region into context, if you will, in just about everything that you're doing. we have been through a rough patch and been through it before with pakistan. i'm actually hopeful that we will continue to be able to build on the relationship. we understand each other much better than we did a few years ago and still digging our way of 12 years with no relationship and that is not going to be solved in the few years we have been working and going to take some time. but i think a partnership, strategic relationship with pakistan in the long run is absolutely vital to the security, not just in that region, but because of the downside >> afghanistan, the neighboring

country. we have to consider them together but we have 100,000 troops in afghanistan and many thousands more contractors. i want to ask you, and i believe the drug known as opposed to use start happening this july. what do you see as the pace of the drawdown plan? are we in there for the long haul? >> we will start to withdraw troops the summer. general petraeus has not made a recommendation yet. there is no decision with respect to that but no question we will. we do not know how big it will be or from what part of afghanistan as such. it does speak to an important message of transition. karzai identified seven provinces for transition over

the course of the next year. we're focusing on getting to a point by the end of 2014 where the afghan security forces have responsibility for their own security. we think that is doable. we think we can meet that goal. i on this most recent trip, which was in the east, which is a very tough fight as well as in helmand, i am encouraged by improvements over the last year. what you hear about that, i can verify having been there. this year will be a very difficult year. it has started out to be a tough year. we have tragic losses yesterday -- had tragic losses yesterday. eight airmen who were killed by this afghan darman -- airman and

every losses tragic -- a loss is tragic. we are working hard to eliminate that. not just we have been working on this. this is not the first incident. this will be a difficult year. it is a tough year for the taliban and it will be a tough year this year. they are out of their own safe havens in afghanistan and they will come back and try to take them. i think there will meet a force that is more than ready for them. we're starting to see signs of reconciliation and reintegration on the ground. i'm concerned about one thing. not that i am not concerned about security. the government's peace, the corruption case for two areas and i would add will lot to that. those are areas that have to start to take traction and we

need to improve in those areas to get to where we need to get to over three years. >> an interesting story in the paper about people in rural afghanistan who feel they cannot trust the government or the united states forces they're trying to help them. if they do, the taliban will go after them and on the other side, they do not like they taliban either. what is the answer? >> the taliban, the numbers i have seen, they are in the 9% or 10% at that level in terms of how the afghans feel about them. most afghans citizens are on the fence to see how this is going to go. i am hopeful that with another year similar to what we had in 2009, we will have more clarity

about what it looks like once we get through this fighting season. in the october-november time frame -- we're seeing some good signs. local government starting to function in certain places. i am cautiously optimistic but i do not want to understate the degree of difficulty overall and the challenge we have in front of us this year. >> if anyone has a question, come to the microphone. thank you. we should not ignore one more country. north korea. and career in general. very high tension levels there. what are the key concerns? you are concerned about that. >> south korea is a great ally and we work closely with them and it is a critical part of the world to ensure stability. obviously, its proximity to

china, the economic engine that china is, our relationship with the asean countries. we do that in support of south koreans and there have been provocative acts and we worry a great deal about those. kim jong il is not a good guy and has acted in ways that have been very dangerous at times. the worry is and secretary gates said this well. he is looking at nuclear capability. this is not just about local security in the not too long run. that potential exists as well. he is starting his people, we know that. his army, which is pretty unusual, is having a tough time

getting food this year as well or through this winter. it is a tough, complex situation and -- that a lot of us are focused on. we need him to stop the provocation and what i worry about is as he continues to provoke as we look at this succession plan, the potential for instability and miscalculation and escalation is pretty high end of a concern. we focus greatly on ensuring as best we can that it goes in the other direction. >> we are involved because we have the mutual defense with the tree of south korea. >> six to one is the ratio of

contractors to civil servants although civil servants continue to endure a program. who should be doing the work of the government? >> civil servants continue to deal with civil service bashing. >> of program. -- opprobriam. i have worked with civilians for a long time. the total force includes our civilian work force. who was extraordinary. and will continue to be of vital vital part of -- a our force. and dedication and patriotism that equals that of any of us who wear the uniform.

all of us have to be realistic about the budget environment in which we exist and look at the best way to move forward. one of the things i worry about on the civilian side is the rules, when we get into a tight situation like this. the tendency is last in, first out. we have to pay attention to refreshing our workforce. we have to figure out a way to reach our goal, whatever they might be while not sacrificing our future. the average age is about 47 or 48. we have to recognize that. leaders have to be created and cognizant of this to insure that this is not just about the next 12 months or 24 months. it is a long-term requirement.

but would not be anywhere without the great work force we have. >> i think clearly it is going on in the acquisition work force. it has been over the course of the last two or three years, for example. in terms of the budget pressure, that ratio certainly has potential for change. it is natural. many of our contractors are in direct support of what we are doing. secretary gates has asked us to look at to see how much of it really need. the pressure is going to grow. >> we will take one here and the other microphone is over here. have -- take that

question expect i'm captain ed sector i think you work for my dead years ago. we'llbe entering him in arlington in two weeks. >> i'm sorry to hear that. >> the question of going to raise this morning inot new. my sister and brother-in-law both served in the army in the early '80s. my son and daughter-in-law are both active duty now. my son and marine intelligence officer just came home from his third tour in southwest asia. my daughter-in-law, a service worker officer has been doing drug intervention off the south america. they have been marriedfor six years, and this month they will have been in the same town for one year total. you know, when i was on active duty we paid attention to the joint service couples, and we made promises about allowances in this regard i understand the operational exigencies of our time, but i don't see that

anything has changed in the last 30 years in terms of really making the rubber meets the road. literally, my son just deploys, my daughter get some. my daughter just deploys, my son gets home. it's happened again and again and again. is anybody paying attention to this in terms of retaining people thaare critical? >> well, in th mid '90s i ws in a position of leadership in the assignment world, and we actually initiated steps to assign dual military couples in cross services it and i believe we've got to extend that outside, outside the military. i think we have to pay a lot of attention to dual careers, whether a family has one in the military and one not, not so.

i will do two things. one is, i would love to take turning into some research in terms of how much this is -- where exactly we are. i know that we're much better than we were in the mid-nineties with respect to that in terms of those assignments. but you overlay that with demands of the war and te repeated deployments and it's much more difficult issues to manage. i know there is a great deal more focus on this fom a leadership perspective than there used to be. and goes to what i said earlier about guaranteeing the future. if we don't get young men and women like her son and daughter--law to stay in, we are not -- our future will be somewhat problematic. i have been struck, it goes back to the dedication and extraordinary young men and women who served right now, i have just been struck by their

willingness to do this, to pursue the career. odyssey to meet the needs we have from the national security standpoint, and in many cases even surprised that they will continue to do it because of the kinds of percentages that you just laid out there, one year in six. and yet we have lost -- i have talked to more than my fair share of said i want to get a life, start a family. we jt got to slow down. and it's something that i have addressed and people have addressed very, very closely in terms of not just dealing now, but how do this affect our future. i don't think it is my own take on, i don't think it is deliberate. i do know -- i have run into so many, many couples that have been assigned or detailed very specifically to make it work as opposed to what's odyssey going on. so i would be happy to take your

name and e-mail address and get back to you with what exactly we are on that. but i know it's a focus of all the services, and i'm very comfortable we have improved. it's not where we were 30 years ago, but that doesn't mean we don't have work to do. in the long run, i believe we're going to have to assign people, we'll have to put people at the center here as opposed to the institutions. and i think if we do that, really, no kitty, do that, and assign people accordingly, that this will be well taken care of the. as opposed to the institutions, we are protected of the institutions, face the institutions needs and put that up front and in sort of figure out where people go after that. i just don't think that will work. >> good morning, sir.

truth in advertising, retired military, retired air force them former defense contractor, current air force civilian. that being said, libya is maybe a one off but maybe a precedent, and i'm concerned if this precedent would be applied to syria. i came through bosnia, and my personal belief was that, we can fly over all you want but until you put oots on the ground things don't change much. that was my personal belief and i'm a little concerned about possibly applying the pariah killing his own people through syria, which i perceive to be a significantly greater threat than libya was at the time that we begin this. >> the president has made it very clear that he decries, and we all do, the violence in syria. it needs to stop. i talked about this trip that i took up through the right at the

height of the bahrain challenge. is one of the things that struck me, and i think we just have to be very careful about this come is you can't broadbrush this. every single country is unique. every single country is obviously in the region as well. and i don't think we can disconnect a country from its region. i think we have to be very careful about how we address each one, and there are differences and reasons for differences in each e. and so, the question of, okay, libya, why not burma? i mean, there are, for instance, and i've actually, i have actually heard that question as well. i think it is too broad brushed. to your point, said he is a different country. it's in a different place. and while we certainly deplore -- implored the violence and for the killing, i think whidbey

remain full of the uniqueness of syria in both its history, its location and what the potential is, and where we are in that, where they are in that crisis. so, i just don't think that we can say because, you know, one, because one leader was doing something that is absolutely translates to an intervention that involves another leader. i think we have to be very, very careful about that. my comment about how much the limit of air power per se, but would reemphasize what the president has said come and i assure you, he has no intent that i am aware of how he made very clear to me, no boots on the ground in libya and that's what we are today. >> we are counting down. we have about three or four minutes left. yes, sir. >> good morning, admiral. thank you for your service and your example that you not on a

sacrifice your generation but generations to come. ank you. my question is, how effective are civilian, our workforce to our military leadership? >> its evolving to our civilian expeditionary workforce is evolving. i was in kandahar in afghanistan a few months ago and sat down with maybe half a dozen young foreign service officers who had come from lima, london, paris, and rio and found themselves in kandahar excited got every bit as excited as young officer in the military, about doing what they were doing. and i was very tak by them in terms of their dedication and eir service. and the excitement that the generated in ter of making a difference in peoples lives.

so i think it's improved. i think we need to continue to focus on this because we are living in an expeditionary world. we are not going to be able to just deal with it from the washington perspective for the future. so, all the agencies come and it's going to be harder now that the budgets are tighter, have to continue to focus on a. but i think we're in much better shape than we were a few years ago. that said, still a long way to go. >> i'm being signaled that our time has just about run out. so, admiral mullen, i'm going to ask you, if you have any final thoughts for this audience before we give you a round of applause for being here. >> lastly, i would just say thanks to all of you, many of you in the audnce have served and make a difference. when i think about the challenges we have been through, this is what we're going to do for the next 10 years, we're going to deploy this many tim,

when you ask these sacrifices, of our people. and we should be mindful we lost almost 6000 young men and women, and tens of thousands physically injured, and hundreds of thousands with invisible wounds like pts. they have been the best i've ever seen, we just never forget their sacrifices. we are blessed to have them. we are a great, great country for many reasons, and one of the underpinnings of that is this extraordinary force of young men and women who serve today. and again, i'm privileged to still be in uniform and still be

thank you for your service. [applause] >> on c-span, a look at protests against syria's government with the leader of the opposition movement. former senator and possible candidate bricks santorum talks about foreign policy. later, the u.s. chamber of commerce host a conference on aviation. >> i try to tell a story with visuals instead of words. >> with four pulitzer prizes, she has won the award more than any other journalist. >> the great thing is the .ariety

we get to experience this on so many levels. you can download a podcast of "q&a". one of our many signature interview programs available on- line at c-span.org/podcast. sunday, from the festival of books. "and that" -- "in depth". they will take phone calls and e-mails on "book tv". >> a member of the syrian opposition based in washington on protests sweeping the country. some 500 civilians have died during a government crackdown on protests. more than 200 members have

resigned in response to the violence. from the hudson institute, this is under two hours. >> it is my privilege to welcome you and our c-span audience. for approximately four months, the arab world has been the scene of dramatic events. a specially -- especially dramatic in tunisia, egypt, yemen, the gulf, and libya.

there have been many differences between -- among these events, but all share in common to things. dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs, the status quo, the status quo which in many cases has been around for 40 or 50 years, and the desire for some new beginning. this desire for a new beginning has, i think, led to the popular name given to these events, the arabs spring. this movement of the satisfaction and hope has now come to syria. this is distinguished by the unchanged character of its regime. and has an effect -- an

exceptionally long time under the same regime and the same family. in that sense it is an important touchstone of this movement. it raises the question, will the arab spring move forward? or will it revert to winter, to the past or a continuation of the status quo? this is important for people who come in looking at the phenomenon of the arab spring, but also it is important to the people of syria. as well as to its neighbor and its people, lebanon. it is important to the united states, the current regime has

been no friend of ours. quite the contrary. the events in syria and the most recent events are terribly important. have todaynate to three people who can guide us through these events. describe them, analyze them, and perhaps even predict the way in which they may be going forward. our first speaker is a native of syria who has lived and been living in this country for quite a while back owing to his activities. activities on behalf of change and liberal democracy in particular. it can speak from their or at the podium. >> thank you for having us here.

thank you for revising the this. this is an important time for us to communicate a clear message about what is happening in syria and how we got started with the situation and what sort of transitional scenarios we're looking at right now. i think trying to speak about three points briefly so i can allow more time to my colleagues and field questions. the first is how we got started. the second is the transitional and we e're looking at will see what the army will play. are we organizing? and the key people who will play a role in that.

the whole thing got started when he came to power in 2000, if you want to look that far. from the beginning, a lot of people saw an opportunity to begin to challenge the system. they [unintelligible] between people who were against a transition and there was the minority. most people in the opposition accepted the transition but made it conditional on implementing reform. we used the speech when he accepted the presidency and accepted the nomination. he will implement some reforms and will change the course for the country. the inability to implement anything was the problem and created the crisis of trust in

his leadership. they tried to tackle the kurdish problem and taking part in the process so national unity is established. once they realized this was a serious development, the crackdown started and many of the key figures in this movement were put in jail. the usual accusation of being part of a foreign conspiracy. embassies are interfering, all the issues that are the usual

accusation that is used in this to justify oppression. if you're not for the regime, you are a conspirator. simple as that. even in the womb. it is something that we fight in our culture. that movement, damascus spring was short-lived. you have to be somewhat more confrontational and organized and a different sort of pass on how we can do this. there were a group of people, people like me who believed in activism were than the political activities.

not a political but not affiliated with the usual factions. our message was that by greater awareness among the young people of the need to bridge the sectarian divide, the role that this will play in facilitating the transition, the need to do something on the ground rather than talk and theorize about socialism and communism and all of this. the driving force behind this activity -- have managed to create networks that turned into the action we see today. not wanting to dwell too much on this this is how far the germs were spread. after 2005 with the assassination of the prime minister and the fact that all eyes were on syria.

the position became somewhat weakened.nd -- weeken syria can play of regional role and metal in affairs but now they need to use proxies' more and more. the challenge is focused on developing in syria. promises he didake not deliver on. he needed to maintain the syrian brace and having lost the empire. ever since that time, the situation became difficult. he needed to make certain he has control. whatever divisions there were in the power of the regime, it was

to fix them and make sure that he had full control. from the point of view of the opposition, this is an opportunity to prevent this from happening and to find a greater challenge in syria. we did not do a good job. he emerged once again as a person in charge of the country and despite attempts at unity and the fact that you came up with the situation, the unified the opposition for a while and was heavily endorsed by the international community. we still could not move beyond that. we have limited ability to rally the streets to our cause. in a sense, you can say that we lost another battle. we also want something.

an experience. a lot of people realized we need to focus on activities on the ground. these high and politics and involvement in political alliances is nonsensical. after that, people realized we need to work on the ground and this is where the action should be. now, a lot of activists began to work on the ground, trying to communicate the message of change, trying to create support networks for the change and articulating the message, why we need to be more politically active and how it is relevant to them. we try to do this by creating videos on the need for change. we created the foundation i have said. we created -- we made a tv

program in which we articulated a message on the need for democratic change and the impact. what we have child labor, where we have poverty, while the puzzle has not been resolved towards -- or dressed effectively. all that was the link through the discussion to the fact you have a system that is not comfortable to any sense in the people. and their comrades and the military, whenever. and as such if he cannot hold them accountable, there is no way we can do any kind of reform. we tried to articulate this message and in a variety of ways and realized on feedback from

people on the ground to articulate this message. for two years, we have had this message on youtube and on the opposition channel and we replace it over and over. we had very limited resources. we have managed to produce very few programs. the message was clear, we were hoping that -- by repeating it, it would get through. we found out that we were pretty successful. many of the messages we hear from the protesters seem to have reflected the kind of dialogue and language that is used in this kind of program. we cannot -- the elephant in the room is the incident in two nations. had it not been for that young

man and that incident that started, we would not be talking about this today. a lot of people began to talk to us and reach out to us and send us e-mails and communicate through social network site. even as it unfolded. even before ben ali was toppled. we discovered in the late teens and early 20s, we are seeing this can happen but now we can see it happening somewhere else. we began talking about preparations. for a long time, i believed we should push it until august. i felt that this would be

important in a country like syria where there is limited room for foreign media and the state-run press will be negative and will not play any role in covering events. i felt we needed more time to make sure we're covering the country and we have what it takes to cover the developments on the ground to the international community. i was outvoted after discussion and a lot of people felt if you do not start now and soon, because of what is happening in libya and the violence, people would be afraid of joining any kind of protest movement. also, we have seen some attempts. there was a spontaneous demonstration in downtown damascus. 1500 people saying a slogan that

caught the attention of everybody, the city will not be humiliated. when a traffic violation lead to a confrontation between a policemen and the local community and people poured into the street and this was something that was a slogan that was raised by the protesters at the time. this kind of spontaneous event and there are several others indicated what kind of language and slogans that needed to be raised. people are finding their voice. basically, we have to go with the flow of events in the country and this is where the difference between bill and on the outside and where we were being led by people on the ground, a new generation of activists and they took your advice and they wanted some

ideas on how things can be done. they looked to us to be there mouthpieces outside the country. they are the leaders. >> maybe you could see some of the about where you think the situation is now. >> this is a good point to transition to. right now, we're talking about a self organizing movement. collective leadership. a new generation, fresh blood confused in this situation, which is why it with all this kind of cracking down that has happened to the point of deploying tanks and using heavy artillery and arbitrary arrests and firing on protesters and lying to people, sort of tired

accusations you have heard reiterated in libya and egypt and elsewhere and yemen. that kind of development house lead this movement to become more adamant. leading the protesters to raise their level of demand to reform and -- or freedom and the syrian people will not be humiliated. this was not the final war as many people think. it is more like -- you are killing us and you're supposed to have an occupation, it does not make sense. this is the kind of situation we're in right now. protest movement that is still alive and well, despite the crackdown. i am hoping tomorrow will prove

the point by when people take to the streets in mass numbers to show despite the violence, they're willing to risk their lives to fight for freedom and dignity. the army for us has an important role to play. one of the slogans that was raised by the protesters, a similar one to the one in asia, the people and the army are one. or one hand. with the sectarian divide we have. the fact that the minority community is playing a key role in the army and was used as the bastion of support. that slogan is not made. as people think. that is meant to reassure our community. if you're looking for guarantees on what will happen, we're telling you, you'll have

[unintelligible] no one is asking to leave the army. we want them to stay. we want the army to play a role as the safeguard of the secular nature of the states and the stability of the states and to help ease the transition and protect minority rights and ease the transition from where we are. we realize the army has an important role. we want their leadership. what them to feel that they're part of the process and to realize their stake in the political future of the country will not change as a result of our push for democracy. what the process to be open to be free from army intervention. at the same time, we want the army to be there to guarantee stability and the fact this

process is not dominated by any extremist elements. not this boogeyman that was raised by the regime but not the likes of assad. people who want to treat the country as their private system. that does not work any more. there is the need to transition from this kind of system where you have a family trading the country as their system into a country where there are political processes and parties and a measure of accountability. we want them to play a role in that transition. this is where we are now. we issue that message and we will continue to and we're hoping the leadership will get it. as a result of all the developments on the ground and the pressures of the international community, and

this is the last point. we have been asked about an alternative. who was going to come come out is going to be the muslim brotherhood? this is a revolution by activists and the leaders on the ground in syria are in the decisionmaking process. all communities are represented. if you look at the damascus declaration, you'll get an idea of what they're talking about. many -- there's a similar structure emerging. people are not joining as a representative of their parties but as independents. this is -- we're trying to build an alternative to the regime. this is not the muslim brotherhood thing. this is not a bath party thing.

this is our movement of independents hoping this is a process that will lead to the formation of new parties and we find out once elections happen the truth or the nature of the system. the transition is independent mostly young people. 60% of the population are below the age of 30. most of the people who died, 92% were below the age of 30. we're talking about a young population and young movement. we're talking about a young coalition. the coalition is the syrian national initiative for change. most of the leaders in the country, you can get some of the names, but we are not revealing because there are new figures are merging that have been

elected on the local level and emerged as key figures in their communities. outside the country, there people like me and my colleagues. a lot of other figures whose names will be hopefully on a list from -- in days to come who are like spokespeople or representatives for this movement. we will continue to organize around this movement and hopefully get popular support in order to make the representation more transparent and inclusive of the diversity of the syrian movement of the country. this is where we are now. the alternative is being formalized and we're hoping that with a key role played by the army, the community will go

into the international criminal court if the repression will continue, will be able to pressure them into accepting a transitional scenario and exit strategy. >> thank you. syria has had a powerful effect. and has always been for worse. such circumstances generally

concentrate the mind. and they live -- lead to insight and clarity about what is going on in the neighboring situation. that has been true of many lebanese but i think it is true of our next speaker. who was a journalist originally from south lebanon and the new kind of journalist. the organization -- the organizer of the most important called nowlication called nell lebanon. >> it was created before the first friday of demonstrations in syria. >> it is often the case that you

can find out what is going on in syria for what is going on in lebanon. >> definitely. thank you. >> unfortunately, lebanon and syria are linked to and cannot talk about lebanon without talking about syria. the link is obvious. watching has flaws reaction will .ell you and syria's allies >> i want to make sure you are heard. >> watching has below reacting by not pushing for the formation of the government by also

creating incidents that would show you their marking their territory inside lebanon. i will talk about to devote incidents that happened after this area uprising happened. hezbollah two weeks ago started a campaign in south lebanon where they forced some shops to stop selling alcohol. this is not a big deal. it is not like they are closing liquor stores or anything. inside their community, they're telling their people they are the authority, marking the territory inside the community. at the same time, they created a

few incidents where news was leaked to a newspaper, that published the first news about on stayed onuilding property. this has been going on since 2006 when construction started. people started building on state-owned land. >> naturally. >> naturally? it was not that obvious before. after 2006, with the money coming from iran and hezbollah taking care of the reconstruction. why was it like to the news now? because they wanted the eyes of -- isf to react. they reacted and went to the south to stop the construction.

many villages and towns turned into a war zone. people shot at them and they have to react and base shot at some people and killed a guy and a palestinian died. there was other problems, close to the southern suburbs in beirut. why is this happening now and where people acting that way? it is always the people, the people who attack the investigators. the women, the people. it is always the people who are creating problems and has bought is always a leading the people from behind. this is also another sign of marking the territory in the

south. this is our state, these are our rules. you cannot sell alcohol, people are allowed to build on state land, according to the people who were interviewed, they said these are lands that we paid for with our blood. they have a feeling they have the right to build on these lands. the state has nothing to do with the state land. this is not the property of the state. this is also -- is a big sign of fear that has blood is experiencing what is happening. hezbollah knows what is happening is going to influence its power in lebanon. on many levels. syria is key to hamas and iran and every organization that is similar in the region. whatever happens in syria is

going to influence has below. when it comes to arms smuggling, it will influence that politically inside lebanon, also -- if the regime falls or does not, serious -- the allies weakened.eeken they cannot influence government by a parliamentary decisions alone. they are fuelling this concern and what the regime to stay and they organized this conference where every single politician in syria and ally attended and made statements. a lot of double standards are merged by hezbollah and other politicians who supported the uprising but when it comes to

syria, this is a different case. this is a conspiracy for them. they made statements about protecting the regime because the regime protests the resistance. for many people who support hezbollah but more like -- they tend to be liberal people, these double standards do not make sense. for them, the uprising is genuine and it is obvious this is genuine but has a lot telling the syrian people who are genuine and they know what they're asking for, has blahs existence is more important than people's freedom and reforms. the killing the regime is exercising, 500 syrians were killed and much more people arrested and tortured and hezbollah telling everyone in the region and this is important

because it will lose their popularity, these double standards exist. our existence as much more important than the lives of these people. this is not something i would like to convey, but they have to because they have no choice. another thing that is becoming obvious to people in lebanon, especially for the people who are critical of hezbollah but more so people who are -- we're talking about the sheia community. they're realizing also and this is the main thing for the people in lebanon and the region. all the violent, aggressive methods that has blood has been using to the occupation and when they are on the opposition, all these aggressive military, by

what methods have not been as efficient as the peaceful demonstrations and methods that are becoming more effective on toppling dictatorships and regimes. in tunisia and egypt. peaceful demonstrations were more efficient. in syria, the demonstrators, people are dying uttering the word peaceful. this is the main slogan for the syrians. it is not just something they created. this is part of their political strategy. peaceful demonstration is definitely what they want to do and whoever is going to comment takeover, it does not matter. whoever is coming will be coming through peaceful methods and they will carry peaceful methods throughout. i do not think it will open in a

front against israel or other people in the region. it will be peaceful and this is a strategy and hezbollah is worried. peaceful methods are being more effective than their own aggressive and violent and military methods. this is a situation of hezbollah but after that, the indictment that is coming, hopefully very soon.

. .

>> yes, sir. over there. >> you mentioned that sure real law -- sharia law is an existential threat to united states. is it taking over? >> already in the financial sector, you have sharia- complient finance where people doing investments and fundss are

deferring to people who are suspect as the party as to what these funded can be invested in. investment houses and others, banks, are paying in some cases last and reputable people are lot of money to give their blessing for their types of investments. that is a problem. it is a way of -- depending on what they are investing in and who they are paying to give their blessing, there could be ways that resources go to places that i am not sure are necessary in our national security interest. we also have situations where there are movements in this country to try to create family courts or other types of laws where muslims are only held

accounts to religious law as opposed to the civil laws in this country. that has gone on extensively in europe, but it is coming here and is being advocated for. there are concrete examples. i am not making an argument that america is in any way in the lead on this. the bigger problems and the more notable cases are clearly in places where there is a higher concentration of muslims. that is primarily in western europe and not here. sharia is a civil code of how the government is to operate it, things as mundane as personal hygiene, religious practices. bid is made up of various texts,

koran, but itcor is a code by which muslims have to live. yes, sir? >> senator, do you see a connectedness to this administration's foreign-policy with the middle east and if so, do you see a blanket policy or various theaters with various solutions? >> i think i laid out what i see, unfortunately, is a consistent policy of, as the white house said, leading from behind. i don't know of anybody that can successfully lead from behind. particularly if you are talking about deploying our military. if you are going to say to our

men and women in uniform that you are going to go out there and represent and get in the line of fire to defend this country, how dare you stand behind. you stand in front of them. if it is worth their sacrifice, it is worth you taking at least the political heat to be in front of them instead of hiding behind them. so it is clear to me that this president is trying to hide so that he does not take political heat. it is also clear that that this is a president who believes that our policies around the world were wrong and should be apologized for. and anyone who was complicity with us in our policies, by their nature, is suspicious.

and, therefore, not to be tested and not to be supported. if you are an -- not to be trusted. if you look at the relationships in the world, are any of those relationships better under barack obama plan than it was before? and look at any of those who have lined up to oppose us, have any of them not been confronted? have any of them had an olive branch in order to appease their anti-american notions? you have a president who does not believe in american -- did not believe in american foreign policy. the root of that is i don't believe that he believes america is an exceptional and has anything to offer the world.

when you believe that, there's no reason to advocate for that. is there anybody? we will go here and here and wrap it up. yes? >> what are your plans for aids and hiv prevention in africa? >> i was one of the authors -- worked with the president on pet farm and work on global aids funding beyond what the administration requested. i saw that as a national security issues first and foremost that states that are dysfunctional we have seen in the past particularly in that

area of the world which borders and in many cases includes large islamic populations is a breeding ground for these failed states are breeding grounds for terrorists and state sponsors of terrorists. obviously, when your population is being decimated by a disease, it is very hard to be a successful economic enterprise as a state. so i believe it was in our security interest to do it. given the enormity of our budget, it is a relatively small amount of money. i think it has been a great investment, not just in keeping these estates from becoming tourist haven's or state sponsors of terror, but promoting the very ideals i talked about in the speech of who america is. as we have seen in other areas

around the world when america makes that kind of commitment at a time of great need to a country, that has long-term value for our country. long-term value with the people in that region and in that country. it builds relationships that can draw benefit from a national security perspective for a very long time. >> the american spectator. you spoke about worries about the defense being cut the 00 much -- cut too much. are there any particular areas that you worry have already been cut too much? >> i believe we should employ a missile defense system. we should be pursuing that first and foremost.

there are some real threats to our country that nobody talks about that i believe are serious. electromagnetic pulses and the ability for a rogue nation to do something that could be debilitating to our country. if we don't have the ability to respond to that, it could be devastating for the future of our country. and there's no reason not to pursue it. there's no reason not to protect us from such an obvious ithreat. there are other types of missile tests, but that's my opinion. i will come back to you. go ahead. >> thank you, senator. nbc news. in 2006 on the campaign trail use said that the united states was engaged in a war of economic

fascism, largely perpetrated by iran. short of direct military action, how do you intend to stand up against this islamic fascism and it for democracy around the world? >> if you want to talk specifically about iran, we need to be engaging from an intelligence perspective as well as other types of covert activity to engage the pro- democracy elements in countries where we have a tremendous strategic influence. i think iran is one of those countries. i think we overtly identify iran for what it is. the fact that we have been timid in identifying these murderous thugs, theocrats in iran for two and a half years is, i am sure,

a depressing -- has a depressing effect on those in iran who would normally think they could count on us. it is certainly well known that when we do polling in the middle east, countries in which the united states is friendly to the government, those people tend not to be very favorable toward the united states in the arab world, the persian world. whereas in the countries where we are truthful about the nature of the authoritarian regimes in whiskey's people have to live colander, we tend to be very popular, they tend to like americans. regimes in which the people have to live under . we have turned our backs on

their striving for democracy and freedom. ok, go ahead. either one of you guys. >> [inaudible] bilateral talks? >> we are not going to do that and the multilateral approach is not worked either, so what do you suggest that we do? >> i.t. we have to continue to isolate north korea. we have been put in a compromise position because of our own binge, beingding in a position to leverage the we havemore thanow than been able to in the past. but, it seems clear that it is in china's interest to have no

career as a buffer and as a point of attention and distraction in the region. we have to get to a point where that pin is no longer to their advantage and clean up our house here would help and renewing and restoring our alliances in the region and showing that we will be good friends to our allies in the region will also help in that regard. go ahead, sir. >> my question is, if you were in charge tomorrow, what would you do with libya and syria? i want to know what you would do directly. >> first, i would -- i don't have the information necessarily to make those kinds of judgments in a way that i would feel comfortable answering that question. i would have to have a lot more intel than is available publicly as to what's going on in libya, the nature of the rebels and the

condition on the ground. we have created a no win situation as far as i can see in libya. if we continue on with this approach, we are going to be in a standoff for a long, long time. a constant irritant and constant problem with respect to the supply of oil, at least the perception of markets to the supply of oil. that will keep gas prices high. ending the conflict would be a positive thing, i would think, to accomplish. the question is, who are the people we are dealing with in these rebels and whether these are folks that would result in something better than what we have in place with gaddafi. the same situation in syria. many in israel say that we would rather have the devil that we know and not the one we don't know.

i would find it harder to believe that assad, that there's any doubt there on the street that is much worse than him with his relationship with iran and senselah, but there's a among some folks. i would have to better understand that to make the decision on how to go forward. clearly if we are going to get involved, i did not say that we should get involved. i was not convinced that we really did have a strategic interest, given the attrition of gaddafi. with more information, i would have been more comfortable making that decision. in the case of syria, i think we do have a country that has sponsored terrorism, terrorists that have caused casualties to america and have done great

harm not just in their own country but to lebanon and israel. i think replacing assad with a better group of folks, if that is possible, is certainly -- would be in the national security interest of our country and something we should get involved in. i am not in a position at this point to say that is what we should do. i would have to have more information. i wanted to ask you [inaudible] a little bit] advocated it as a form of leadership. he spoke about leading from behind, and powering the strongest out front and then only if there is danger that you take the front. the united states by always being a front, i wonder if the u.s. would lose power economically and militarily?

>> i am not suggesting that we always have to lead. but when we do engage, we should lead is what i am saying. the answer i just gave would give you an indication. it's not in the national security interest of our country to get involved in another country, we should not do it. we should not to get involved, because the president's reason for getting involved in libya was humanitarian. that is not a sufficient reason to get involved in another country using military force. to gyou get involved only if there is a national security interest for our country. >> should be take economic interest into consideration? >> you may turn the leadership from behind as opposed to the military meeting in front. certainly there are other ways that you can impact conditions

in countries other than through military actions. i will give you a chance because you have been patient, even though there are other questions. >> thank you. you offered a 10-point plan and one of those was what we might have done by israel. the environment for israel is getting tougher and that's also due to the changing governments in its neighborhood. all i can say regarding what kind of government you are going to have, how democratic or open they are, it would be more critical when it comes to israel. some people in your party and in the democratic party say it was a mistake to support the democratic movement and to drop the more autocratic governments like mubarak and others. what is your take? >> i think i said that in my talk, that we were very quick to

side with the rebels in egypt and with an ally of the u.s. and refused to side with sworn --emie if we are going to side with rebellion, have to have a good understanding of who the rebels are. that is why i called for better intelligence in the region. i think i made comments at the time that we should be standing by our allies before all this happens and pushing for, as i mentioned in the speech, freedom. freedom does not mean democracy right away. it may not mean democracy for a long time if you don't have the condition precedent in the

country that would support that. the object is freedom and not democracy. that is what we have to be very clear about. we need to sometimes move our friends slowly. just like, for example, our policy with china is clearly one of trying to influence the chinese to become more politically free, religiously free, culturally free . we don't seem to have any real issues with that, but we should be doing that with our allies in the region and supporting them as they do that. and we did not. we decided that we were not going to --get the president was going to reject involvement in other countries because who are we to say we are better than anybody else and now we are living with the consequences of

folks tired of living with what we have never lived with. yes? anybody else? one more question. go-ahead. farthest away from the microphone. >> thank you very much. i'm from japan tv. i have a question about japan. one of the important allies, japan, is facing the largest catastrophe ever since the second world war. the earthquake and the nuclear power plant crisis is still going on. would you please give a comment on that? is there anything you would do if you were in power, something different from the obama administration? and what kind of impact do you see to the u.s. economy because of the decline in the japanese economy due to the earthquakes?

>> i am not an economist, on that last question. have been lots of economic reports on what the effect of gdp would be here and global gdp. i will let economists figure that out. i will not comment specifically on the obama administration because i admit i am not at 100% up to date on all the things they have done. what i would do is japan is one of our best and closest allies and we should be working as our bestwith them las friends and neighbors that they are to help them through this difficult time. that is what my policy would be, to try to be as helpful as possible to them through this difficult time. getting japan back on its feet is not only to the benefits of japan, but to the benefit of the region and to our country and to the world. we should be all hands on deck

to help in that regard. >> [inaudible] the ongoing nuclear crisis in japan? >> again, and i know this is going on. the public sector and private sector and deploy resources to japan to try to help that situation. that has sort of gotten off the front page a little. i am not current on all the things going on there. i would say that we should deploy whatever resources are necessary to be helpful to make sure we contain that problem. thank you very much. we appreciate you coming out today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the former senator rick santorum will be in manchester, new hampshire, tonight with several other republican presidential candidates, including mitt romney, tim

pawlenty, herman cain, and michelle bachmann. they will participate in a forum hosted by the americans for prosperity foundation. you can watch it live on c-span and c-span.org beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> what i try to do is tell stories with visuals instead of words. i basically writing paragraphs with images. >> with four pulitzer prizes for photography, carol has won the award more than any other journalist. >> the great thing about being a journalist is the variety that we get to experience so many parts of the human condition on so many levels. >> you'll talk about her craft q and a.ight on c-span you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs, every morning its

washington journal, a live call- in program about the news of the day, connect you with a lack officials, newsmakers, and journalists. watch congressional hearings and policy forms weeknights and supreme court or arguments. on the weekends you can see our signature interview programs. on saturday its the communicators and on sunday its newsmakers, q&a, and prime minister questions from the british house of commons. you can watch our programming any time at c-span.org and you can search all of it and are c- span video library. c-span, washington your way, a public service created by your cable companies. >> at this aviation conference, u.s. chamber of commerce ceo tom donohue says the federal government needs to regulate less, spend more on infrastructure, produce more oil, and stay out of labor disputes in order to help the nation's aviation industry.

later, we will hear about nextgen, an faa program to reorganize u.s. aerospace. this is just over an hour. -- u.s. air space. >> being well known is not as important as knowing what you are well known for. thank you, carole. everyone has taken time out of busy schedules to join us here today. i want to particularly thank carol and the national chamber foundation team for putting together another outstanding conference. i understand, as she said, this is the best-attended we had. in this town and in this room i find that is generally created from an equation that the level of problems have gone up and, therefore, the level of attendance is more significant looking for solutions. i think the high level of interest is being driven by one

overriding question, what is next in the aviation industry? the industry has weathered a decade of storms since we first started posting this annual summit in years ago -- hosting . that was 9/11 and the war on terror. there were two of your sessions. the last one, the most seve re since the great depression did a silver lining in the storm clouds was put demand that the pressure of a system that was reaching its limits not only in aviation but and roads and alls of the supply chain system. the movement of people was being pressed with a rising economy. we got some relief on that. the bad news was $60 billion in losses for passenger airlines

and the loss of 150,000 jobs. airports have to get creative to accommodate new and evolving security requirements, cargo airlines struggled to deliver on customer expectations like next business day delivery while keeping up with those same security requirements. and don't. huge spikes in fuel prices. that can threaten profitability in an instant. i will probably say more about that, but look what is going on in the last days. in what have been the most challenging decade in aviation history, safety has actually improved. several airlines managed themselves back to profitability through consolidation, alliances, adjustments to fleets, schedules, and offerings to customers. overall the past decade has been

tough on aviation. where do we stand today? the faa says the industry turned a profit last year of $9.5 billion as the u.s. economy began to rebound. so we are doing a little better, but there is a difference between doing a little better than and doing well. we're not doing all that well yet. there are many challenges ahead. perhaps the biggest one is this. how are we going to deal with an expected 36% increase in flyers by the year 2015 and huge increases in cargo? today we don't have the infrastructure to accommodate that. it has been almost four years since the faa bill was real authorized. we are making progress towards getting a good bill now, but we have lost a lot of time. funding for badly needed nextgen systems liked has been

inadequate. its implementation has been much too slow. every aircraft flying in the ational aerosp -- air space system still needs its own. mr. by national labor boards is also a major obstacle to success -- mischief by national labor boards. people just want to get on a plane and go someplace. why should the public care? commercial aviation is 1.3 trillion dollars in economic activity. that is a lot of jobs. that is a lot of economic activity. 5.6% of the whole u.s. economy. and we support 12 million jobs. the nation's economy relies on a safe, secure, and efficient aviation system.

how do we get from doing better to doing well? by concentrating on the fundamentals. that's what we say in business all the time. by assuring a sound infrastructure, modern technology, reasonable regulations, it's flexible work force, and stable energy prices. stable energy prices. there is another thing. -- there is another whole meaning. here's a plan to help the aviation industry take off. let me say a word about infrastructure. nothing is more fundamental and basic infrastructure. we need to expedite air-traffic modernization and grow system's capacity and through smart investments. that is what is needed to get the faa reauthorization bill across the finish line. it has been passed by the house and the senate, so let's get the conference going. let's get the deal done. nick will take care of it and

report back to us shortly. what will the chamber look for in an f. a bill? first, adequate investment to fully realize the benefits of nextgen. we have to get on with that. components of that system are operating. a few weeks ago the high-tech air traffic control system command center was dedicated. it is an infrastructure element that drives increased productivity and greater mobility for passengers, freight, and business aviators, and reinforces our commitment. to commitment our commitment to safety. we will never realize the full nextgen if we don't equip the system with what's required. the equipment represents a large investment, perhaps as much as

$5 billion. $5 billion does not sound like so much money as it did some years ago. we are moving $5 billion around like poker chips right now. this would make a fundamental change in how we do our business. we don't think that cargo business or passenger airline aviation should have to bear the full brunt of this cost when there is such a great public nextgen benefit public. and so, this has to be a cooperative effort. it has to be borne by many of us together. that's why we believe the faa reauthorization bill must assist the aviation community with the equipment necessary to move nextgen forward. let's not forget about the airports themselves. i had breakfast with one of your speakers. he took over an airport as a volunteer, a private airport in illinois. he took it from date can to

want -- he took it from the can to one of the best airports in the country. we can do this all over. slicing funding for airport improvement is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. we need adequate funding levels to maintain, modernize, and expand our airports. we need to invest aviation funds as much as the overall amount. congress must provide budget firewalls, ensuring that all dedicated aviation revenues are utilize exclusively for their intended purpose. marion, you and others know what happens in a highway deal. we got more highway money thrown at everything but highways and we cannot have that in the aviation business. that means, by the way, that

airport and airways trust funds should not be used to pay for security costs, but specifically for air traffic and airport maintenance and improvements. all of this 9/11 cost is a societal cost. we need to find a fundamental way to do that. when it comes to building infrastructure or making changes to manage the air space, we need to streamline the approval process. it takes too long to build anything in this country. anybody that's been to china goes there one year and stay in a hotel and there's a hole next door here they come back the next year and there's a 50-story hotel there. united states we spend a couple you are trying to get a permit. we need investments to ensure our aviation system remains one of the crown jewels of our economy or we can start it so

badly of needed funds and what to jobs and economic growth disappear. congress has many difficult choices facing it today. everything from entitlements to , but aviationatdebt success has to be one of them that holds the economy to gather -- together on a global basis. we need more stability to what are now very volatile energy prices. this could be a whole other meeting. jet fuel prices increased by more than 20% in the first two months of this year alone. i think it's probably up more than that now. cutting deeply into aviation profits as you look at the latest numbers. consider this. its jet fuel prices increase from $2.15 last year up to $3 it

would raise the u.s. airline fuel bill by $15 billion. that seems to be a large number. when it comes to energy, we are shooting ourselves in the foot in this country. we have locked away vast reserves of oil and shale and natural gas on federal lands and off the coast. meanwhile, we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to purchase other people oppose the energy. a lot of it from dangerous, unstable places. does that make sense? i think it makes less sense than it did a year ago, that's for sure. federal lands alone are estimated to contain 2.31 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 31 billion barrels of oil of what we know now, but there's a lot more to find. producing at least some of that energy could reduce our imports, ease up the price volatility, create american jobs, and

generate huge tax revenues to reduce the deficit. it does not sound like a very hard decision to be. even less sweeping reforms can make a defense. imagine the impact of more runways would have. you would have fewer airplanes unnecessarily serving in the air idling on the ground, and burning up you. it's time to increase the domestic energy production all across the board. traditional and alternative. our national and our economic security depends on it. now to another system is the labor system. more reasonable labor policies would also have a tremendous positive effect on the airline's. labor is your number one cost. we need strong government action on funding, infrastructure, and energy. but on labor we need government to ensure a safe working environment and workers' rights and then get out of the way. if you look at what is going on now in this industry with this

government pushing labor agendas that don't tell anybody, we have a real problem. we are deeply concerned about politically driven proposals by congress and the administration that will undermine the success of this industry. we are very pleased that the house version of the faa reauthorization bill included a provision repealing a recent ruling by the national mediation board made it the best of afl- cio. nmb ruling would overturn more than 70 years of precedent and make it possible for a union to be organized without the support of the majority of the employees. in that class. and make it virtually impossible to de-certify a union.

not a good idea here the way the ruling was rammed through the board where comments were ignored underscores its blatant political nature. the time-tested rule jettisoned by the board was fair, it works, and it should be maintained. in a separate matter, we will do everything in our power to oppose the national labor relations board attempt to prevent boeing from building their new 787 at its nearly completed plant in south carolina and forcing them to build the planes in washington state. think about the implications of this. we have lots and lots of states, 24 or 25 that are right to work states and we're going to tell them they cannot invite

business into their state? i'm looking for to the fight. we are on a slippery slope when the government tends to interfere in legal, legitimate, and reasonable business decisions so that it can reward politically favored groups and it's not going to happen in this country, because we are not going to stand for it. let me wrap up with a couple of comments. i want to say something about cargo and business aviation. when discussing aviation, we can never overlook the importance of cargo and business aviation which helped create jobs, improve productivity, and facilitates trade. i could give a separate speech on each of these topics, but let me mention a few issues. on cargo, we must respond rationally to security threats and strive to elevate security and trade facilitation simultaneously. these two goals are not mutually exclusive.

security mandates will continue to change as the threat level. avoid overly burdensome and restrictive rules like the failed 100% program that damaged our economy and badly undermined the just-in- time delivery system so vital to our economic growth. we learned a lot about that through the terrible happenings in japan in recent weeks. instead we should be developing more flexible rules that meet the same goals in a more efficient and productive manner. further, we should be building off of the success of existing truck to shipper programs and harmonizing them with the international community rather than creating new and redundant programs for business. another cargo issue that's important is the harmonization

of regulations governing the shipment of lithium batteries which the chamber strongly supports. it seems like a small issue. these batteries are small in size, but they play a critical role in our mobility and productivity, electronics that keep us on the go like laptop computers, smart phones, and all the toys my grandchildren have. harmonizing our rules with international standards would enhance safety and minimize the financial and technological burdens of complying with multiple and inconsistent regulatory requirements. this is a very important issue and we have to get it right. on business aviation, we think the attempt to make public flight plans for business aviation uses an ill-advised, populist movement that should go the way of some of the other

things that have fallen away around here. it poses a security risk to the users of this aviation and it is no legitimate reason for it. we have said as much to the house when we weighed in on the faa reauthorization and we are pleased that their version of the faa bill blocks the agency from moving forward. let me conclude, carol. i have given you a quick 30,000- foot view of some of the basic steps we can take to improve the aviation industry. an industry that is so critical to our economic success and our way of life, much like the u.s. economy, u.s. airlines are climbing out of a deep hole in the wall and we have a long way to go to be financially strong. to assist in that process, we have to redouble our efforts to educate policy makers about the

importance of aviation. we must ensure federal policies recognize the link between the national aviation network and jobs. between the league in economic development and global competitiveness. between quality of life and national security. the industry itself must continue to innovate, transform, and reinvent itself to meet growing demand at, to foster profitability, and meet competitive challenges from around the world while improving safety. today you are going to hear ideas on how to strengthen the aviation system from some of the nation's leading authorities. right now we are going to start talking a little about infrastructure. i will turn this over to jack potter. he recently joined us after a lifetime as the postmaster general of the united states. he is working with us on a major

project to look around the world at the global supply chain and see what it is we can do to assist it on a policy basis. with him is janet kavinoky, who leads all the chamber's transportation efforts including our efforts on the infrastructure side. i will leave it to you guys. i want to thank everybody for being here. this is a very serious piece of business. it holds this nation and the rest of the world together and we cannot support. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, tom. i'm here with janet kavinoky. gannett has a very complicated title, so i will let her introduce herself. -- janet.

>> i wear a lot of hats at the chamber. i'm executive director for transportation and infrastructure in congressional and public affairs and i'm vice- president to the americans for transportation, mobility coalition. i begged for a card that was double sided, but it did not work out. >> we are going to pick up from tom's comprehensive remarks. i think he set the table for the whole day. talk a little about infrastructure. i will start by talking about the background of the world we find ourselves in and then i will pass it to janet's. she will talk about the particulars of where the timber stands on a lot of legislation that is pending on capitol hill and some of the studies that are being done by her organization that you can expect to see over the course of the year. let's talk about the backdrop, where do we find ourselves. i was fortunate to go with tom

to japan. i am working on supply chain management. what better place to look at the planting management than japan and the challenges that it faces today? i walked away very impressed with the japanese people. they have taken good care of the situation as a result of the tsunami. there were some tragic losses there, obviously, but there were 450,000 people displaced, homeless. they found homes for all but 150,000 of those folks already appear they are working hard. when it comes to japan, i was shocked to learn they have to build electric systems. half of the country is europe and the other half of that country has the u.s. electric system. tokyo area, the impact -- tokyo area was impacted by the fact they had nuclear power plants down.

it's a real challenge. the fact of the matter is japan is open for business. it is working very well. did the experience that efforer cause everybody to step back and look at supply chains in general and asked a couple questions. the around the world people are questioning nuclear power. people are starting to think about does it make sense to have 1 suppliers in one location or do i need to have redundant suppliers. this whole notion of what's going on in the supply chain area is something that we all have to be cognizant of and be very mindful of going forward, because it does represent a very interesting challenge. on top of that we have everything that is going on in the middle east. obviously, we have a situation where we have political turmoil. and we have

terrorism. that has a direct impact on all of us in this room, because in the short run its having a tremendous impact on energy prices. they have spiked tremendously. how much of it is speculation? we could have a big debate about that, but it's affecting the industry and affecting decisions being made going forward about where you get those supplies. in addition, it has an obvious effect on security. as somebody who was at the post office 30 years, i have always had challenged dealing with the folks that work for me, particularly -- in a sense, we regulated the mail industry -- who found it much easier to fix things by pushing the burden onto mailers or suppliers. so we have a challenge when it comes to security. we have to make sure that we are

working together with the folks in the administration that are responsible capitol hill and find solutions that are mutually beneficial. it looked pretty obvious. if we put too onerous regulation on, it would drive people out. we have to be talking about security. we obviously need security. we have to make sure that we are as secure as we possibly can be and minimize the risks. at the same time, we have to do it in a pragmatic way so that it does not dramatically impact our economy at a time when our economy is challenged. speaking of that, about infrastructure, when you think about infrastructure, much of the infrastructure in america is funded through the government. governments around the world

right now our challenge. our own government is challenged. people are looking at ways to narrow the debt as best they can. we have to make sure that we are the voice and that gen that is the voice from the chamber talking about how important infrastructure investment is and how important it is that the funds are targeted or earmarked when people pay for infrastructure actually go to the infrastructure. it is a dynamic time. i think that the fact we have so many folks here today is a recognition of how challenging a time we lived in. it is important that we are out there as a group talking about the fact that if we don't keep up with our infrastructure and invest in our infrastructure, we are not just impacting ourselves today, but long term we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage from an economic standpoint.

with that as a backdrop, talk a little about some of the details on many of the programs that tom mentioned it. >> first, thank you all for being here today. i just got my five minutes signal from over there. how i give you a legislative and regulatory update in five minutes is virtually impossible, but let me tell you a little about what our priorities are when it comes to infrastructure. the third hat that i wear is running our let's rebuild america initiative. this is our focus on transportation, energy, water, and broadband infrastructure. it is the chamber's way of saying when we make decisions in this country whether it's at the federal, state, or local level, we have to make decisions about infrastructure investment that are about economic competitiveness. what we find is there are a lot of other countries in the world whose infrastructure policies are driven by the questions, what does this do for our long

run economic competitiveness in the world? we don't ask that question here. our efforts are focused on making sure economic competitiveness is the core part of that conversation. we launched something last year called the transportation performance index to try to aim narrowly on that focused question. we asked all lot of you, people around the country, what really matters for business when it comes to transportation infrastructure. we heard about time, reliability, cost, availability of infrastructure. to be heard repeatedly that we need to be prepared for future growth. we put together a series of factors into an index to look at whether the performance of infrastructure has been getting better or worse over time and then to look at how that related to economic growth. we found that despite record levels of investment since 1990

across all modes of transportation, we are just kind of bumping along as it comes to performance. that's because in many ways to the ingenuity of the business community, the ability to adapt, but it also tells us that we're not really thinking about the future. when you look at the analysis of our index, and we have provided that for you today, we find we are headed into a decline as far as how well transportation infrastructure meets the needs today and tomorrow. economically, this is critical. we are at a point of choice. if we continue with the status quo, if we continue saying we have all these other pressing needs we have to deal with, debt and deficit and we will do health care and we will just put it aside. if you look at a leaky roof and say you're going to put a bucket under that and pretty soon you are replacing the carpet and the

betting and you are replacing the roof and it's a lot more expensive in the long run. we can increase gross domestic product in this country by over $300 billion on a year-over-year basis. or we can continue with the status quo and drop out more than $300 billion a year period that ends up being a pretty good chunk of change. i would encourage you to make sure that you are signed up for our updates so you can see the letters we have sent on the faa reauthorization, our focus in trying to insure we are taking care of all our areas in aviation. we are watching at what's going on in faa and other areas because we need the single focus of economic competitiveness particularly within aviation. it is a system i will test out a little later tonight when i fly to san francisco. whoever is here from united airlines, i will give you feedback a little later.

>> protecting your bag? -- checking your bag? >> i never check my bag. >> thank you janet and jack. i wish we could continue. give them around of applause. [applause] i am now going to introduce our next panel. this is a special panel and even more special is the moderator. as i introduce marion blakey, the president and ceo of the air space industries association, i know that you know her for her many years of work and industry and as serving for 10 years as the faa administrator. with all the great thing she did

in that particular role, it made her the perfect choice to be the ceo of aia. but there's a big complement i want to tell all of you about because aia has done something so significant. in the last 15 months they have increased their membership by 55%. that is an enormous undertaking. we congratulate marion and her team. we thank you for taking the lead as our moderator this morning. please come forward. [applause] >> thank you for that gracious introduction. i'm delighted to be among friends. as i look at this audience, this is a group of colleagues and folks that have been pulling together for a long time. i have to congratulate you,

carol. 10 years, this is a very impressive gathering and the largest number of people ever. i always do enjoy this kind of forum each year because it gives us a chance to advance the ball on policy issues. i think it is noted for that. it's noted for the substance. again, my congratulations. i will tell you i am delighted to be here with our two panelists. bios are in the book, so i will not go into that further except to say that dave is the senior vice president of itt corporation and president of the defense and information solutions. joining him is russell chew, managing partner of -- the title of this session is open " sensible modernization solutions." that is code for the next generation of air transportation system. the reason that