cars that go places and take you to school and soccer practice and things, but more importantly, to have -- >> i think ornl is the hot rock

in oak ridge. it is a great place that generates a lot of jobs, a lot of new technologies. they are on the cutting edge of science and technology. >> no countries have the natural research laboratories to match ours. americans have one mor -- won more nobel prizes in science. >> ornl will not be going away anytime soon, not now and not in the future. it is too important to jobs. the future of ornl looks very bright. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos and continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> here on c-span earlier we had

been bringing you the discussion from the u.s. institute of peace on the future of south sudan as southern sudan declares independence as of july of this year. we are having via problems with that. we can tell you that we are taping the event this afternoon and we will have it for you later this evening on a program schedule, and later, on our video library at c-span.org. we are going to move on without programming with a discussion on the news yesterday that s&p, the rating service, lowered its long-term ooutlook on the u.s. and sovereign debt. here is our discussion with john fund from this morning. "t wall street journal." let's begin with what s&p said yesterday. the lower the u.s. debt from stable set negative. they said there's a one in three chance the u.s. could lose its aaa rating in two years.

they expressed little confidence washington could come together on some sort of agreement before the 2012 election. what does this mean? can you explain that to begin with? guest: it is a wake-up call and if we do not heed the warning, we will sink into deep trouble. the kind of debt trap that was described earlier in the program. what s&p said was a political statement after president obama's speech last week. the concluded there's very little chance on an agreement towards fiscal sanity between congress and the white house before the 2012 election. in a sense, the president began his reelection campaign i do not think we have the luxury of debating this issue for the next year and half.

i think we'll have to tackle this. s&p is saying political paralysis in washington for the next 18 months can do serious damage to the economy, of course this recovery, and plunges into a kind of debt spiral that we've seen in europe. greece, portugal, ireland. this is not a prospect we should not welcome. host: there also pointing to republicans, looking to the budget proposal by paul ryan -- that there will be no new revenues coming in from taxes, no tax increases, and say that the two sides are too are part because one does not want to address spending and the other does not want to address tax increases. guest: in december, the president and congress came to agreement on taxes. they extended the tax cuts. both sides privately agreed -- and i talked to both sides -- if you raise taxes in a recession,

you are going to hurt the economy. there's no school of economic thought. i do not care if it is marxi, tenzing as some, or vegetarianism. it will only hurt job creation. that's what the american people are worried about. host: do republicans need to take responsibility for this morning from s&p for the tenure of the bush administration? the tax increases than that many say were not paid for and then the medicare prescription drug part d program that many say is not paid for. do republicans need to take responsibility for this morning that s&p put out yesterday? guest: we had a horrible decade of public policy in many respects in the last 10 years. the bush administration had a horrible mistake in trying to

expand the entitlements with prescription drug benefits that were not paid for. the wars were certainly a drain on our fiscal future. obviously, president obama and here today very bad situation and the economy was very weak. the bush administration made many mistakes. since then, president obama has had two and half years, and i think he has only compounded the mistakes. the debt has gone from $7.9 trillion to over $14 trillion. the stimulus spending has been universally acknowledged to not have accomplished its goals. it raised the stakes dramatically by trying to extend coverage for health insurance. it is a laudable goal, but we cannot afford it. half of the people will be dumped into our medicaid

program, which is substandard medicine. i think the president has taken a bad hand that he was dealt and made it much worse for all americans. host: how did wall street reacts yesterday to this news fro s&p? caller: -- guest: it dropped 140 points. i think it recognized that this was a signal that the economic recovery can be aborted because of political paralysis and the refusal to try to change our policies to make us more competitive with the world. a lot of people say we have shifted jobs overseas. a lot of people say we have a weak manufacturing sector. i'm not here to debate that. the way to solve that is for us to become more competitive. we have, f example, the second highest corporate tax rate of any nation world, other than japan. japan is not doing so well, frankly, even before the horrible tsunami of last month. s&p downgraded japan's bond

rating in january. i think we need to make some changes that can increase the chances of an economic recovery taking hold and we start to create jobs. we have not done that. i think both parties need to come to the table and we need to figure out in a bipartisan way what are the few things that the two parties can agree on that will make this recovery better d not wait to simply have bickering for the next 18 months? host: our tax increases on the table in your opinion? guest: i'm sure that will be part of the negotiation. in december, both parties agreed that tax increases in a weak economy does not help the economy. if you can bring me the school of econoc thought that says you raise taxes in a weak economy and that will improve things, i will send you a check to your favorite charity. such a school of economics does not exist. host: paul krugman wrote yesterday on his blog.

guest: markets respond to signals. the fact that it looks as if the president and the congress will be in a stalemate for the next 18 months, that cost s&p to do the downgrade. because the market to drop. the dollar continues to weaken. i disagree with that. i think waiting for another 18 months only makes matters worse. i do not think we have that much time. greece, portugal, and ireland but they have all the timen the world.

when they lo credibility in the markets and people with ninth -- and people would not buy their bonds, we was out very quicy. we are not immune to these pressures. even though we are the greatest nation via world, laws of economics apply to us. host: some said the market was comforted that washington could come together on some sort of an agreement. guest: of course, you do not look at any one-day or two-day or three-day fluctuation in the market and try to override what that means. clearly, the markets are nervous. some have said that s&p could be followed by moody's. the international monetary fund, which is the institution that normally jumps in to try to help troubled economies, they reported just a couple of months ago that since the u.s. deficit is likely to hit a 11% of our

total gross national product, that this was a real warning signal. s&p is a lagging indicator. all of the serious economic observers are looking at this and saying we're in real trouble. s&p is late to the game. host: let's go to our first phone call for john fund. ruth is a democrat in memphis, tenn.. go ahead. caller: i'm so profoundly disappointed in c-span for introducing this man as a journalist. host: columnist. caller: the headline said journalist. he has been called a journalist. he's been a spokesperson for the republican party's for years. i'm seeing strategy -- this whole thing is exactly what the star of the beast -- starve the

beast strategy wanted to accomplish. it is just crazy. everybody remembers -- deficits do not matter. host: let's get a response to that, john fund. guest: if the caller was listening, they heard me criticize the bush administration on its management of the economy and spending that went out of control. secondly, i spent 25 years observing washington politicians. i can never sure you -- i can assure you i've looked at both democrats and republicans. it is just that republicans might feel a little more guilty about it. i thi republicans have often abandoned their principles. i've been critical of publicans. i forced a couple out of office because of corruption and malfeasance and other issues.

if the caller listen carefully, she might have heard some very stern criticism of the bush administration. host: let's go to st. joseph, missouri. maggie, a republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: in th country, we have far too many people that are not educated enough to understand the way the economy slows and the defits and taxes. what we have is we have been democrs using scare tactics in order to keep their big agenda going. we have a president who shamelessly intends to crash our economy. everywhere you look from oil drilling to epa regulations, all he does is throw roadblocks and undermines our ecomy, our growth. he has escalated any kind of problems that he had when he

came into office three he has far exhilarated us down the road -- he has accelerated us down the road to destruction. host: kent, go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm glad for the job c-span does this morning and every morning. what i would like to ask your guest is, where were these red- flag raising agencies when the mortgage crisis was heating up and all the money was pouring ino make places like aig too big to fail? why don't guest: first of all, the caller before this one, it is unfair to say that obama wants to crash

the economy. i think there's a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not what he is doing is working. as to your current caller, the reason why we should worry about what the s and p adjusted its that -- the bond rating agenci are often wearing the gas mask. when it kills over, you know you are really in trouble. if you look at all of the state's municipal debt disasters, often the bond rating agencies went way too long to warn about the dangers of public pension obligations that for going out of control. the reason the warning is very appropriate from the s&p is they are the people to make this call first.

many have been warning about this for a long time. that is why the rating agencies have a finally woken up. host: what will happen throughout the day? guest: i think the markets will continue with a narrow band of gains into losses. there is a lack of confidence in this economy. there is a couple of trillion dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines that is not being invested i jobs, becausef the uncertainty of the economic conditions that we now have. these are real. so much uncertainty about what the tax policy will be, new regulations that will be heaped onto the economy. the democratic congress chose not to do that.

i think we have to be worried. if right now, the former budget director that has become a liberal on many policies, he was on c-span last night. right now we had $2 trillion in capital sitting there, not being invested in jobs, it would be invested overseas. places like that, where they have economic policies that are much more stable. our competitors are not waiting for our -- not waiting for us to get our house in order. they are building new factories. the face that we are so stagnant in this country should tell us that we have to take steps to improve our competitiveness as fast as possible. we cannot stand still. host: what is your reaction to this line?

what do you think? guest: the other nations do not want to see a debt crisis. i think it is rallying around the flag. there is not in immediate short- term crisis. this is a warning sign that we do not have a 18 months to wt. the consensus from the ecomic experts that i spoke to is that we could be two or three years away from a bt crisis like the one we saw in portugal and greece. we should not wait to take seris steps to try to improve our competitive position and tried to get some of that trillions of dollars in capital waiting on the sideline into productive jobs. i think unemployment is still almost as 9% because of this.

host: if the s&p says we will down grade the aaa rating of the u.s. in six months, what will happen? guest: it will be a signal to the rest of the world that we are not serious about dealing with our debt crisis. i was in japan in january. it was a couple of months before the tsunami. they have had two lost a decade of economic growth. visit to japan, it is a normal society. there are many things in the shops. life goes on. there is a growing sense among young people that japan's future has slipped away from it. this was an economy that was supposed to be the world's preeminent, and it slipped into the second, third, fourth slot of economic growth. i do not want that to happen to us.

i think we are the most growth oriented and optimistic country in the world. i want that to remain so. just because we will not slip into a depression, does not mean that we do not have something to worry about. our optimism, our strength, and a person born in america for many decades has a better chance of entering the middle class, even if they came from modest circumstances. all of those things are in jeopardy if we do not return to economic growth and economic opportunity policies that made this country great. host:here is a tweet. guest: i will just say that we had the slowest economic recovery that i can remember in my lifetime.

probably the slowest since world war ii. we are almost two years in the economic recovery. before we would have seen unemployment at 6%. we have not the last -- lost as much money from the highs of 2007, but the average person is not in the stock market. they need a job. they want toork 40 hours a week, but their employer will only give them 30 hours a week. for the average american, it is whether or not they have a job and have to worry about losing it. it is about having work been made available to them. host:hat go to the democrat line. caller: it is like nobody understands what happened to america's economy.

president eisenhower said there is a secret organization in the industrial field, which is trying to bring us down. nobody listened. kennedy and reagan sounded out. even george bush, when he tried to do his thing, paying for the war with iraq and the oil, and all of the money that they found over there -- where did it go? if they use that money and put it to the economy, we would t be in this trouble. guest: i remember president eisenhower's farewell address very well. he talked about the military industrial complex and it was a concern. he never said it was a secret. i do not know whathe caller is saying about what kennedy learned and reagan learned

about the military industrial complex. both were fighting a cold war and put an enormous amount of resources into our military. i am sure there was waste. we won the cold war without firing a sho what they did a ultimately prevailed. host: republican line. caller: i want to ask you a question. would you say that if we were to raise taxes on the wealthy, say 90%, would that into the government create jobs, rather than waiting on the super rich people to create jobs, which we know they have not done over the past 8-10 years, would you say that would help the economy?

guest: we ran an editorial in yesterday's. -- yesterday. if you taxhem 100%, it would bring in 1.9 trillion dollars a ar -- $1.90 trillion a year. it would not pay for anything that the government spends money on. it would barely cover the cost of medicare and medicaid and social security. those costs are going up so much that all of the money collected from them, it would not pay the bill for those three programs by 2016. the sad part is that even though the top 1% top income earners pay 30% and moderate income people pay lot in other taxes -- the sad part is that there are

not enough rich people out there. we cannot pay our bills with them. if anyone says they want to tax the rich, they are talking about taxing the middle class as well. host:mike, go ahead. caller: i want to take it a little bit different. i want to say that when you have kids -- when we were kids, the adults say, shut up in the station a child plays. when we become an adult, everyone says, let's not talk about it and hope it goes away. the real problem is that there is no right accountability. the republicans and the rich, they take advantage of people.

obama came in there being a humble man. they broke his hamas, took him from the church. himrokenhumbleness and took from the church. he cannot do anything when people around him say he is the wrong color to fix things. then you have other people screaming, we would rather vote for rich people who are our color and they will do a bad job, even though obama has tried to [inaudible] we went through everything and tried our best, but it seems like everybody looks past that. host: any thoughts and reactions to his comments? guest: one of the things that the election of obama proved is

that while we still have a long ways to go, we have still made progress in this country. millions of americans of all colors voted for obama. they voted for change. i have relatives that voted for him. ultimately, we judge people by the content of their character and their policies as president, not their color. his approval rating is 41%. his approval rating among hispanics has fallen. this is a report card not based on his race, but his performance. after about 2.5 years in office, you have to be judged by your own policies and not blame your predecessors, even though there is much to blame their. host: here is a comment to an

earlier tweet. do you agree with that? guest: several people have left the federal reserve board of governors and express their public distain for this qualitative easing, which is basically printing money. a lot of this economic recovery that we see may have been sustained from just printing money. we are seeing inflation -- not just in gasoline. go to your local supermarket. you see how much food is going up. the economic stability at the price of long-term inflation -- if we continue with these policies, we suffer a danger that we may see what we saw in the 1970's. we had stagnation in the economy, low job creation, and inflation. rising prices destroys people's savings.

that was one of the worst things that ever happened. i do not want to have that happen. the fed policies are miss kate -- misguided. host: some republicans and comment tea party members of congress say they will not vote for it unless it includes a long-term fiscal plan to address the debt and deficit. should that be part of the condition before republicans agreed to vote yes? guest: something has to be attached to the debt limit. this is not the time to negotiate dramatic budget cuts. there are a few things we should certainly do. we should into this game but if

you fail to raise the debt limit, it will hurt the credit worthiness of the united stes. if the dead s's -- ceiling is not race, the money thief -- raised, the money that the feral government takes in will go to covering the bonds. the states are putting pressure on the federal government to bail them out or their financial mistakes. i ink the federal government, which [inaudible] we should demand a full transparency from the state. there are all kinds of reforms. some think we should look to a two year budget. many statesave that. the first year they decide where

to spend the money. the second year is oversight. figuring out how the taxpayers' money ispent and if it is pent wely. there is transparency. obama teamed up with coburn for the transparency bill when he was a senator. they put the records in budgets on the web, so people could find out where the money is being spent. that bill dropped off of the radar screen when obama ran for president. i think that was a great idea, and we should bring that back. i would think bill -- obama would feel compelled to sign it, since it was his bill. host: there is debate on whether or not to vote for a bill that would raise the debt ceiling. here is what they said.

guest: i agree with the first part of his analysis. i think there has been way too much uncertainty. everyone has frozen of that capital on the sidelines and has not been invested into job creation. not having the debt ceiling raised would have some bad signals.

i think it is a game of chicken, similar to what we saw with the lame duck session. i do not think that wall street for anyone else is going to allow the debt ceiling not to be raised. should we take prudent steps to attach realistic reforms that most people can't agree on such as transparency can agree on, such as transparency? the answer is yes. should it be a showdown over future spending? i do not think so. there will be political, a round of the debt ceiling. -- around the debt ceiling. both sides i think are playing this for all political worth.

host:nick in michigan. caller: did the president know and it congress know when they spent the money that it was. to require an increase in the debt ceiling now? did we know that -- that it was going to require an increase in the debt ceiling now? did we know that? guest: the debt ceiling has been raised something like 18 times in the past few years. it has happened on a bickering basis. barack obama -- on a recurring basis. many have used the debt ceiling as a political football. the stimulus package was a down payment on what we ran up spending the last few years.

they knew what they patrolling. they probably should have done something different. we have deal with the hand that has been dealt us. host: independent mind, ed. -- line, ed. caller: i am tir of the infighting going on. we have to stop this class war. we have to save our country. i am 62 years old. i would hate to see us going down this road. host: i want to ask you about cover debt and how much we spend on defense, since he said you were in the military and an

expert on airplanes. the money that we spent on military and equipment is part of the debate. should there be spending cuts for the pentagon? caller: a lot of the money goes towards retirement and people hurt overseas. a lot of the money goes to research and development. we have tankers that cost billions of dollars. maybe we have too many carriers. a lot of our money goes toward paying retirement, disability, and a host of other things. i do not want to see the military pay the price for cuts. guest: a, from a military family. there is waste -- i come from a military family.

certainly, there is waste. my father was stationed in germany. we still have a 50,000 troops in germany. we may be able to reduce that amount to some extent. we have military bases in many countries. the real money are the promises we have made to future generations in medicare, medicaid, social security. it has been a cruel hoax from many people. singing they cannot meet the pension obligations that they promised people -- saying they cannot meet the pension obligations that they promise people -- we need to reform this. we have to update these changes for the 20% century. medicare was -- 21st century. medicare was a gold standard for

1965. it has not changed much since the prescription drug benefit. we need to figure out which health outcomes can be altered for the better. we do not need to abolish these programs, but make them relevant for future generations. there is not a single part of the private sector that has stayed the same from 1965. we need to learn from the knowledge from the private sector and apply it to the public sector. host: to use support paul reince plan for medicare and medicaid? plan for medicare and medicaid? guest: i do not support every part of it many medicare patients can go out and shop from many different

plans. politically, we are not one to change this plan for anyone under the age of 55. we will give them all kinds of options. it can be a better plan, because it can bring the forces of competition to play. in the fedal government, we say we should give people the same kind of health benefits the federal government has. they have a range of choices. we should give the same range of choices to medicare patients, so they can buy plants that are better suited to their circumstances. host: there is anpinion piece in your paper, the wall street journal, called reverse robin hood.

what is your reaction? guest: price controls -- nearly half the positions -- physicians will see medicaid patients. the status quo is unsustainable. the basis of what paul ryan has proposed was endorsed by a bipartisan commission set up by bill clinton. it had a couple of democratic senators on it. since then, the budget director has endorsed the basic concept behind the ryan plan. there is a support on this because of the partisanship. we have to change something about medicare to update it for the future. supporting the status quo and

taking pot shots at anything that is presented as an alternate is not responsible. what is your alternative other than price controls? i have lived in countries with nationalized health insurance. rationing is not good for old people. you wait nine months for a hip replacement treatment. you wait nine months for procedures. some people die because they are waiting to long. that is a scene in canada. the wait list -- seen in canada. the way this is so long that people died waiting on it. host: we will look at the bipartisan deficit commission and aspects of its leader. today we will look at medicare and medicaid. each day we are looking at different things. wednesday will be defense and security spending.

thursday, overhauling the tax policy. friday, aook at social security and what the bipartisan commission proposed on that. michigan, a democrat line. host: i want to thank c-span. i want to make a request before a comment. would you in the future do something on all of these think tanks that are across the united states that are preparing this extremist, right rwing legislation? i will send an e-mail, but i would hope that you consider doing that. mr. fund, as i have listened to you, i have mad a long list. so security has not caused this deficit.

it will be solvent for years in the years to come. wh you speak of ireland and other countries of a symbol of what could happen to us -- you were pricing -- praising ireland. they followed your business model. they collapsed because of it. now they are falling in an austerity plan. china is investing. you are praising china now. china is investing in high-speed rail and developing their country and improvi their roads, improving their education. host: we are running late. we got your point. guest: we have neglected our infrastructure in many parts of the country for a long time, because we treated to new programs and entitlements like

obama care. if we did not create so many entitlements, maybe we would have money t repair our >> all this week we are talking about all recommendations of the president's bipartisan fiscal commission. tomorrow the focus will be on defense and security spending. thursday, overhauling tax policies with alice rivlin, and on friday we will read about with a look at social security. >> tonight, former defense secretary donald rice held on his new book detailing his role in the administrations.

you'll hear about his decision making on 9/11 and strategies in the iraq and afghanistan. >> we talked about all the things that could go bad. one of them was we might not find weapons of mass destruction. it was right there, written, sent around we thought about those things. i was on a program with all riley and he said why don't you tell us the things we could go wrong? i said what a great idea, tell the enemy the things we concede could go wrong. that is not the kind of things that you tell the press or the enemy. there are things that we talked about and that were circulated, that people were worried about. >> watch this discussion from the hudson institute tonight at

8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tonight, on c-span to the wall, a discussion on race in america. you hear from film director spike lee as they join a panel of journalists to talk about media coverage could >. >> you tell me you cannot go to 10 tea party express stops and it get enough footage to show that this is racist? they do not care if it is true or not. it is a dead issue. anyone who brings up is ridiculous. if you get a phone call and they say do you support donald trump, your answer should be no, he is an idiot, is try to sell me something. no, i do not support him. >> watch this discussion from

the aspen institute tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> this weekend on booktv, in "a " -- on afterwards, the debunking of several myths centuries old. also, the americanization of why beginning with the arrival of new england missionaries in 1820. find the complete schedule and get our schedules in mailed -- e-mailed. >> as the president spent time in town hall meetings, we talked this morning about whether the president's democratic base is remaining support of with his focus on the deficit. this is about 45 minutes.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: allen next guest is here to talk about frustration with the debates. here is what obama said -- our next guest is here to talk about the frustration that obama has discussed regarding debates. >> there have been times where i had felt the same way you do. host: are you frustrated? guest: on some issues i am. i think there is a disconnect between washington and the country.

everywhere around the country where i travel, i see the effect of massive unemployment. [inaudible] host: what is he talking about that you like and do not like? guest: in the speech, he articulated a vision for why we needed the government to do something we cannot do for ourselves. he says that we rely on each other to do certain things that we cannot do alone. that was very positive. what i am troubled by is that we seem to only talk about the deficit, at a time when there is another crisis, which is the unemployment crisis. host: here is the headline from last week's washington post. why? guest: we have unemployment

rates across the country where half of the people in the neighborhood are unemployed. this is a social catastrophe. we see no proposals from anybody to do anything about that crisis. it is coupled with a foreclosure crisis, and thousands of people continuing to lose their home. i think the frustration that i feel is the same frustration that millions of americans feel, that the government is not responding to that intense pain and suffering. host: front-page headlines. why should president obama and deal with the deficit, when you look at those headlines this

morning? guest: how did we get into this problem? the bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest people in the country, a massive redistribution of wealth in that direction. we had wars that we cannot afford in cannot pay for that are still going on. and a huge economic calamity brought about by deregulation of the corporate sector of the financial sector. the solution to the deficit problem is to get the economy moving again and to invest in jobs right here in america through infrastructure, aide to state and local governments, to stop the hemorrhaging. the solution to the deficit problem is taking the jobs problem seriously. host: here is a side peace in the "washington journal." -- piece in the "washington

journal." guest: it is important to understand in the last 20 years, 80% of the gains in our economy have gone to the top 1% of households. tax rates for the top 400 households have been reduced by one-third. that is a dramatic reduction. that would be real money making a real difference in bringing our deficit down. we need to cut defense and get out of a foreign entanglements that are reducing our ability to invest at home. we need a major investment in

infrastructure to get the economy building again. the economic recovery package did not go far enough. that was the problem. it had imported programs to get the country moving again. it was not bold enough to jump- start the economy to a level we needed it to go. host: some say this country has not responded to the financial crisis as they should have let other countries. they are saying opposite of what he said. those countries had austere programs, which has helped them with their economy. the u.s. needs to start doing the same. guest: we are seeing what austerity looks like in the united kingdom. they see a slowdown in economic growth. they are on the verge of going back to a beast -- severe recession as a result of that.

the real issue with the report is that the republicans are threatening to potentially hold ever countries creditworthiness hostage to some of the most extreme proposals to destroy medicare, medicaid, and so security, the foundation for social contract in america. they are playing with the picture of the country. host: sedation not agree to touch medicare, medicaid at all -- so you agree that they should not touch medicare and medicaid at all? guest: some measures were included in the health reform law. paul ryan did include some of that in the proposal he released. giving vouchers for medicare is essentially transferring thousands of dollars from the most normal people -- that is not who we are in this country.

there is enough if we take a different course and increase taxes on those that can afford to pay. host: the latest poll numbers are seven points below where they were in the most recent other poll, nearly matching the worst level of his presidency, have fisher message appeal to independents, which president obama needs to win the election? guest: they are hungry for something that speaks to the crisis they see in the country. we had the worst financial crisis in the country in 70 years. nobody went to jail. we had a regulatory reform package that was not tough enough. foreclosures and unemployment continue to increase. what is the other path? a robust alternative, investing in jobs in this country, that would be the winning recipe for

independents. host: santa barbara, california. caller: jesse jackson jr. commented on the eye patch from unemployment. pad for for unemployment. i have heard many say there are many jobs, but there are too few people educated women to take these jobs. -- educated or willing to take these jobs. guest: we have five unemployed jobs in this country.

no amount of job training by itself will solve this problem. we need a robust program to create jobs in the united states of america or we will have a 10% unemployment as far as the eye can see. there are important investments the country can make to retrain workers were emerging sectors in the economy. a growing occupation for hearing of baby boomers is one area for work. we need a bold job creation agenda to get out of the pickle we are in. host: what does your group do? guest: we are an advocacy group organization for low income people and people of color. host: medicare and medicaid?

guest: a big part of your job. host: democrat line. caller: i have a question i would like to ask you. how much of our money was spent by average government to help relocate the companies that moved to foreign countries? where can i find names of our elected officials who voted to fund these moves? is there anyone who has traced a product from china or wherever it came from a back to the united states to find out who is paying taxes, if any? how can we get out of this mess until we get jobs back in this country? guest: we have had a perverse tax policy that has rewarded companies for offshore and jobs from the united states to other countries -- offshoring jobs

from the united states to other countries. we have not done what we need to do for those countries that do not have wage protections like we do. a big part of the strategy for getting the economy moving has to be to insist that other countries around the world have those same kinds of standards. i would recommend an organization here in washington, the economic policy institute, on the question of trade and how it relates to our economic future. host: georgia, independent caller. caller: my question is about medicare. our 65 senior citizen pays a certain amount of social

security ever month. i have not heard anyone talk about that. every time we look, the public and get us in trouble. what will get us out of the economic mess we are in? guest: people do pay into medicare and they pay premiums. what the republican plan would do if implemented is increase the amount people paid by $6,000 a year. that is a radical change in the structure of the medicaid program and a radical cost shift to people that cannot afford to pay that amount of money. it is a. dangerous proposal that would undermine american -- undermine medicare as we know it. public investment to create jobs at a time where the private sector is not doing so. that is what our strategy has to

be to get the economy moving again. president roosevelt responded to the suffering in the country by creating safety net to address people out of work through no fault of their own and cannot find a job. host: we will continue our series, looking at what the bipartisan commission recommended when it comes to medicare and medicaid. did you agree with what the debt commission said? guest: i did not. i thought it was wildly out of whack in terms of what is proposed for spending cuts and tax increases. their plan would continue this radical redistribution of wealth from ordinary working class families to the top 1% or 2% of the country. the plan is no road map for a prosperous, thriving, equal america. host: we will get into that more

as we continue our week long series on the different issues. a reminder that president obama will talk about what he wants to do on the debt and deficit, kicking off a three day trip that begins in virginia with a town hall meeting. live coverage at 10:15 a.m. eastern time. let's go to california. are you there? we will move onto a democrat in washington, d.c. caller: you mentioned that you are an advocate for immigration reform. i do not think anyone has looked at how much money is spent on people who are here in this country illegally, as far as

some of the grants that organizations get. they benefit people here that are illegal -- that are here illegally. some rights are given to children who were born here -- the parents of children who were born here. if they have a disability, they have benefits that citizens have put into the system are benefiting the some that are here illegally. guest: immigrants pay more in taxes in this country then they take in benefits. people here illegally are in eligible for almost all of

those benefit programs, with the exception of emergency room care and public education for children. the larger question that the caller is getting to is, is immigration the -- a part of the reform for this country. i think it is. they have brought energy, and many other things that make this country unique. this generation is no different than prior generations. it is a piece of what we need to do to thrive in the 21st century. host: gallup polls showed that hispanic voters are not happy with president obama. guest: they have reason to be troubled. the president made public commitments to move immigration reform in his first year of office. it did not happen. many understand there were competing priorities on his plate. this administration has

supported more people than at any other time in the united states history. this means that we have a families being separated where someone is undocumented, someone is a citizen. there is enormous pain, suffering, and anger. that is what is reflected in those numbers. host: will they possibly vote for the republican candidate instead of obama? guest: the question is whether the president will respond to the failure with an aggressive policy to deal with the can. it is unlikely that congress will do anything regarding immigration reform for the next year and a half. obama could say that we will focus our resources on people that pose a genuine threat to the country and will not support

students who have only known the united states as their home. we will not support housekeepers, people with deep roots in the country with u.s. children.i they are an important fabric of our country. we need to focus the resources on security threats. host: what do you have behind you as far as resources? what can you mobilize for president obama? guest: we work with an organization that organizes people all over the country in low-income communities and people of color. we organized people to participate in the political process. we registered voters. that is a source. only when people participate can

we overcome the extraordinary influence of organized money and worker money in our society. ordinary people have to organize and set out -- participate. people always have a choice in an election. they have to exercise the right that people have fought for and died for in this country. people cannot sit on their hands. we encourage people to register and participate in come out to the polls for what ever candidate they think is supportive of their community's interest. we think maximum participation of everyone in the american society will produce the best outcome in terms of policies. host: michigan. caller: i was pretty sure that

back in december that they had settled on increasing the bush tax cuts and that was in order to prevent [unintelligible] it would not have been wise to cut them in the state that we were in. this lower rating that we are getting from the s&p, obama's plan is to rob peter to pay paul. the problem with president obama is that he is running out of peters and has more polls. -- pauls. that makes the problem worse. guest: i think it is important for the caller to understand

that inequality in this country, the gap between the rich, middle class, and poor is at the widest point and it has been at any time in the 20th century. 80% of the prosperity of the last few decades has gone to the top 1% of households. there is an enormous amount of concentration of wealth that has occurred because of tax policies and other policies. it is only fair to ask those with the most resources that have benefited the most from the recovery -- we encourage people success, but it depends in part to the help of the rest of society. they have an obligation to contribute back. it is only fair that they do so. caller.ndependent schola caller: i was with you until you spoke about immigration.

you are very wrong on your comment. as far as the stimulus plan, it was not focused on what it should have been focused on. it was focused on retiring police. it should have been a focused on on building machinery. i'd like to get a pair of american underwear made in the united states. there is none. you cannot find it. they are all overseas. they should have financed to start entrepreneur worss these facilities back up again, so that we can compete with these foreign nationals. these multinational business people who are not american citizens are using us as a market.

guest: i think the recovery package did include a number of very important provisions. i agreed with the caller that more needs to be done in that regard. we have infrastructure at every level -- investing in that would help broadbased economic growth. we need aggressive policy to get credit in the hands of small business people, who do create jobs and wealth in the country. we have had a shrinkage. the big banks are not lending to small businesses. we need aggressive policies set up by the federal government to stimulate the credit extensions of people can higher, as -- hire others in those manufacturing sectors. host: next caller.

caller: you let people speak their own troops on the liberal side. truths on the liberal side. it appears that this gentleman has not read the poem ryan plan. it does not say that medicare recipients will pay an additional -- has not read the paul ryan plan. it does not say that medicare recipients will pay an additional $6,000. host: that is the beauty of the program, that you get to call in and challenge our guests. guest: it would give vouchers to the medicare benefits at a level that is far inadequate to buy private insurance on the private market. the cost of medicare is

substantially lower, because we negotiate a lower rate. there are not administrative costs associated with private insurance. they get the same amount of money to buy a policy that is $6,000 or more expensive. go to the website that analyzes how the host: let's go next to westminster, calif. caller: 1 think about myself in california, i am the son of an immigrant. i understand what it is for someone to try to become a citizen. my mom was legal. the thing is, in california i have watched what has happened

to california. our immigration in california has gone from so many illegals it is unbelievable. wages have also gone down. i am a construction worker. i have worked in the trade 22 years. i also talk construction for 17 years. -- taught construction for 17 years. illegals are in the union. they are taking the jobs that should be going to our veterans. and you really do not know too much about what really truly happened. host: let's get a response. guest: the truth is we have entire sectors of our economy. but state agricultural for example. agricultural for

example. we have a whole sectors of the economy that depends on immigrant labor. the united states has an interest in making sure that we do not have two glasses of worker in this country. one that has no ability to bargain or exercise the rights, because that will depress wages for native-born workers. they have a path to citizenship. it is in no one's interest to have a second class group of people in our country to bring down labor conditions for everybody. it is in the country's interest to bring them out of the shadows and let them participate fully in our society. host: let's go to don next to his in an independent in new jersey. -- who is an independent in new

jersey. caller: i have been watching you for many years and i am sick and tired of people saying it is his fault, her fault. do not ever look in the mirror. you have to say i accepted -- i voted for these people that have these ideologies, that is what is causing us to go down the tubes. it is simple as that. we have a president in office. before he got in office, i was all set to vote for him. the more i heard him talk, the more i said he is a candy man. host: what about the republicans? caller: there is no republicans. they are conservatives. just like there are no more democrats. they're all liberals. they will not take care of you. i am sick and tired of hearing

about the rich. the rich create jobs. yes, they can go where they can create the most money, and that means china, brazil, india, because the atmosphere here for the american worker. host: i think we got your point. let's stick to 2012 politics and get your thoughts on the republican side of the ideal. here are some pictures of potential candidates. of these, who do you think represents the best challenge to president obama? guest: honestly, i am not sure there is a strong competitor in the entire bunch. elementsextreme not run the process.

i am not sure any of them are a delectable under these conditions. it will be very hard for even those like romney who passed a health care plan and massachusetts much like what the president pushed in washington. host: was that extreme? guest: moved a reasonable plan because he is running of the primary electorate. they have a dilemma, which is how do they find someone that can survive the primary process, and still appeal to a broad section of the country? it is not clear to me they can do it. host: judy in new hampshire. caller: i have a, because they always talk about social security. i have a hair salon. and i do my own peril. it made me sick to see people telling they are getting a 2%

increase, yet they took it from social security. they get a 2% increase now, but later on down the road they will not have this also security. they are already telling people we do not have enough in our budget. on top of it, obama says -- i personally think they should put their heads together and work together, but they now started taking anywhere from $7 to $10 more on a paycheck of $300 to $350 per week. there is obama taken from the working class to pay for everything else that goes on with this country. now i also hear that minimum wage will be going up to $9.25 per hour. whether that is true, i do not know. do you know how many small businesses like me it will put us out of business? guest: i am not sure i am clear on what the calller was

referring to in terms of the extra deduction from the paycheck. i would say this on the tax question, it is really important for people to understand that the extreme inequality that we see in our country is not a natural phenomenon, an act of god, it is a deliberate results over a set of tax policies that have dramatically brought down rates at the very top by a third, and that that is a good chunk of where the revenue needs to come from to put the economy on the right track and make the investment they need. host: "the washington post" reports yesterday -- i actually support of the progressive caucus that came out with a plan that essentially would take effect -- take effective tax rates in the clinton area so they would not

just repeal the tax cuts for people making over $250,000, it would be all of the tax cuts. i think given the state the economy is in that that is a good proposal. it is important no while tax rates up fallen for the rich, they actually had dropped substantially for everybody in our country. that is not a perception, dealing withe such dea such economic stress. host: patricia is a democrat in washington, d.c.. caller: i am health-care professionals in the washington metropolitan area, which includes maryland and virginia. i have worked with a very rich, also worked with the very poor. i would like to say this country will have to find a way to fund

health care for everyone. we are all intermingling in the society. if you are middle-class or very wealthy, you are going to mix with people that are very poor debtor want to take care of your laundry, and your house, your family. if they do not have health care and they contract ecumenical disease, they will pass it on to you and your family -- and they communicable disease, they will give it to your family. guest: i appreciate what the calller is saying and i want to bring it home to the radical cuts that are being proposed in the ryan plan. that is not just bad for them, it is bad for the country as a whole, because we are interconnected. we are one society. when you have a set of people

that are in poor health and unable to contribute it has an effect on the economy of everyone. i completely agree, the calller did a great job of articulating a vision for what types of society we could be and should be. host: 50 and on the line. -- dan on the line. caller: have you ever had a job in the private sector are running a business where you have been responsible for the pay roll in to make money, or have you always been in a think tank sort of a thing you are in now? my point being is why we as individuals have a compassion for people, i do not see anywhere in our government where we are chartered as a government to do the social engineering you want to do.

it is not the government's position at all to redistribute the wealth and correct inequalities. guest: i have worked for nonprofits my whole life, and i am very proud to have done so. i think calller is speaking to a basic philosophical difference. i think we do have obligations to each other, that we are our brothers' keepers and sisters' keepers, that we are interconnected. there is also a place for individual success, advantage, initiative. we have gone way out of whack to focusing solely on what the individual does, and not how we create the conditions for everyone to thrive. it is in all of our interests to do so. host: don on the line from san

diego. caller: i would like to talk to my fellow democrats about the president. he is doing a pretty good job in my view. comparing him to roosevelt. roosevelt had big majorities in congress. he had a bulletproof majority in the senate so he could get stuck past. even though they got it passed, a lot of it got overturned by the supreme court. there is only a certain amount of things that the president can do without the rest of the government backing him up. i just want to talk about that a little bit. host: are you drinking democratic-based groups like those represented by our guest are just being too hard on the president? caller: i think so. for example, one comment earlier

was it should have been larger. let's get a response. guest: the calller is right about this. the contrast between what the president is proposing and what congress is proposing could not be more stark. the president said in his speech last week that he wants to protect and defend the medicare, medicaid, so security. he said he thought the border -- burden should be borne by the people that had gained the most in the boom years. what the republicans have said is they want to gut the entire social score contract in this country and take us back to an era where elderly americans did not have the security of income or health care. that we did not have health care provisions for the poorest and most vulnerable people in our country.

that is a radically different vision that will play out over the next few months. i think the president did a great job last week of articulating the different vision. host: our last phone call. rick in chicago. caller: i was wondering if the guest would comment on his comment when he was referring to not taxing people more as a redistribution of wealth. how does he see that as a redistribution of wealth? guest: i am not undressed -- sure i understand the frame of the question. i think in our society, everyone creates wealth. people who care for the elderly, the people who build bridges, workers. everyone creates wealth. it is a thing that we do

together. the entrepreneurs play a critical role. they do not do it by themselves. they rely on the work and labor of others. it is appropriate in a good society to say we all contribute and deserves our return, and when the returns are so wildly out of skew that we have people at the top making hundreds and hundreds of more than people who are working for a living, that is very dangerous for a democracy, because it means we're not living in the same country with the

that announcement was made earlier today. all this week, we're booking of the recommendations from the president's that commission. tomorrow, and look at defense and security spending. on thursday, we will be joined by a former omb member to look at tax policies. we wrap up the week talking about social security. >> a few months ago, i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties found common ground. now, the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest gain a spending cut in history. >> four of the events for the budget debates from capitol hill and the house and senate floors, to the white house, and around washington online with the c- span a video library. everything we have covered since

1987. >> as the u.s. gets closer to withdrawing forces from afghanistan, the u.s. and pakistan have disagreed about the role and size of the pakistan military in securing the region and. the joint chiefs chairman and the delegation will head to pakistan. the institute of peace hosted a discussion on the pakistan military including its structure, history, and a role in governing. this is just over one hour and 45 minutes. >> banking wall very much for coming. i am the director of the center for security sector governance at usip. this is the first meeting of the securities sector worker group at their new headquarters here. we have been in the building for

about one month now. this is an amazing place to work. is also a difficult place to work because there is a view out of every window and it is hard to concentrate. anyway. the building was designed by a canadian architect and it was built by a combination of public and private funding. the public will be able to come in and tour the building much like a museum. the floor we are on now is a conference center and the conference floors are for the institute offices. if you want to learn more about the institute and the building,

you can pick up the publication. this morning's conference is one of a series of public forums which the securities sector governance has been running on this topic. too often, the focus is on the operational forces, the military, the cops, and very little attention is paid to the governance structures and ministries of defense and interior that supervise and provide for those forces. in the past, the center has book? the issue of the securities sector governance in iraq and afghanistan. -- the center has look? the issue of securities sector governance. we look at the transition space of north africa and the middle east. this is one of a number of the events that the u.s. institute of peace has talked about with

afghanistan. i think this level of attention is justified because the importance of the u.s.-pakistan relationship cannot be overstated. this morning, we will look at security sector governance in the roles in pakistan and the issue of civilian oversight in control of the military and police forces as well as its nuclear arsenal. usip has a number of ongoing programs in pakistan. if you want to read more about what the u.s. institute of peace is doing in that country, you can pick up this publication. today's discussion comes after a

few days after a successful visit to afghanistan. the prime minister and army chief of staff and the statements made by president karzai at the conclusion of the visit signaled the possibility that something may be possible. cooperation between pakistan and afghanistan in dealing with, the security challenges can, again, not be overstated. to discuss the role of the you security sector, we have brought together a group of very distinguished experts this morning. you have their biographies in a handout, so i will not take time for introductions. i will only express my sincere appreciation that they are with us this morning. i will introduce them in order.

the first speaker will be the director of the south asian center at the atlantic council. he will be followed by hassan abbas, a professor -- did i get that right? professor at the south asian institute at columbia university. we rehearsed this over coffee and i knew i would blow it. i apologize. there is a long standing tied to columbia university here. i am an alumni of columbia. it is nice to be present among former and later classmates. and the residence south asian adviser for the u.s. institute of peace. moeed yusuf will speak to last. i want to thank him for the support he has given to make

this program possible. without further reductions, let's get started. >> this is the first public event i've been to it the new building. i must say it is quite spectacular and i can understand why you get distracted from your daily work when there's so much light coming in all the time. i was asked to shed some light on this topic. i will start off with a little bit of a downer by saying that pakistan today is very dysfunctional. there is the accumulation of decades of action and inaction

that has led to a very sharp division between the military and the civil in various areas of foreign interest. the lack of public participation in formulating public policy. i say this because pakistan today also has a tremendous and strength in exercising rights and ideas. most recently with president musharraf when he took some misses steps in dealing with the chief justice and was summarily removed, it was a civil society movement that forced his government to change course and to reinstate the chief justice

of the supreme court. the first time that something like this happened in pakistan without there being a coup. it is a very interesting departure from previous situations in the country's history. the dysfunctional policy that i referred to means that the civil and military are on similar trucks for different issues. this is an inheritance of pakistan's history. we have had three fairly extensive periods of military rule as well as civilian autocratic rule which inherited of the autocratic powers and centralized controls of the military rulers and then failed to establish the kind of political base than they needed in order to continue with a civilian governments in pakistan. in we have this kind of yo-yo

effect for the military government promises to be there to 90 days, hold an election, and exit. they stay for a decade and then the civilians come in and because the military rule has stunted everything including the civil administration, the bureaucracy, over time there is no similar structure to hold up the civilian rule and it becomes a a segue to the next military role. interestingly, since 2008 the current army chief has publicly declared that they want to keep the military out of politics. i have to remind everyone that the previous army chiefs have said the same thing. conditions change and the public basically clamors for some kind of order and stability. in the name of order and stability, the military does

"it's a duty." that possibility remains, but for now there has been a clear- cut statement and the position taken by the army chief where they have taken that kind of public back seat, as an work, and has not come out to the public except on chosen occasions to achieve specific results. the constitutional arrangement is also worth remembering. there is a section dealing with the armed forces in article to order 45. -- 245. the civilian government, as a civilian governments all around the world, has the right to call in the military in aid of civil power. when it does that, then article

245 refers to another which is 199 which has anything and everything that the military does cannot be challenged in the high court of the land. this is a blanket immunity from all legal actions resulting from any action that the military would take in pursuit of assisting civil powers. periodically, there has been debate and discussion within pakistan on this issue. there's been a very loud public debate that ensued in the 1990's when the army chief was requested by the government of the prime minister to mount

this. he would not proceed unless he was given cover under a article245, and as a result, that action was postponed and when the army did act, they ended up not being requisitioned by the government. interestingly, the current situation is interesting because 245 is never mentioned. it is not mentioned by the newspapers, the government, or the military. however, moving into the fight against the militants in the northwest of pakistan, the pakistan army fought and received a requisition from the provisional government. this indicates to me a desire to allow the civilians to call the shots as far as the actual

orders that are given to the military to act. contrast that with the attempt at reaching some kind of a national consensus in pakistan today. you may recall that in the early days of this current government that there was an attempt made to get a joint resolution of the parliament to fight terrorism inside pakistan. it took a lot of cajoling, arm twisting, particularly on the part of the military authorities behind the scene in convincing people that it was important to sign up for this even if they disagreed politically with the government of the day. in a day event -- in the event that they managed to produce a joint resolution, when the thought occurred, they

basically ceded all powers to the army chief to decide what to do and how to do it in the area in spite of the fact that martial law had not been declared in the frontier province nor any shots at that time. -- nor in fata. the military is called in a the of u.s. powers but there was no martial law declared and the civilian government continue to to muddle through on the sidelines but did not have a controlling hand on the tiller. it was only much later and in the last few years that a kind of a doric that emerged between the political representatives, the civilian government of the province, led by the national

party, and the corps commander where they have what they call meetings with aipac to sort out their plans come ideas come and differences. this is not something that was planned. this emerged over time. indeed, the recent counterinsurgency and conflict, "what you will, not sure the widening gap between the civilian and military on decision making. the military now has come in my view, and much wider stance on the policy of pakistan. traditionally, it was understood, particularly after the time when the general was in power that the military had a very direct influence and control over certain aspects of policy.

one was india and the other was for a policy because at that time, pakistan was assisting in the war against the soviet occupation. the third emerged during the nuclear policy. then of course the round pakistan's history, the relationship with the united states because the united states has been a partner on and off of the pakistan military ever since the 1950's. the army, particularly being the largest of the three military services, has had a very powerful relationship with the united states and west to continue to influence public policy on that relationship. that continues. the army has the wide stance on these four sectors of policy. increasingly, from recent trip to pakistan, mike understanding is that now the army is also

becoming extremely interested in economic management. there are two very good reasons for that. what is the failure of the civilians administration to be able to muster the political support for very critical economic reforms that could sustain pakistan's economy and leave a stable development and growth front. their failure to come up with measures that would stick in their failure to muster support, even within the wrong party, let alone bringing in other parties and the opposition, to resolve some of the structural problems in the pakistan economy has created a situation which has put pakistan on the path of economic destruction. this will happen if things are not changed in the near future. the army has started to take condescends of this for the simple reason that the army will

suffer if the economy shrinks. the costs and operation of the army have increased and it cannot function unless their support for within pakistan's economy. it cannot rely entirely on foreign assistance and given the debate going on in the united states, i think the days of unfettered u.s. military assistance or even coalition support funds are likely to be numbered. secondly, the army itself is a very major economic factor in pakistan. over time, the military has, in order to support the wrong people as well as department retirees, has created a fairly large impression on the pakistan economic landscape. it is involved in different activities such as real estate,

banking, different conflicts. in addition, the army house a very large military production complex which follows a policy of import substitution. now, for those of us who have had encounters with economics, import substitution is normally followed by the worried that they will lose their ability to produce for their own selves because the imports will become prohibited or will be the -- or there will be sanctions imposed which will keep them from relying on foreign supplies, and particularly for the military. as a substitute for imports, used for producing things yourself. pakistan has, over time, been involved in import substitution

on a fairly large scale in order to be able to resist the pressures from overseas, particularly with major suppliers. there are some good reasons for pakistan to be paranoid because over time, they have had a number of allies reneged on promises. there was a famous case of france pulling the plug on the transfer of nuclear technology under pressure from the u.s. and other western powers. that kind of narrative runs deep in the pakistan memory. as a result, we have a very expensive substitution defense sector. that is going to add to the costs. one example given by the former head of the factories will give you an indication of how these costs can be enormous.

they said one washer for the standard rifle used by the pakistan army costs of five rupees to import. yet it costs 25 rupees to produce. because they want to be independent, they produce it domestically. i do not think that of the order of magnitude are all five times the cost. unless the economy starts to tank, the government as well as foreign assistance will not be able to sustain the military had its current level nor will it be able to support its wider activities throughout the country. the question was raised, what is the relationship? who controls the security apparatus? at the moment, the military. even the ministry of defense has

been ceded to the military because the secretary of the military, the secateurs the minister of defense is a retired general. many retired officers popular at the ministry of defence. this was, in some ways, a surrender by the civilian authorities to the military at the very outset of the civilian rule and they basically lost the high ground where they could actually tried to reestablish civilian supremacy and failed to do so. despite the fact that the general had asked all the offices to be moved into civilian government positions by president musharraf to either resign or reserving -- resign or return. what to expect for the future. for the near term, the next three-five years perhaps, and there will be increasing military interference because of the conditions inside the

country, the economy which will not be improving very rapidly very soon and the political system which is in a kind of stalemate. there will be elections and a couple of years, maybe sooner, but it is not likely to produce a very powerful civilian government with a strong mandate. the strongest political, economic institution in the country will remain the military in pakistan. i see much less penetration of the military in the civilian administration given the current policies of the current army chief and now has another three years in his tenure. if that continues, i think it offers a great opportunity for the civilian establishments, whether it is this government or its successor, to start to take back some of those responsibilities. something that my conversations with the military people

indicate that they would favor, they are almost dying for someone to step up and take responsibility so that they can go back to being soldiers. that is the normal tendency of most militaries. however, if no one steps up to the plate, then we will continue to see this and discuss this five years from now. thank you. >> thank you very much. it is a great pleasure and an honor to be. if you ask the basic question who controls the pakistan security forces, my short answer would be that i do not exactly know, but there are so

many forces in the brown ones to control them -- and everyone wants to control them, internally and externally. we talk about security forces, especially in reference to pakistan, the first idea that comes to the mind is the armed forces in the history of a military coup. we know how much impact it has on the process even when it is in a democracy. in this analysis, we forget about international norms. just look about the department of defense in the united states. think about the military in these other countries in the terms of their feedback and their reactions to what the defense policy should be. the big issue is who has the

biggest part. it should be a civilian leadership. in the beginning, i wish to challenge some of the basic presumptions that we have. by definition, by some structural reasons that the pakistan security forces including police, law enforcement, the military lies outside the control of the mainstream political process, it is not true. how and why? i will go into detail in the next 1015 minutes. 10-15 minutes. the focus is on some of the structural governance issues. there's absolutely no doubt that there are serious structural flaws in pakistan and there are in constitutional complexities as well.

when we come to discuss who controls pakistan's security forces, it is good to very briefly define what we mean by security forces. and the context of pakistan, there are three institutions. one is the civilian law enforcement infrastructure. we mean police, the rangers, which are federal investigation agents, a separate police institutions in various parts of the country and the air force security forces, frontier constables. there are a said the civilian law enforcement institutions, so that is one structure. that comes under the control and command of the ministry of the interior. i had a recent report which it

talks about all these different elements of the civilian law enforcement. so that is one component of the security structure. the second component, which in some ways is a part or a subset of this first structure, but these are paramilitary forces. the first structure, the four large civilian institutions in the provinces, because in pakistan the police are law enforcement and a law and order is a provincial subject which means it is the ultimate in the inspector general of police in the provinces who are the chief of police. the answer to the department of the minister. in between police and the other armed forces come in between are

the frontier rangers. they respond according to the constitution and are accountable to the minister of the interior, on the day are led by army officers. though they legally responded to the minister of the interior, but in terms of job requirements and in terms of prospects, in terms of decorum, in terms of the rules of engagement, they responded to the army chief or the military leadership of because, after all, they are dependent upon the military chief. the paramilitary forces somewhere in between civilian

and the military. who controls all three segments. the police is clear and it is under the executive chief of the province. in some ways, these are the police civilian law enforcement structures under any elected political the government in islamabad. for the frontier corps and the rangers, it is mixed. then there's the pakistan military. yes, pakistan always has a minister of defense. i do not what to say that they're good for nothing, they're usually pop -- politicians to have very little say in defense policy. and i doubt there is any time the chief of the army, navy, or air force to resist the ministry

of defense and partly because the various military coups and had established the party. the ministry of defence come in reality, is a post office for whenever there are budget or training issues and the says are needed. the-coordinate between the civilian government and the military. the armed forces are completely independent of any way or do they just decide on their own on many of the central issues, that is not true. yes, they have a certain influence but that is altogether a different ballgame. accretes a new institutional framework. on many issues, maybe not

specifically on these processes in india, but by and large for institutional reasons, budgets, planning, the navy, air force, they are a function under the ministry of defence. it may not be very powerful, but to a great extent, it is. i will not jump to a different question. if the control is lacking, and we know that it is, and these things that i mentioned we know that there is poor coordination. what are the primary reasons in the security forces in the country? armed forces have a separate

way. they have an excellent website. they're very professional. one important institution in the country would have a different independent pr department? that is an organizational issue? i doubt the ministry for information, which is responsible, deals with this issue with any details. this explains something because in many cases, you'd see the ministry of information, which is the spokesperson for the state, and represents all three armed forces institutions that their policy or assessment on certain things can differ. this is a lack of cohesion. why is there a lack of cohesion? i think there are two very basic

reasons. one, of course there are the interruptions. if the political forces would continue, things would be much more in order in pakistan and it has shown in 60 years that whenever the demand -- the democratic process starts over, but one way or another, the military has independent physicians but by and large ec that the whole system, the ministry, the defense department, the leadership, in two, three, four years they start to work more closely together with the prime minister of pakistan to govern along with the chiefs. i think, increasingly, it took two or three years, but the political and the military leadership of pakistan is

coming to one larger position. one hopes that will be the case when it comes to the pakistan policy towards india. but the way that i'm developing my case is that do not expect that this will happen on the first day. two examples and one is in 2008 when the demand for democracy was happening in pakistan, and i know this from having listened to the leaders of the country, that the understanding was that democracy is returning to the country, but for warranted issues, security issues. there should be new departments, maybe something like, and security, but that would be led by the pakistan army chiefs. i'm not sure that it was on record, so let me rephrase this.

the view of the political leadership of the country was that it should be led by the pakistan military and if there is a civilian institution in whatever name they would have given which has the frontier corps, rangers, and the military to be led by the military. as a political scientist i would argue that it should not be the case. the leadership for anti counter- terrorism defense issues should always be civilian. in this case, but they realize that the kind of challenge they are facing a terms of insurgency and religious extremism in the tribal areas, it is only the military who would do that. that is not an ideal situation, but that was the plan. i think it has fizzled out. the second was about after

initially in 2008 when the political government decided to do the intelligence, famous or infamous, but they wanted to bring it under civilian control. the problem was that it was highly ill-advised. you cannot do this overnight by just one stroke of the pen and give a declaration that from tomorrow on word you would function under the administration. they made it a point that within 24 hours of that decision to be diverted. the reason i mention this is that there are political allies in washington, d.c., but whosoever advised this was not

aware of the ground realities. when it comes to the distribution of power in the terms of the rivalries, there is a continuation of democracy and marketability in the long process review bring the officials in front of committees in the parliament were people are becoming more open to responding. that would have been the best way. is the kinds of challenges that we are facing about why these security forces working in different ways. at times, they seem to be moving in different directions because of constitutional interruptions and because of the lack of the rule of law. it is very instructive, very

insightful that the chief justice of pakistan said this that the army had absolutely nothing to do about whether that will be listened to are not. do i have a couple of minutes? or have i run out of time? just to conclude and try to make sense of these four or five larger issues, as i have mentioned, there are parallel tracks for the military, paramilitary forces come and for the pakistan military. what would be the way forward? how would these three very different pillars of the state act in more harmony? based on my argument, they should understand and accept constitutionalism that there is

no way out. we should recognize that issues should understand. we're not going to go in. in the arguments is because we do not want everyone and did not want to open all the conflicts. the other ideas about this issue is that pakistan, of course, have some favorites who are kept in the loop for reasons, but what i learned based on my interviews is that within pakistan, the president, the prime minister, in the political environment is not only fully agreeing to this position by the military because it is only the military which is there. the military civil relationship

will be dependent on financial issues, budget issues, the military ultimately is dependent on two things. irrespective of the fact of the territorial boundaries that they claim that they have the right to have, which is a very problematic concept and the idea was dealing with the occupancy. and also the present leadership of the pakistan military is quite progressive and secular in many ways. a couple of times at least mistakenly or because that was just in the mind set the from the senior most military leaders that the statement that we are all responsible for the ideological boundaries of pakistan that the statement was given, perhaps mistakenly.

coming back to the main theme, civilian and military leadership will automatically be closer to each other with the continuation the democratic process. that is already starting to happen. it is hugely dependent on a budget. yes, at this point, it should not be openly discussed in the parliament how much of the budget the military will get. just look at the controversy that was covered in pakistan. every mainstream medium very strongly, openly into that the goal of the military. even when the army decided that it was their decision and the managed it. the army is now more open to this criticism. there are these kinds of

pressures, political pressure, and these statements from the judiciary. i am convinced that they have absolutely no intention of conducting a military coup. they have no such design on this and i am pretty clear. if the sake of argument, if any general has come it is not that difficult to do that. i state this is the continuation of democracy in the rule of law. what is the way forward other than constitutionalism and the rule of law? i believe that it sets a very bad precedent and i do not know who came up with the idea of who proposed this, but even from this point of view within the armed forces, is a problematic thing in extensions. two more points.

about the need for a new civilian institution to take care of the civilian law enforcement side, i will not go into any detail because i covered that in the one of my papers by usip. all of the agencies will all be under one umbrella. it will help to coordinate the work with military on one side and the civilian political leadership on the other side. last but not least, i think this is worth emphasizing, but all this might come into play and we should not look at history and say that just because it has happened previously that the military would not enforce their positions and that it will happen again. pakistan is much difference in 2011 than even in 2005 or 2006, but in this context without the

continuation of democracy, these institutions, these security forces, none of them will be able to manage pakistan. the continuation of democracy is the only way forward for bringing harmony into these institutions. thank you very much. >> moeed? >> thank you, bob. thank you for putting this together. that may also dispel any ideas that i had anything to do with this event. he was kind enough to mention my name. let me follow-up from what has been said already. i agree with some of this and will perhaps add a little bit more to what has been said. i want to start with a disclaimer. the disclaimer is that if we

want to look at pakistan's civil-military dynamic and control of the securities sector from a u.s. benchmark and this nonnative benchmark, i would argue that pakistan would fail on every count and it would be a useless exercise. what we need to do is get into the pakistan context and understand them how things are operating in what direction things are moving at present. that is what i will try to do in the time that i have. it is critical, i think, to understand the peculiar nature of the pakistan military. the civilian and the military dimensions, as have been mentioned, often run parallel to each other rather than in tandem. the disconnect between the civil in the military is well known.

the fact that there is an anomalous relationship has been written. the reasons are deep and go back to pakistan's of independence and how things moved in the first decade of the pakistan's history. i will not go into that, but suffice to say that there is a major civil-military disconnected. it continues to persist in pakistan. if you look at how literature on this issue is presented, you always find the term "civil verses military." seldom do you find the two mentioned as partners. i think that is an exaggeration, but it tells you the mindset of the pakistani right there. that is how they seem the policy developed. the second thing i think we need to understand is the mindset of the pakistan army if you want to

see how things in the securities sector function in the pakistan. the mine said, i would argue, resembles the turkish military in a lot of ways. if you are more familiar with that, it is an army which sees its ultimate task as the defense of its borders but also sees itself as the ultimate arbitrator of national interests. again, there are a number of deep-rooted reasons for that, how pakistan developed, what the situation, with the military saw its role as, and not the least, the environment pakistan insisted in. i point to the central dimension which is india. if there is one element that has driven the minds of pakistan over the last 63 years, it is the threat that emanates from india. that has varied over time, but

it has remained consistent in thinking the pakistan teai as a nation. because india is the connection here and that is why the military has taken this position that it has come it has had a major say in foreign policy on india and regionally in general. from the u.s. benchmark or any international benchmark, that is probably not optimal. if you get into how the pakistani military is operated in how the civilian has operated the military and the civilian ideas of military rule, it is not difficult to understand the how and why the pakistani military influence is exercise over the foreign policy. again, and the remains -- india remains the moniker here.

let me also make a point that military and military dictators are not the same thing. too often we seem to look outp monastery -- look at pakistani military rulers and the military as the same thing. not so. in all of the military rule, it is outside of the fact that the military is being put into a political position, as anyone else in pakistan is. the average military soldiers certainly has nothing to do with the fact that the president of the country at that time happens to be a military ruler. i think that distinction is important. with that said, i think is fairly obvious that in the security realm in terms of military defense decisions, the

military has had a much more influence they would in an average country. the civilians have been on the back foot. as has been mentioned by the other two speakers, the ministry of defense is largely irrelevant to the way that the security apparatus function. i would challenge you in how many of you actually know the name of the pakistani defense minister. say something. but this is not about finger- pointing, but to make the point that the services are more important in the case of pakistan. let me also give you the cover -- the other side of the army's thinking. i am making of this word but it is a constitutionalized army.

it is not fractionalized or an army that would willingly go out of its way to make a point to undermine the constitution. the exceptions are of course there and the military proves that it happens, but in general, the army, from my understanding, takes pride in the fact that they still remain part of the legal framework of pakistan and work within that. it has a very civilized dimension to this. you'll not find an army chief making a public statement and say, "i do not care what they say and i will do whatever i like." if you look at the institute of the army and how they are brought up, the framework of law is very much part of that. this comes directly from, i would argue, tradition and the tradition that the british left. i think that is also one the

reasons that the army has remained as coherence, professional, and organized. truly from a military perspective, they truly believe that they are the ultimate savior of pakistan against external and internal threats. in their mind, what i do not completely agree that the military has a major economic interest in the country, for a military mind, if you talk to them, they will sincerely convince you, even today, the they are really there to defend the country and save it from everyone. there are not there to make money, unlike other militaries which i could point to that do this. there is an interesting dichotomy here. the military remains the most influential and very important in the a number of ways and yet the works to the system. traditionally, pakistan has not had any debate on the defense

budget. pressure did come on the military and now they're debating on the defense budget in the parliament. the military, interestingly, goes to the ministry of finance to get their budget approved every year and almost every time they get less than what they ask for. that is classic military that you asked much more than what you needed to get what you want, perhaps. it works to the legal mechanism. i have not heard of any instance of the military going to the minister of finance and saying, "this is the amount we need and we need it tomorrow." militaryingly, the has only received a share of what has come into pakistan post-9/11. it has received less than what

it was supposed to. that we make one exception here to the idea of working through the law. even there, i would argue they go through the long and it is a constitutionalized army even in their outlook. there's one question dealing with foreign policy and india. there, the military has extended and tried to have a more influence than usual. that is not to say that civilians it do not have a say, but there was one exception which i think, to my mind, was. pent -- was the low point and that was the cartel of the soda. -- cargill episode. the prime minister has one of

perspective and was brought out into the open and became ugly which is on like pakistan in its history. that me add here that the civilians have done themselves no favors if the idea is to balance the civil-military equation of. there is no expertise to speak of in the political parties of the civilian sphere on security matters. i speak of the political scientists here. how do you usurp some of the power that the military has? you do bayh informed analysis, arguments, and opinions. there is nothing of that in the civilian sector. to the point that i think that if i were to have a conversation on security with the civilians, after five minutes they would say, could do would be feel like. i do not know what you are talking about."