if you believe in the first amendment, you do not want the government in any way interfering with what people can see and what people can hear, so this is the one medium of expression or the government -- where the government has a role, so i think the answer is to expand the number of people >> what the meeting? >> more channels. online. i gave a speech in this room in 1962. it's a speech that was not remembered at all. it's a more important speech than the speech in 1961 where i had a big map and i showed what would happen if we had more channels. i feeling was the more channels

there were, the more choices there were, that would be the best thing the government could do. >> let me challenge you a little bit on that and push back. we have all these channels now and you have a lot of folks out there saying -- take news, for example. you have more cable malaise and cable news. you have more opinion then reporting. you have more talk than actual news gathering. -- you have more cable news -- more people -- there is a lot less there than meets the eye. do you agree and what do you do about it if you do? >> i do agree because unfortunately, news was controversy. -- news of love's controversy. if you can find an argument, the reporters will all be there. i was appointed by the first

president bush to a commission right after the first iraq war about whether women should serve in military combat. our meeting was open to the press. as soon as there was a break, the television guys would rush to the extremists. the people in the middle who were looking for some kind of consensus were never even asked a question. they weren't interested in that. it was not news. that is what i really object to. unfortunately, today, the one thing that was good about having a few channels was that it was a common, shared experience for the whole country. we don't have that. we have it once and awhile. we have it in the super bowl or the presidential debates. we have it with the news right now about what happened with

osama bin laden, but very seldom. most of the time, it there used to be one television set in the house and the whole family was watching the same program at the same time. >> but you could go to the speech and if the -- and essentially threatened these executives. >> i would say encourage. [laughter] i go to media guide, the controversy. [laughter] you can go to the controversy and did provoke action. after your speech was the great explosion of network documentaries. >> that's true. >> there was an incredible number of shows and network white papers. none of those documents -- none of those networks even have a documentary unit today. >> they are all gone. that is true. >> what can be done, if anything, today? is it just a quaint notion that the fcc has anything to do with

this field now? >> we are at a time of transition when it comes to news reporting. newspapers have literally gone out of business in the last few years. the pressures on some local broadcasters, particularly india economy, are real in a world of more fragmentation and downward pressure on advertising. the internet is operate -- is offering a new set of opportunities. including in the news space. when you look at the space, and we have been looking at the space at the fcc, the area of greatest concern we hear is local news reporting. national news, a lot of reporters, local news reporting information, there are real

challenges. there are innovators a lot of communities trying to build communities on the internet. some of the questions are what are the ways that can be supported? what are the barriers to success? >> what can the fcc due to support it, encourage or threaten? >> i'm not sure this is an occasion for threatening. encouraging is probably more the word. but there are some things we're doing that will create new opportunities for local news reporting. for example, accelerating government data going online locally. accelerating more transparency, more online video, more local government in the public will create new opportunities for

local information, local news, local content in a different way and a different cost model. those are the kinds of things we are exploring. we share an interest in seeing this succeed because an informed citizenry -- this is what's newt minow taught us, is essential in a democracy. a big, broad debate, based on choice, critical for our democracy, and we need to find a way to gather to make those of -- to make sure those opportunities exist in the future. >> do you have a smart phone? >> yes. >> do you have a tabloid? >> yes. >> and do you live online? >> know. >> the do you have a facebook page? >> my children and my grandchildren are teaching me how to use my phone.

i'm learning more all the time. i am a slow learner, but i recognize the extraordinary importance of this. i know there is a revolution. >> it is a revolution. >> and a very good one. as technology continues to advance, we will have a better informed committee. >> can you see a day when there's no network news? can you see a day when everything just emerges onto the tablets and it's just a trans media experience? >> i think what is going to happen -- that would be interested in your view -- the computer and television are going to get married in the process of doing that.

>> i agree with that. if newspapers think they are in the paper business distributing their content only on something delivered to your home every morning, that's not a model that's going to succeed. i think news providers, whether its newspapers, local broadcast stations, think of themselves as multi platform providers, reaching people where they are, experimenting with business models that support a vibrant newsroom, that is the future i think it's possible that we have to strive for and identify the best ways to get there. our kids are going to be consuming news in very different ways than we did and very

different business models and technologies. at the end of the day, there have to be business models that support the really important groundwork the reporters to, digging, challenging, gathering information. i am a cautious optimist about where this will go, looking at smart phones, looking at tablets, looking at computers and all the different screens from the living room to what you have in your pocket. we are not there -- >> to my wife's chagrin, i live off of those things. a personal question -- sort of an office politics question. you seem to have a knack at not only making predictive speeches but having predictive relationships. you knew barack obama when he

was a young man. if i'm not mistaken, michele and he met through your law firm. >> whenever i see the president, he says thank you for introducing me to michele. he said if i had not been at your firm, i would not have met her. that part is true. my daughter was his professor at harvard law school. she has only called me about one student in 31 years and that was barack obama. [laughter] she knew you did not want to go to chicago. >> what did she say about him? >> she says i know you don't hire first-year students, but i've got one who wants to go to chicago who is so extraordinary that you should make an exception.

>> you gave a speech that we are quoting 50 years ago. is there anybody else you want us to watch? >[laughter] i think this is been an extraordinary conversation with an eloquent -- >> 85-year-old. >> you are the kind of public service -- public servant we should all celebrate and we do. we're going to get to audience questions now, but before we do, i want to thank you again. [applause] if you the question you like to direct to newt minow or julius genachowski, head over to the microphone and i will ask you to

introduce yourself briefly and ask your question briefly and we will have a few minutes and we will wrap up this extraordinary evening. and it'sformer partner great to see you ,newt. what was the reaction among your fellow commissioners to the speech? >> it's good to see you. at that time, the fcc had seven numbers. by law, no political party -- they cannot all be of one party. i had a very cordial relationship with all of my commissioners. we never once while i was there had a partisan difference, but we did have a philosophical difference. most of them did not think the

fcc should be as active as i wanted to be. what i want to intervene on getting a station in a new york which was a non-commercial station, i had some trouble with my colleagues. the first day i was there, congress asked us for our position on public funding for educational television. six commissioners said it's not our business. i said it is our business. we are here to serve the public interest. it's our business. there were different philosophical views but in terms of our personal relationships, they were always very, very good. >> i was a chairman with mr. minow on the digital project

which has a research center which will help transform and have a lifelong retraining. i think it's worth hearing about his interest at this time as opposed to his role in the past. >> larry is the former president of pbs and former president of nbc news and a great public servant. larry and i and and murphy have been working for years on this project and we finally got it through congress on a bipartisan basis. the idea is to create an entity that will be at the department of education to provide technological advances to the classroom for lifelong learning. we are very optimistic that this

may greatly improve education. our original idea was to use the money from the auction of the spectrum for this purpose. just as the land grant colleges were established in the civil war with a similar gift. i later learned that i knew it senator stevens from alaska from having worked with him on a legal case before he went in the government. he was chairman of the senate appropriations committee. he said the money has all been scored. i said what does that mean? he said that means it has already been spent. it has already been assigned. i said you did that -- if you did that in private business, you would all go to jail. it's been spent before you got it. he said that's the way we do things here. so we did not succeed in

getting that funding. congress did created and we are very optimistic that digital promise will have a major impact in the future on education. >> if i could just add one thing to that -- the opportunities around technology and education are an area where he has been a visionary. when you think about it, kids are carrying around today 50 pounds of out of date books in their backpacks. we know that for the same cost or less, they could have a portable learning device, a tablet with at a minimum up-to- date textbooks, but unleashing the power of education and evaders to work on individualized learning for students, to extend

opportunities all over the country to be forced multipliers everywhere. if. a really important area i'm glad about this and we have a lot in this area we are working on as well. >> i want to take you back to the two words you wanted to be remembered for -- public interest. broadcasters every year put out a glossy brochure that says they do between $10 billion and $12 billion in the public interest. with a declining amount of news, very little that would be children's programming that anyone would want as educational programming, what do you think should be done now given the weapons are not available to take away licenses in any significant way to actually enable broadcasters to operate in the public interest or is it time to turn to something your

general counsel has promoted for a long time which is to say never mind those obligations, just pay rent for the spectrum the public owns. >> some people, some very thoughtful people believe what there should be a some kind of revenue stream from the commercial broadcasters who are earning income and money to support a non-commercial system. and originally, the carnegie foundation proposal, in the 1960's, when that proposed the concept of public television was that for every television set sold, there would be a $5 tax, a $5 excise see that would go into a trust fund to support what is now pbs and npr and those stations. that was during the vietnam war and president johnson did not

want to have any attention to the increase in taxes. public broadcasting today is poorer. it has to plead on the radio and television, pledge night for money, which is disgraceful in this country. one way or another, to get a funding mechanism either by a transfer fee on broadcast licenses or a regular percentage, something like that, one of my best students at northwestern is here from canada. canada has a system like this. great britain has a system like this. it seems to me we in america have got to find some better way to finance by -- to finance public broadcasting. >> a better way to finance public broadcasting and a better

way to encourage the public interest. i'm afraid we're out of time and the chairman has to get to the airport to attend to important business. >> tell them what mayor bloomberg has got you doing. >> we are going to be making an announcement tomorrow morning around improving emergency alerts in times of disaster and thinking creatively about mobile phones and how they can be part of a 21st century early-warning alerting system. more to come tomorrow. >> this is an initiative of national significance or four new york only? >> alternately a national. >> we will stay tuned. julius genachowski, thank you very much. newt minow, unbelievable.

thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in a few moments, tea party activists criticize -- criticizing house republicans and speaker john boehner regarding federal spending in health care. in a little more than an hour, vice-president joe biden and hillary clinton express concerns over human rights in china. after that, the prime minister of pakistan denies claims his government knew of the whereabouts of osama bin laden before he was killed. later, another look at the relations between the u.s. and pakistan with the former national security deputy. you can access our programming anytime with the c-span radio iphone application. there are four audio streams of

our programming, commercial free. you could listen to our signature interview programs each week around-the-clock wherever you are. downloaded for free from the application store. >> a group of tea party activists held a news conference this morning to criticize john boehner and house republicans. they say not enough is being done to reduce spending or repealing the health care law. this is a little more than one hour. >> good morning. i'm a supporter of the tea party freedom jamboree. we are excited to gather here today. and going to take the time to introduce to you each speaker.

they will remind you who they are when they step up to the podium. after that, i will read a statement from congresswoman michele bachman. after that will go to other speakers. our first speaker is william temple, the chair of the tea party founding fathers. he is the chairman of the freedom jamboree and straw poll convention which will be held in kansas city in october. he was at time magazine's the face of the tea party and the leader of 1.9 million tpartiers who marched against obama and health-care in 2009. he is a vietnam combat veteran with the u.s. army. that is william temple. the second speaker is the editor and founder and chief executive officer of wnd.com andwnd

books. he is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of the tea party manifesto and other books. our third speaker is the chief economist for first trust advisers in wheaton, illinois. he's a for -- a former chief economist for joint economic committee of the u.s. congress and a member of the academic advisory council of the federal reserve bank of chicago. our fourth speaker is dr. daniel j. mitchell's, a senior fellow at the cato institute and former economist for the u.s. senate finance committee. fifth, we have the director of the tea party founding fathers and a member of the red river tea party. a fellow at freedom works and

former president of the naacp in garland, texas. he's a documentary producer and you can find out that on his website. he is a baptist minister -- baptist minister and a founder of one nation back to god. finally, we have the vice chair of the tea party national convention. he was the 2010 candidate for governor in the state of iowa and a ceo and president of an iowa-based organization called the family leader. before i turn it over to william tumble, i will read a statement we were given by michele bachman in lieu of her absence. the tea party is everyday americans. every day americans want congress to stop frittering around the edges of our government spending crisis with small cuts.

they do not want the debt ceiling raised and they are demanding washington live within its means. i am not able to be with you today at today's press event. if i were, i would tell you that i hear you and i agree. it is time to reject the debt ceiling scare tactics and address the truly frightening reality that our debt is at 14 trillion dollars and growing. the debt ceiling vote will offer an opportunity that was squandered during the vote for the 2011 continuing resolution. even as you gather in washington today, bureaucrats are planting the routes for obama care and making it nearly impossible to stop this massive, job destroying, budget busting entitlement. any vote on the debt ceiling must include a vote to fully defund obama care. to do less is to ensure the next debt ceiling vote, the 75th increase in the last half century will not be a last and that is unacceptable. thank you to the tea party for

not giving up the fight. your stubborn determination to return the country to its founding principals gives me great hope for conservative accomplishments and the current house of representatives and greater victories in 2012. that was congresswoman michele bock and from minnesota's sixth district. now i will turn it over to william temple. -- congresswoman michele bachman from minnesota's 6 district. >> i am william temple and i played a part of one of the first signers of the declaration of independence. the first one on the left and the first one the british would have hung. we do this: the old outfit to remind the current government of the first revolution. we are in a revolution right now, the american people. when the tea party movement started in early 2009, i joined hundreds of thousands of others who, like our founding fathers and millions of u.s. citizens

and soldiers have gone before us, have taken up the fight for freedom over and over again. from my role as the founder of the local tea party group in the golden isles of georgia, i have had the honor of literally leading the 2009 march on washington. with the fife and drum corps. 1.9 million of my fellow citizens, as we marched in washington against obama care and big government tyranny, which obama care represents. the first act of charity since the british were kicked out of this country on march 1st, 2010. last december, i was elected by my 4 -- the mighty party members to attend the convention in kansas city, kansas. in that capacity, and in touch with virtually every one of the thousands of tea party cell group leaders across the country. i know how they think and feel

since they are the real grass- roots folks that ride the buses 10 hours appear to d.c. and put their last paycheck to do it. but right now, we are very upset about those we sent here in 2010, just last november, to serve us in the u.s. house. during the fall of 2010, the house republican minority promised us $100 billion in cuts for the 2011 budget. most of the house gop freshman class, while they were candidates, also promised they would not raise the national debt ceiling past the current trillion. 924 tea party activist swept into power and everyone knows it. and john boehner into the speaker's chair. yet we have been deeply

disappointed. instead of a fighter for u.s. taxpayers, u.s. -- john boehner has been a surrender rest, if that is a word, who weighed so right -- to wave the white flag before the first shot is fired. instead of delivering the $100 billion in cuts, he opened the bidding at $35 billion. and yet actually obtained just $20 billion. a split in the ocean, folks. worth about five days worth of u.s. borrowing. why? it seems house speaker john boehner and his fellow republicans in name only love to spend other people's money just as much as the democrats. last year, a house republican minority joined with the tea party to fight furiously against obama care. once in power, the house republican majority, after a hollow, purely symbolic repeal

the, have at the lee refused to use their genuine power to fix obama care, medicare, medicaid, or any of the other out of control entitlements and abuse of washington spending which threaten to bankrupt our nation and destroy our currency. not even a question. washington is borrowing 40 cents per dollar of federal spending -- $4 billion per day. to bury our children beneath a smothering national debt, yet these would be house rinos refused to hide president obama's mastercard. representative paul ryan, we have heard all about his great, so called courageous budget, as -- adds nine trillion dollars to the u.s. debt and does auditing get balanced until 2063. i'm old enough already, i will never see that happen.

if house republicans hold in their hand a weapon of mass discipline. if they would use it. all they need to do is lock arms and say mr president, we're not even going to call a vote on raising the debt ceiling. we won't even think about unhiding your credit card until you join us in 06 -- in fixing the obama care mess. to wield this awesome weapon of mass discipline, house republicans don't need to pass anything. they don't need the cooperation of harry reid, the senate democrats, or the president. all they need to do is nothing. wouldn't that be lovely, to have congress do nothing? just sit on their hands and refuse any vote to allow more borrowing be on the current debt limit. the tea party plans to score just one vote in the u.s. house

for purposes of candid ratings this year. if you vote to raise the debt ceiling, you get a 0 for the year from the tea party. if you do not vote to raise the debt ceiling, you score 100 and you are a hero. everything else from votes on the budget to writers, to repeals, trivial spending cuts is just smoke and mirrors. this is your talent. we will be judging the house republicans and their democratic colleagues on one issue only -- did you vote for more debt? that's it. red ink requires pink slips. federal layoffs and downsizing for dc's ruling class just like for all the rest of us out there. yet john boehner aims to maintain full federal plummet while the private sector bears the brunt of a washington

economic collapse. i wish our cheerful house speaker would just show some compassion for american taxpayers and our children, but he and mr. ryan had already surrendered to president obama. it is a cowardly act of treason against coming generations and we may be able to give him something to really cry about in 2012. today, rino hunting season opens. i brought my basket, but there is a flower in it. we did not do $7 million of damage in wisconsin, by the way. to all tea party years and that voters, we say stocks these pro- debt rinos by picketing their district offices. they will vote for more debt without demanding the obama care's appeal. obama care must go. that is why the house is filled with republicans now.

please, not up pretty flowers in the barrel of my musket. we are calling our chances of that bet tea party woodstock festival. we are urging nothing but peaceful, get that down, peaceful, nonviolent yet relentless pursuit of all house republicans who of gone wobbly in for more national debt. the tea party movement opposes any house gop action on the debt ceiling and we oppose more dead -- more debt. because i know our people very well. i have marched with them and rallied with them all over. i think it is safe to say the tea party movement as a whole might possibly, just possibly forgive john boehner and house republicans a small bump in the debt ceiling. we might even forget to get our

legislative score cards printed. how does that happen? if obama care is repealed before hand, we might make a deal. five top market oriented think tanks, including american heritage and kato agreed among top 10 things the house gop needs to fix -- obama care, yet john boehner and paul ryan have ignored it all. another if -- we might be in the for giving move if the other health care entitlements of medicare, medicaid and u.s. tax code's medical inflation drivers get fixed beforehand. everyone agrees from the president and his deficit commission to conservative republicans that fixes are necessary. duh. thedoes paul ryan's budget

ladies for a decade? it's the only thing offered on the table is a debt hike of $100 billion -- are we supposed to get that this year? $100 billion, not a penny more, that is the about house leadership promised and later denied to the tea party in fiscal year 2011. if the president does not like it, let him figure out what to prioritize, and there is a lot he can prioritize, and what to cut when the cash starts running out. that figure also approaches the ballpark of a month's worth of u.s. borrowing. just eight months worth. it usually set up in other debt ceiling -- it used police said seven other debt ceiling. after we allow 100 billion cut, we will be with them again and talk about the next 100 billion. if at least half of discretionary spending gets cut, most of it is either

unconstitutional, and sustainable, silly, or evil. how can we tell future generations we saddled them with trillions in debt for fannie mae, freddie mac, hud, planned parenthood, national public radio, which is paid for by government funds cannot tobacco subsidies that cause cancer and epa regulations of cuba and exhale. we're going to tell our grandchildren that. how can we tell our children we dead their debt grave to hold official washington harmless from the kinds of layoffs the private sector has experienced? in a recession caused by congress's banking and housing policies. yet none of them are going home. how can we tell them we kept borrowing $4 billion per day in

order to buy one-third of the u.s. corn crop for ethanol's subsidies that spike food prices for the world's poor? if john boehner stopped this leading house members and all america by echoing treasury secretary tim geithner's the fault the feet, it is a lie. when he tells them house inaction on the debt ceiling = default to bondholders, that's a lie. there is plenty of tax revenue to pay on t-bills and tim geithner is in charge of paying that interest. what he really means is, when he says we will the fought on federal obligations is no more borrowed cash will be available for every kind of spending authorized by politicians who

can't say no. another if -- if social security's unfunded liability, including anti marriage subsidies that fuel crime and other costly social pathologies getting dressed in advance. if the house on -- house armed services committee and pentagon slow down on injecting open homosexuality and females into ford former combat roles. is that necessary? when the pentagon's studies show that feminization of the military may have at extremely costly impact on recruiting and retention when islamists have shown their willingness to sexually brutalize american female reporters, why would john

boehner's house republicans the caving to political correctness? why would house republicans who know better, by fostering inappropriate attractions in pence, up punks, barracks, platoons, cockpits, latrines, showers and locker rooms where we are fighting wars in three muslim nations. as a combat veteran, i know we do not have time to worry about the guy behind us. if a balanced budget amendment requiring a supermajority for tax increases passes the house for ratification by the state, and we're not going to hold our breath about one, but we would like to see it. finally, if rino house leadership starts falling other voices like to party caucus leader michele bachman, freshman class chair -- the republican

study committee chair, jim jordan, and other senators, who have been talking tough or planning to filibuster against raising the debt limit, that tea party will not be in a forgiving mood this fall at the tea party national convention in kansas city. or as the gop primary season opens, as house freshmen and others selected by the tea party cave to obama, we will find replacements for them this fall. thank you. >> thank you, william. i have a very brief statement. when the republicans took over the house of representatives in last november postelection, i immediately began thinking what

to the new gop majority could accomplish with control of only half of the congress. obviously passing any meaningful legislation objectionable to the administration or senate democrats was out of the question. house republicans could propose cutting the budget but could never hope to persuade their counterparts in the democratic controlled senate to go along with them, let alone the man in the white house. they could wrangle with democrats and take symbolic action to demonstrate to the public there were real differences between the two parties, but at the end of the day, i could think of only two actions house republicans could take that would allow them to assert themselves and impose their governing philosophy on the senate and the white house. those two actions are saying no

to any proposed tax increase because without their assent, there is no chance for democrats to raise taxes. at least until 2013. the second was saying no to a hike in the debt limit. in this case, without their assent, there is no chance for democrats to continue business as usual or even to implement programs such as obama care. require something republicans have been calling for four decades, track cuts in the budget that would actually require washington to return to something resembling limited constitutional government. but by january, only days after the republican majority took over the house, as you heard, leadership began issuing statements indicating the second of those two actions was off the table.

john boehner stated time and again since then that the debt limit had to be raised, had to be. having spent a significant amount of time looking at the options of the house republicans, i was initially mystified by his position because he was capitulating to business as usual in washington. i was naively, i think, he had just not thought this through properly. did he understand power he had in his hands. i have a lobby in effort directed exclusively at house republicans to persuade them to vote no on raising the debt limit. as so many promised to do while campaigning for the fall election. that is the no more red ink

campaign. to date, it has delivered about 1 million hard copy letters to 241 house republicans who have all the power they need to say no to more borrowing and spending. i know this campaign has galvanized a lot of support from house republicans because we have been doing head counts. i'm sure john boehner has been doing had counts as well. we have been doing them for several months to see it changing votes. when we started the campaign in february, i could only count about half a dozen house republicans fully supportive of increasing the debt limit above $1.3 trillion dollars. the vast majority of those house republicans do and we are approaching the necessary 218 votes to stop the cold.

that is why i am here with my tea party friends, to remind them why there's an to washington and warned them of the consequences of betraying their promises and rhetoric to change the direction of washington governments. . if republicans provide the boats necessary to continue the madness we of seen over the last several years, they will be telling americans for -- there is no alternative to the democratic party responsibility? they will be telling them representative government is dead. they will tell them republicans are all talk and no action. they will tell americans that there is no difference between the two parties. they will be stealing their own fate in the 2012 elections. thank you very much. >> i'm the chief economist at

first trust advisers. we are a money-management firm out of sweden, illinois. in a way, my day job -- out of wheat and, illinois. in a way, my day job is to help people protect their assets and grow them over time. i worried about the size of government and the growth trajectory and tax rates and the intersection of policy and public policy with the economy. also, in 1995 and 1996, i was the chief economist of the joint economic committee. i was here when the government shut down in 1995 and 1996. part of that was over a debt limit vote. i want to remind you that back then, the deficit was about 4% of gdp. we used the phrase 200 billion

deficit -- $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. today, we're talking about trillion dollar plus deficits as far as the eye can see. 11% of gdp as opposed to 4% of gdp. when i compare this to 1995 or 1996, i do it for a reason. that is the government was shut down. it was a major political brouhaha, if you will. we can decide who won and lost, but in the end, by the late 1990's, early 2000's, we had a surplus in the federal budget. it was just 10 years ago when the federal budget was in surplus. i remember alan greenspan saying he was worried about the surplus because it was going to get rid of all of the government bonds in existence and he could not run monetary policy if there were no government bonds. that was just 10 years ago.

we now have 11% deficits and that's why i'm here. i support, as i financial market representative, if you will and an economist, the use of the debt limit as a tool to get spending down and the budget under control. not allowing the debt limit increase, if we were to hold steady, is not a default on u.s. government debt. never once in the past 65 years on a monthly basis have revenues in less than the interest owed on the debt. and other words, as long as we decide to pay the interest, we can pay it every single month from now to infinity without a

tax hike, without changing anything of the budget today. by the way, and the principle that becomes due, we can roll it over. we will just issue more debt. does not increase the debt cap. the bottom line is we will not default on our debt to foreigners, ruining the night of state's credit rating if we do not raise the debt limit. number two, standard and poor's reduced the all look for the american bond market to a negative outlook. this was reported by some to be because people were worried the debt limit would not increase. anyone who believes that has to go read the statement put out by standard and poor's. it was very clear. it said the obama administration has proposed trillions of dollars in deficit reduction.

rep ryan has done the same thing. if they were to get together and move and lay something like this direction, cutting trillions before the election of 2012, we would not put the country on negative outlook. however, -- this was standard and poors and i'm paraphrasing -- we judged these two sides are so far apart that they're going to be unable to come together before 2014. and in our opinion -- again, i am quoting standard and poor's -- that they were putting us on a negative outlook because of the political environment, bought on reaching consensus of of cutting spending, not because someone like that tea party is talking about not raising the debt ceiling. finally, i was looking at the

bible last night and i read about solomon. solomon was considered wise and ask for wisdom from god. he was presented with a dilemma. two women and one baby. they both claimed it was their baby and he said ok, cut in half. this smoked out the real mother because she was willing to give up the baby and not have a cut in half. i looked at this debt ceiling debate as sort of that kind of story, that we have to be serious enough about cutting spending and using the debt ceiling as that tool is perfectly logical. it is not extreme, and finally, my final point is the global financial markets, they are smart enough to figure this out, they are smart enough to understand the nuances of the political debate. if the debt ceiling is used as a tool, a weapon of mass

discipline, i believe the financial markets not only will handle it, but move through it and if it works, and spending is actually cut, we will leave the other side of this debate in very good shape. i want to remind you again, the early 1990's was the jobless recovery. the late 1990's was one of the greatest booms in history. part of that boom was because spending was reduced at the federal government level. we were able to keep tax rates lower. the government fell as a share of gdp and the private sector exploded upward. this is a very important battle. i believe the financial markets can handle it just fine. what they're asking for is spending reduction. if the tool of the debt ceiling is used, they're going to be a ok with that. thank you.

>> my name is dan mitchell from the cato institute. i just want to make a couple of points. the federal government this year is expected to crack more than $2.2 trillion. the interest on the debt is supposed to be about $207 billion. even if we assume the government forecasts are off, there is more than enough money to pay every single penny of interest on the debt. this is not an issue about the fault. the treasury secretary is being deceitful. the fed chairman is being misleading on this issue as well. default is not the issue. the issue is whether we get government spending under control. the deficit and the debt are the symptoms. the underlying problem is a government that is too big and has been a bipartisan problem. during the eight years of the bush administration, government spending exploded to 3.5 trillion dollars. obama promised change but he

grabbed a baton and raised in the same direction with a stimulation and a lot care. that's why we are in a fiscal dish -- fiscal ditch. government spending has exploded. how do we get out of the mess? if you look at the budget forecast, it's very simple. according to the congressional budget office, revenues are going to increase by about 7% of the next 10 years assuming the tax cuts are permanent. revenues are growing 7% the year. it does not take a bath genius to see the you reduce ready if spending grows by less than 7%. if we froze spending at the current level, which is what canadians did in the 1990's, we would balance the budget by 2017. but even if you let government spending grow by 2% the year, the balance the budget by 2021. what are our options for achieving that modest but a

fiscal discipline? i wish we would cut spending, but all we would do is limit the growth to get to that balanced budget. unfortunately, there are few leverage points. the debt limit is one of them. if the debt limit goes through without using the leverage to impose some modest but a fiscal discipline to get as i track to undo the mistakes of bush and obama for the last 10 years, we will have the great disservice to our children and grandchildren. thank you. >> good morning. i have been with the tea party movement since 2009, where i joined william temple in washington d.c., this town with 1.9 million others of our people. i was proud to be a tea party air then. i'm proud to be a tea party year now. -- to be a now.

the truth of what we have been talking about for the last two years is true now. we do not want a fundamental change in the health of this country and what has made a great. the reason we stand together is to make certain the core values of this country remain intact. we see that there is a coordinated effort both by democrats and republicans to fundamentally destroy the core values of this country on which its financial health has rested and has prospered. we send this message to john boehner and every rino on capitol hill -- we did not give you the gavel of the house of

representatives to play nice with the liberal democrats. we did not give you that gavel and the great bully pulpit you have and the big stick that you have so that you would not use it. what is the point in having the stick we gave you if you are not going to use it? to protect the interest of the american people? we send this message to those who have in fact spoken about changing the very nature and the very reason our army protects this country. .

>> and let me remind you, it was the pastors and preachers when this country was founded. they were hounded the most by the british. why? because they were able to inspire passion in the people of this country. to be who we eventually became. america is the greatest success story the world has ever known. and i am living proof of it, because i stand here as the great-grandson, a former slave.

but today a free man defending the document of the united states that made me free to speak to you today. as i leave you, i say to each american, to stand up for america, and stand up for god and country. and god bless the republic. >> thank you, reverend. i am bob vander-plaats, the president and c.e.o. of the leader out of iowa. and out in front of you, you have a collective group of people from author and a pastor and family leader. and you may want to know why i would associate myself and all of us come together because we are looking for exceptional leadership. and from my point of view there is a serious threat to the family if we don't have real

leadership. exceptional leadership is like beauty, they are both difficult to summarize and describe, but you know it when you see it. iowa plays an important role in launching the campaign process and we take this role serious. frequently i am asking about what we are looking for, for a candidate and i say leadership. america is to provide the next generation with the hope and stability of previous generations, that their america will be better off than the america of their parents. many of the next generations are starting to question that. these real challenges demand exceptional leadership. in 2006, senator obama said, quote, raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership

failure. at that time he was against raising our debt limit to 8.95 trillion, and now in 2011, president obama and his liberal co-horts are demanding an increase to the 14.4 trillion debt limit to feed their out of control debt frenzy. president obama's own words in 20 2006 increase in debt is a sign of failure. this is why joined with the tea party founding fathers and support their freedom jamboree in kansas city on october 1 and 2, in promoting our country's return to our constitutional roots. this is why we are calling on speaker boehner and congress member ryan and others to step

up and provide leadership. this debt reality provides the perfect opportunity to substantially reduce the size and scope of the federal government. to begin the long, overdue process of entitlement reform. this is the sustainable hope for the family. it's not only important that we have exceptional leadership in congress, but that we provide replacement for president obama that can provide leadership to the white house. we are racheting up our vetting of the 2012 presidential candidates. when i get a chance to meet them and tell them the family initiatives point towards strengthening the family. that has to do with life, marriage and the constitution and this fiscal issue as well.

this includes advocating for policies that give the family the best opportunity to thrive financially. along those lines and why we are here today, i am telling iowans that america needs a president that will lead on tax reform. on medicaid and social security and on drastically cutting discretionary spending. we need a president who not only opposes raising the debt ceiling but a president that wants a truly limited and balanced budget. and believe it or not how important this is, the balanced budget, it's not point of the issue, but we are talking about parameters regarding the size and scope of government. we need a president that will hold to the founder's intent for

the limited role of government in our lives. this a freedom issue, and failure to do this is a setback for future generations. we need a president who is more concerned about the next generation than the next election. we need a president who cares about we the people, than about me the politician. and in iowa we are leading the charge to discover and launch that leader. our standards are high because quite frankly they need to be. i invite all 2012 presidential candidates to come to iowa during the freedom jamboree to share their vision for america. that must benefit families for generations to come, via

exceptional leadership. make no mistake, despite what the president may say, america is an exceptional country. we the people will demand nothing less. with that i thank all my peers and their presentations today. and now open it up for any questions from the press. >> yes, have i -- i have a question, and mr. temple equated don't ask no tell to freedom and is that the same? >> i think it's a ripple effect. when you start going away from core value issues, the ripple effect leads right to economic issues as well. ron paul was with us not along

ago, as well as other potential candidates in iowa. and some of their comments were, tell me where you are on the sanctity of human life or core value issues, i will tell you where you are at on economic policy. i think when we lead the core issues it will translate into poor economic policy. and that's what we are seeing today and why people are not willing to grab that baton. >> do you believe that (inaudible) in afghanistan and iraq believe in those core values? >> i will answer that. >> please. >> i was in combat in vietnam. the sexual orientation of my soldiers was, and it worked well. don't ask, don't tell works. you didn't ask me when you asked the question what my sexual

orientation is. and i tell you now, don't ask and don't tell, and we will get along just fine. >> (inaudible). >> it's private. >> some of the tea party believe that speaker boehner in your words is insufficiently leading in the charge but some believe that he should be challenged in the primary in the next election. and are you going that far? do you believe that he should be challenged in the next election? >> i believe what we are about today and i believe that william's opening comments he made. we are trying to encourage speaker boehner and congressman ryan to demonstrate those peers that were elected on november, 2010. and we hope they will step up and provide that leadership. that's why we sent them there in

the first place, due the entitlement reforms and slash discretionary spending. but we are looking for leadership, i think that jury is still out. >> when you say that you are keeping score and watching and who votes for and against. and is that in effect putting pressure on speaker boehner. >> i believe that and no doubt that's putting pressure on speaker boehner as well as other members of congress. saying that we aare watching yor actions, because quite frankly actions speak louder than words. >> forgive me if this is repetitive, i heard the first speaker i heard calling boehner and ryan rhinos, i believe. is that the fact the message being delivered today? and maybe if you can repeat a

little bit. >> ryan is a republican in name only. and all of us in the tea party, and i think that the press will agree, we were highly responsible for mr. boehner and the house tea party caucus, that they call themselves to get elected. and we expected that definition, we are defining them as republicans in name only on one issue. if they will hold the ceiling on the national debt, they are not. if they raise it, they are going to be advertised everywhere and we will run candidates against them in their own districts if they raise it, on that one issue only. >> (inaudible). >> and they have time to change. i think they moved the date to august now. we are going to pressure them some. yes, ma'am. >> what i noticed, i am looking

at the revenue stream gross domestic product. and i noticed when we increased our spending by 800 billion, that took it up to 18% and have had a drop in revenue ever since. shouldn't we demand that they cut 800 million that they increased two years ago and trend down to 14% so we can pay off the debt. to me as a businesswoman this seems logical and prudish action. >> and as a businesswoman, my math teacher would be all over me to figure that out, but we have economists to address that. >> federal government spending when clinton left office was 18

gdp and up to 24 gdp and that's why we are in a mess. revenues now are depressed because of the economic downturn, but according to cbo and o & b they will climb back up by the time we get to 2020. obviously balancing the budget is a simple matter, bring it back to where it was when clinton left office. >> isn't that inflation than real growth. they never got to 20%, and ever since they have dropped in revenue. we need sincere cuts below the baseline. we need to reestablish this market to get off the bubble machine that we have been driving our income from. >> the percent of gdp data, the inflation washes out on both sides of the lever. obviously it's bad to have

inflation but that separates out as the government's share of the economy, and looking at the debt accrued because the government spending is too high. >> that's great, i agree with everything that dan said. one of the reasons we are having a slow recovery. one the reasons that the unemployment rate is now 9%, up two-tenths last month. because the government is so big. the formula is simple, the larger government is, the more gdp we spend, the smaller the private sector is. it's straight out math. if i borrow and fund the money for the government, that can't be used in the private sector. and the smaller the private sector, the fewer jobs there are. cutting spending is good for the

economy. and then for you, your question about coming in at 10 o'clock and missing some things. what i said and others up here said, that a lot of this today is about the debt ceiling and the debt limit. and using the debt limit is a good tool. from an economist point of view to get spending down. because it will benefit the economy. so the whole point is cut spending. and if you have to use the debt limit to do that, i think it's well worth the effort. the economy will benefit on the other side. >> i want to inject one more thing on the whole issue of big government. energy, interior, commerce, none of them are found in the constitution. as a federal responsibility. we have allowed that to be developed over the 80 years, the last 80 years. and we have with us and he

showed up, george washington. and i want you to understand that debt is a moral issue. and i have asked him to say a few words on debt. >> thank you, we are here on monday after mother's day. and i said, my mother was the most beautiful woman i ever saw. all i am, i owe to my mother. every man, every woman in america and around the world owes a debt to their mother and father. but that's a debt of gratitude. it's not a debt we owe because our service people have been spendthrifts. i said in 1976 that a method to

preserve credit is to use it little as possible, and avoiding t accumulation of debt. and not by expense but vigorous exertions in time of peace to avoid debt. that may be occasioned by the necessity of throwing upon us wars. and throwing upon prosperity our debts is a burden they ought not to bear. a burden is a tax upon the future of america, upon our children and our children's children. there is no practice of

borrowing money and the interest becomes lost assertions to raise it and imposition on our industry. it comes easy and spent freely. and many things indulged upon that would not have been obtained if not purchased by the sweat of one's brow. and in a letter i wrote to james welch in 1789, after i left the presidency, to contract new debt is not the way to pay old ones. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. temple brought up the issue of ethanol politics. and as you know there is no area of the country that has

benefited from farm subsidies than northern iowa. and how do you justify that continued policy? you want to abolish? >> i think where we are at on energy policy. and i don't want to speak for the entire group. i think we are up here individually as citizens addressing the need for leadership and reform in this country. in regards to energy, i am all the above guy. i think we need to drill here. i think we need to tap into the energy base we have in this country. i think we need to look at alternative and renewable fuels, and i think that ethanol is a piece of that. and there are a lot of things that have been subsidized and we are saying that everything needs to be on the table. this debt ceiling is a huge issue. to pass on this debt to the next

generation, may be the most immoral things to do the next generation. we are saying don't increase the debt ceiling, but put everything on the table. and repeal obama care and go after discretionary spending. i think all of that needs to be on the table. >> again for the late arrivers, give us the short summation, boehner is supposed to speak tonight in new york regarding debt ceiling. and what you would tell him if you had a chance. >> to sum it up, we are telling boehner and all house republicans, they came in the house with tea party help. and we expect them to hold their promises and hold the ceiling on the national debt. they can sit on their hands and do nothing, which might be easy for them. and if they do nothing, we won't add to our national debt.

we are saying stop raising the national debt and this excessive, huge government spending. which is bankrupting our nation and endangering the lives of our children. >> if i can add to that, not raising the national debt does not mean default. we have an estimated 2.5 trillion dollars coming into the federal government this year. and one theme you heard from many speakers, if something is meaningful is achieved. whether spending cash or repeal of obama care, that may be a worthwhile trade. but based on what happened with the continued resolution fight. there is not a lot of confidence that republicans will negotiate

with them. >> the debt is a moral and insidious tax on the future of america. on our children and children's children's children. as i said in the constitution, in the preamble, it says for ourselves and the prosperity. that means the future. we must not place a tax, an immoral tax on our children. >> what kind of spending caps could be a constitutional trade off? >> you have all sort of things, senator lee's tax balanced amendment, a senator has a cap act that is modernized version of rugman. you have repeal of obama care and you have discretionary spending. there are all of these ideas

out there, my job is not to say which is best and they didn't get much in the resolution. >> from my perspective, markets want to see and the standards & poor's negative outlook said this. they want to see meaningful and significant lasting, that was their word. i would call it durable and medium and long-term correction to the course we are on. we are looking at trillion dollar deficits plus as far as the eye can see. and let me add a couple of comments. i am from the private sector, bear stearns and lehman

brothers, they were taken out by the government with reckless behavior and speculation. if the u.s. government was a bank, the fdic would close them down this friday night. they have run their fiscal books in an awful manner. what is interesting about this, when i have discussions with politicians and some in the leadership that i have talked to in recent days. they are saying we need a glide path or 10-25 years to fix this. because we can't cut it this fast. and my point back to them, the private sector doesn't get that luxury. no family gets that luxury. you either cut spending now, lay people off or go bankrupt. so the bottom line is -- and what is fascinating to me as a private sector economist.

they turn around and saying i am extreme. i am the one that is extreme. because i am saying you are out of control. it's fascinating to me. we need 15 years to fix things. well, you don't get that luxury in the private sector. and my final point about this, this is a bipartisan problem. i don't mean it was washington but it was created in a bipartisan manner. paul ryan, that i have known for a long time. i think i met him at 19 years old, an intern to jack kemp. i love the guy. and for the most part he's incredibly smart and capitalistic person. however he voted for tarp, bush stimulus bill, no child left behind and the list can go on, the auto bailout. my question to him is what is

he? is it for bigger government? or is he for smaller government. because i believe we would not be in this position today if it weren't for republican votes while president bush was in office. and what president obama and the democrats have done since then. this is a bipartisan problem we are in. and i believe that using the tool of the debt ceiling, i made the analogy that this is like solomon saying, give me sword, i will cut the baby in half. it's a drastic action but necessary, because neither side will listen. just like the two mothers that claimed the baby was theirs. we need a drastic action to bring in a sense, what i would call an adult-kind of behavior

to the budget of washington, d.c. private firms laid off people. went bankrupt in this process. the government for some reason thinks that it can avoid that pain. and that's what i think a lot of people are saying up here. >> and just so we can say it clearly and get it clear in our heads. so we can wrap our minds around what is happening here. a trillion dollars, even if ryan's budget was to take hold, 9 trillion would be added and 2060 is when this would eventually balance. now a trillion dollars, just so the average joe gets his mind around that. the time of christ's birth, if we spent $1 million a day, from the time that christ was born.

we would not here today in 2011 have spent a trillion dollars. we cannot sustain this type of spending. it is immoral. it's impractical. and we came today to say we will not tolerate this which any longer. >> mr. temple, did you say that big government democrats and big government republicans are waging economic war in the private sector? >> well, yeah, that's the result. what got tea party people out in the street two years ago? 13 trillion dollars in debt fostered by the federal government. in action and it's daleying with fannie mae and freddie mac, and

while the americans trusted their federal government, they were spending like drunken sailors, both parties. so when i came out in atlanta in february, well, april 15, 2009, and found 40,000 americans, the largest number of people ever assembled before the golden dome. i thought these must be conservative republicans. and when i asked that, they said no we are democrats. and i said how can this be, you elected your president two months ago. and resounding answer was 13 trillion dollars in debt. a this is not about party but about the american people fed up with the government acting like children. >> seems like a lot of initial

steam for the tea party came from wall street and the insurance companies (inaudible) but i haven't heard lately the tea party endorsing finance in regulation and reforms. i wonder if you could square why the steam has gone away? >> the steam is not there, the two are in bed together. we understand that but it's the government that has the responsibility of oversight. if fannie mae and freddie mac are overseen by the federal government and they allow subprime mortgages all over the place. and big business is playing to that. who has the responsibility to

bring it under control? the federal government has the responsibility to not be playing games at the cost of the american people. and so it's the american people, we are not for a big business getting away with murder. but we understand who has the responsibility to make sure that it doesn't happen and so we are after the federal government first. >> if you have regulation, and it will be tightened up and why eliminate budgets for the fcc? >> the regulations you saw, the 2500 page health care bill. that's the kind of ridiculous paperwork that the federal government produces in which big business can hide. do their things. it's regulations that we need to remove. we need to give the country freedom. not more paperwork. and all of this is one big

barrel that our federal government, i am 60 years old and the department of commerce and the department of labor and department of the interior, all of these unconstitutional departments have been created over the last 80 years. their power does not belong here but in the states. we want to see the government cut and commerce cut and agriculture cut. and the last thing we want cut first is the department of defense. there is waste there, yes. but the first responsibility of the government is to protect its people. they are not doing anything about the borders or the debt. and they are creating their own world to retire on million dollar retirements with their own health care plans. and they have created a house of

lords down here. that's what we have now. >> if i can add about the financial issue, and before frank bailout deal and part of the reason we got in this mess. it was government actions and the fed easy bailout politics, and fannie and freddie, and when the government came in and bailed out the people that made mistakes. that's what angered grassroots americans and why we saw the stories yesterday about fannie mae wanting more bailout money. that's the problem, if you want to make a mistake, go ahead. don't come to the taxpayers and ask for money. >> i had a question, and sounds like you are saying that the government is responsible for oversight but we need to get rid

of regulation? >> i am saying that the government is too big for its britches. it's not the founder's intention. in washington and we will be running around washington taking a look at all the big departments. sorry, i am not addressing your question. >> you said we can raise the debt ceiling if we raise 100 billion? >> i am saying that we come to the card game and we are not just handing over our chips to the liberals on the other side. we said if you want to raise the national debt ceiling, and we gave you eight or nine things we might consider. including get rid of obama weca,

and play our cards one at a time. >> let me add something to this. again we are not obviously all in agreement about specific issues. we are all in agreement about the big picture. let me talk about debt ceiling and raising it a little at a time. let's argue first, if we did not raise the debt ceiling right now, forever and forever. it's stuck 13.3 trillion, it will never go higher. first you have to understand that the government has to run a surplus in that situation. because we borrow money from social security and that adds to the debt. and we can't do that. we need to run a surplus for 1-2 billion to never raise that again. and you can pay the interest on the debt and pay social security

and pay defense and veteran benefits. let's just do those four things, that's all we do. everything else in the budget, medicare, white house staff, congressional pay, everything else has to be cut 85%. to balance the budget. that's how far out of whack this budget is. and what william is saying, i think, if we don't raise the debt ceiling, the mayhem of spending cuts would be so far-reaching and so dramatic, that it literally would tear departments up and parts of the coming to shreds. you can't cut 85% of all spending like that. so what you need, at least i think everyone knows deep down that the debt ceiling is going

to have to go up at some point. but i believe that it needs to be used as a tool to get spending cut. and if you can do it a little at a time. all right, let's raise the debt ceiling for one month. you will have to vote on it 12 times this year. all right, and the whole point is that spending has to get down. and this is the tool, the weapon of -- what did -- mass discipline that can be used to do this. and so we can get spending down very quickly. as dan said, we can balance the budget in six years if we freeze spending. but the bottom line is that we have to get something like that done. and everyone realizes there has to be some movement in these issues. >> and by the way, new zealand and canada both did exactly that, froze spending in the

1990's, and they both went from large deficits to budget surpluses. it's possible to freeze spending and that may require a short-term freezing in the debt limit and get it going and that doesn't leave us hopeful of the gdp. >> thank you for this, we invite all americans to freedom jamboree in kansas city. >> it's september 30 and october 1 with the morning worship service. >> we invite you to join the freedom jamboree on september 30 and october 1, and thank you to all candidates today. it's been a pleasure. >> in a few moments vice

president joe biden, and secretary of state, hillary clinton express concerns regarding china. and also another look at relations between u.s. and pakistan from juan cireta and boehner speaks about debt spending. several live events to tell you about tomorrow, justice department and federal trade commission talk on capitol hill about protecting smart phones and representatives from google and apple. and it's at 10 eastern.

and also a talk about the coast guard budget request, before the subcommittee of homeland security. and later on c-span 3, president obama will be in el paso, texas to speak on immigration and security. >> now available c-spans guide to congress, inside new and returning house and senate members, with contact information and including twitter addresses and information on the white house and supreme court justices. order online at c-span/shop. >> joe biden and hillary clinton today expressed concerns about china. they spoke at a dialogue between u.s. and china. and tim geithner is allowing for

china to increase their value for exports to be chaeaper ther. this is 45 minutes. >> good morning, we are delighted to welcome you here to the department the interior, a department that deals with the beautiful landscape and nature of our country along with the national parks that have been established. it's a very historic building, which is appropriate for the third round of the strategic and economic dialogue. >> it's such an honor to host

representative wang qishan and bingguo, we are joined by china representatives and will be joined by vice president biden. and he is looking forward to meet with the teams later today. the strategic dialogue is a premier forum in a bilateral leadership that is important and complex than any in the world. since we first gathered in washington in 2009, the breadth and depth of our discussions and relationships with our government have grown significantly. through these meetings and the informal conversations like last night over dinner at the blair

house. and the formal meetings, we seek to build a foundation of mutual respect. to form habits of cooperation to work effectively for our shared, regional and global challenges and to weather disagreements when they arise. it's a chance to expands areas where we cooperate and to expand the areas where we diverge. now more than ever with two years of dialogues behind us. success depends on our ability to translate good words into concrete actions on the issues that matter most to our people. so as we begin this third round, we will keep that goal in clear

focus. our work really begins with our commitment to better understanding one another. to building trust between each other, and to working to avoid misunderstanding and miscalculation. we all know that fears and misperceptions linger on both sides of the pacific. i will be very open about that. some in our country see china's progress as a threat to the united states. some in china worry that america seeks to constrain china's growth. we reject both those views. we both have much more to gain from cooperation than from conflict. the fact is that a thriving

america is good for china. and a thriving china is good for america. but to work together we need to be able to understand each other's intentions and interests. and we must demystify long-term plans and aspirations. that is why for example, secretary of defense, robert gates and i have spoken often about the importance of developing more sustained and substantive military-to-military engagement that increases transparency and familiarity. i am pleased for the first time that senior military officials from both sides will participate in this dialogue. they will join civilian counterparts to discuss how we can reduce the dangerous risks

of misunderstanding and miscalculation. in particular i would like to thank deputy chief of the pla general mai for being here with us for these important discussions. we are also working to build greater understanding and trust between our citizens and to foster stronger ties between our students, our businesses and our communities. expanding on the consultations that were held here in washington last month. that includes the 100,000 strong program. this is a program to boost educational exchanges and to create new links between entrepreneurs and investors. i am looking forward to lunching with business leaders from both of our countries. and we are emphasizing women

leaders and for state officials. and of course we want to continue our strong people-to-people diplomacy. building mutual respect and trust will help us in solving problems. we both have a stake for climate exchange and a cleaner energy and future. we both care about a responsible, sustainable development around the world. and we both are committed to stopping the dangerous spread of n nuclear weapons. how our two countries work together to meet the new challenges will help define the trajectory of not only our relationship going forward but the progress and peace of the

world. whether the crisis or upheaval in the middle east, recent history has discovered the link between our economies and stability. and that's at the heart of our dialogue. we will discuss to balance the economy and sustained future growth. there are important international security issues we will discuss. the united states and china came together in a council to enact tough sanctions on iran and now we are work to implement them. our two countries share a vital interest in the peace and stability on the korean peninsula, and that includes the complete deneutralization of the peninsula. and we encourage north korea to take concrete actions to renew

with south korea. and we want to see north korea take steps to fulfill their obligation towards denuclearization. like any two nations or people we have our differences. and like friends we discuss those honestly and forthrightly. we will continue the discussion on the u.s./china dialogue held just in beijing. we have made clear publicly and privately our concern about human rights. we worry about impact on the domestic politics and the politics of china and the region. we see reports of people and public interest people and artists and others that are

detained and disappeardisappear. and we know that societies that respect human rights are more prosperous, stable and successful. that certainly has been proven time and time again, but most particularly in the last month. so this dialogue offers a forum for us to have these candid discussions to focus where we will operated effectively. and as my friend, wang qishan knows that china and the united states are like people in the same boat. and we have to row in the same direction to get anywhere. and there is also a wise chinese expression that says, when confronted by mountains, one finds a way through. when blocked by a river, one

finds a way to bridge to the other side. we are here to keep building those bridges. and not doing it alone, we are a part of institutions and relationships across asia pacific and the world. united states is practicing forward diplomacy. we are expanding programs and high-level engagements, and working with allies and for the first time ever this year, president obama will participate in the east asia summit. we have a lot of work ahead of us and a lot to cover in a short time. again i am delighted to welcome you here. to express my confidence in this relationship and in the importance of this dialogue. and it's now my great honor to

invite vice premier wang to address you. [applause] >> secretary clinton and secretary geithner. we are gathered today for the third round of the dialogue. on behalf of the chinese population, i would like to express sincere concerns that are important. and i am asked and the state capital to convey to president obama and vice president biden and secretary clinton and all of

those who work on the u.s. side. we highly appreciate the role of those and housing strategic and mutual trusts and strengthening two countrys on all levels. he hopes that both the chinese and u.s. side will make the most of the dialogue to have indepth exchange of views of ways to further have mutual trust and deepen practicical relations. he looks forward to the agreement he reached with president obama and the advancement of the china partnership based on mutual respect and benefit. dear colleagues, last january president paid a visit to the united states, it was a historic

have the that achieved great success. with vision and foresight, the two presidents opened a page of relations. and over the past 22 years between the china and united states. china relations have kept moving forward. as two countries defer in history and culture and social endowment and national circumstances. but we are highly interdependent and mutually complementary. the united states is china's second largest market. and china is the faster growing export market for the united states. together china and the united states account for one-third of the world's gdp and one-third of global trade. china's/u.s. relationship has acquired glowing global

significant. we are witnessing profound and complex changes in the world's landscape. at present we still face issues while tackling economic development. and united states and china face challenges here. there are complementaries and crashes in our policies. however we have far more shared interests than differences and competitions. both sides must make better use for the framework of issues and take solid steps for the development of china/u.s. relations. dear colleagues, the past and the present have proven, and the

future will prove that nothing can hold back the trend of china/u.s. relations. we have confidence in it, our confidence comes from the broad common interest of the two countries, the shared aspirations of two people. as well as from historical and philosophical reflections. one action is better than one thousand words and that is important between the two presidents and deepen between the economic trade and dynamic infrastructure by so doing and will contribute to the solid and balanced growth of not only our two economies. but also the world economy.

i wish great success. [applause] >> i want to start by joining secretary clinton and my u.s. colleagues in welcoming the chinese delegation, vice premier wang and councillor, good to see you in washington.

when the strategic met first in washington two years ago, president obama said that the united states and china share a mutual interest. if we advance those interests through cooperation, our people will benefit and the world will be better off. because our ability to partner together is a prerequisite to progress on many of the pressing challenges. now we have worked carefully and deliberately since then for that basic truth. and our economies are stronger today because of the commitment of president obama and president qishan because of this. i want to congratulate premier wang, who focuses on the

practical and achievable. and recognizes that china's economic success depends on a strong economy. when president obama helped launch in london in april 2009, the world economy was in the grip of the worse financial crisis since the great .

term reforms that will force us to live within our means as a nation. in china, building on a remarkable performance of the last 30 years, the challenges to lay a foundation for a new growth model, with a flexible exchange rate that moves in response to market forces, with a more open market-based economy and in more developed

and diversified financial system. the reforms we must pursue to meet these challenges are not in conflict, and the strengths of our economies are complementary. we each recognize that our ability to work together is important to the overall health and stability of the global economy. as president obama said, no one nation can meet the challenges of the 21st century on its own affect its own interests isolation. [speaking in chinese] in english, we share fortunes together and share challenges together. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you. >> dear friends, just now i heard from my colleagues, saying all that i have to say. so i will be brief. secretary of state hillary clinton, secretary of treasury, timothy geithner and her, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me to join you here in washington. point inunique i

united states-chinese relations. 40 years ago, the design of the people's for friendly interactions, together with the courage of our political leaders, produced a force of history. it pushed open the door of engagement between our countries that had remained shut for over 20 years. since then no force in the world has ever had the power to close that door again. today, as we reveal -- and look ahead, to a better future of china-u.s. relations, we cannot pay high tribute to those ice breakers, pioneers, and builders of china-u.s. relations. more importantly, we shall learn from their foresight and

pioneering spirit because we have to bring china-u.s. relations board. the china-u s relationship is an extremely -- is at an extremely point in history. the president met in washington this past january, at that time when we had just entered the second decade of the 21st century. together, the two presidents decided to build a cooperative partners based on mutual respect. charting a clear course for the future of china-u s releases. history will show that the decision they made is a historic one that accords with the tide of history and serves the benefit of the people of china, the united states, and the world.

admittedly, it is no easy task to make this major decision a living reality and turn a commitment and doing real action. as we may face all sorts of difficulties, obstacles, and interference on the way ahead, i am confident that so long as -- in the 21stp century, with a resolution, and overcomeer to difficulties, we will -- feature mutual respect and cooperation so that our people and future generations will live in the sunshine of friendship and cooperation.

i am standing here, addressing you as a 70-year-old man. on may not look that old. actually, i have turned 70. when i should have gone home and enjoy the company of my children and grandchildren, why then am i still flying across the pacific and sitting at round after round of dialogues with my american partners? i am doing this to implement the consensus of our presidents for the achievement of one lofty goal -- to make our two countries and their peoples forever good friends and good

partners and to enable our children and children's children to live in peace and happiness. could we ever let them down? the answer is no, a definite note. -- a definite no. if we do, we will be failing our vision, and that would be unforgivable. dear friends, the people of china and the united states live in the same global village. you on the western side, we on the east. i welcome our american friends forvisit china, to see an yourself the french about the chinese people and the importance of china-u s. relations. you may also learn about the enormous progress china has

made on various fronts, including human rights. and get to know what is a real china. to conclude, i wish this round of dialogue for success. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states. [applause] >> how are you? [applause] good morning. thank you. thank you all. it is an honor to welcome back

to washington for the third meeting of the strategic and economic dialogue between the indicted states and china two good friends. let me acknowledge vice premier wang and state councilor dai. your trip with the president was a great visit and we got some time to spend time together. the united states co-chairs are our superstars, secretary clinton and secretary geithner are. we expect great things to happen. we each have a number of important tasks in the days ahead and all designed to continue to guide our relationship to an even better place than it has already moved. i would like to recognize secretary gary locke, the second

-- the president's trust to be the next ambassador to china. he has served as the governor of the state of washington, and the senate confirms gary, he will do an outstanding job. [applause] their hideous. i'm not going to mention the trade representative's sitting next to you because i told him if he was able to deliver a deal all with korea, i would nominate him for the nobel peace prize. he did, and i have to. i made -- i hate to get knowledge this gentleman, but i made my first trip to china as a young man, meeting with don shopping in 1979 -- deng

xiaoping in 1979. i think we would a first delegation to meet after normalization with senators like a clip -- jacob javits and frank church and other prominent members agree on that term, when we met with the vice premier and witness changes that were being initiated, beginning to spur china's remarkable transformation, even back then it was clear great things were happening, and it was also a debate here in united states and throughout most of the west, whether a rising china was in the interest of the united states and the wider world. as a young member of the foreign relations committee, i wrote and i said and i believed then what i believe now, that a rising china is a positive development, not only for china, but for

america and the world writ large. when the president and i took office in january, 2009, we understood that our relationship with china would be a key priority. we were determined to turn and said the relations of on a stable course that could be sustained for decades. our two countries, now the world's two largest economies, or down by ever growing ties in investment. we the united states talked about what we import. we exported $110 billion in american goods and services to china last year. we were bound by much more than commerce. over the last three decades, our people have become increasingly linked to education, work, and travel. last year, 130,000 chinese were studying in the united states. they are really good. we are trying to keep some of them. i'm only joking. [laughter]

but they are. we cannot claim the same number of americans in china, but our 100,000 strong initiative will dramatically increase the number of young americans living and studying in china. who graduated from harvard not too long ago, works for the secretary geithner, she did exactly what we hope another 100,000 will do. she shot is -- she studied chinese, lived in china, and is now devoted to making sure the relation it's better. we are linked by our share global responsibilities. we both serve as permanent members of the united nations security council. we are both pacific powers. for many of the world cost pressing challenges, it is a simple fact that when the united

states and china are not at the table, a solution to the problem is less possible than when we are at the table. it is no exaggeration to say that our relationship and how we manage it will help shape the 21st century. our commitment starts at the top. our presidents have met face-to- face nine times in two and a half years, nine times. president hoo was here in january. i will go back to channel this summer -- to china this summer, and i look forward to hosting a reciprocal visit later this year. these summits are not enough on their and to sustain and build a relationship across our entire government, across all agencies. that is why we're here. it is not merely our economic

issues. we want to build a relationship across the entire spectrum of our governments tree that is what we have asked all of you to come together for these dialogue. when president obama launched the first shh strategic economic the lead in two dozen night, he issued a challenge all of us, to work together to define the problems of our time. some would say that is presumptuous for china and united states to work on problems. how we cooperate will define as vivid part of how we deal with the challenges the world faces at the beginning of the 21st century. this is not the heart of our effort to build a cooperative partnership. we seek to cooperate to advance our mutual interests and not only promote economic growth, but trade that is free and is fair. we see the corporation to advance our mutual interest in

the prosperous future that will come from an energy supply that is clean and secure and addresses climate change. we seek to cooperate to advance our mutual interests in a range of pressing global and regional security challenges. this includes continuing our work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and specifically to curb proliferation of those weapons and technology from both iran and north korea. where do we stand? to this dialogue and a dedicated efforts of our governments and our people, i believe history will show we have made progress. there is much more to do, and that is why we are here. along with our partners in the g-20, we have worked to sustain a global ad, the recovery. we recognize that the relations generate global economic

beveridge of deaths, not to just both of our countries, but all benefits. last year our trade supported over 500,000 jobs here in the united states. we may cancel corporate was we made tangible -- made tangible progress. over the next two days, we need to build on this lamentable and make sure our commitments are aggressively implement it. you may have noticed there is a debate in this nation how best to secure our long-term fiscal future. we know overcoming our economic challenges begins at home. we have to restore financial stability if we need to make the investments to win the future. we need to maintain our commitment to what he believed the president believes is the pillars of our economic future

-- education, in addition, and in for sharp curve. i know you are adjusting to your economy and the world situation as well. i know in china and you are working to rebalance your economy and make growth more sustainable with greater reliance on domestic demand. none of this is easy. success and reordering growth will be good for the united states and for the rest of world. united states and china are the world's largest producers and consumers of energy, and we share a common challenges that flow from that. this creates not only a problem but a great opportunity, for common efforts to find clean energy solutions. secretary chu likes to say " science is not a zero-sum game.

science is not a zero-sum game." that is demonstrated by the corporation we have begun to forge in this area. our joint clean energy research center is finding new approaches to energy efficiency, clean coal, which we both need to deal with, and clean vehicles. we need to build on and expand our efforts in their area, and i know you will be doing, having much discussions these next two days, on air, and it seems to me an area that has the potential for great progress. we have also made progress in goebbels' attorney challenges trade or president joined us at the nuclear security summit in january. we have cooperated in stemming

nuclear proliferation from iran and north korea. the strategic dialogue is important to both our countries. look at the agenda you have for the next two days. it is a fulsome agenda. on's list a few of the items the agenda to illustrate the sheer breadth of our british. climate change, clean energy, military relations, regional issues, sudan, afghanistan, our goal in part is to enhance the communication and understanding that we believe and you believe will build trust and confidence. we have to be honest with each other. we are not going to agree on everything. we will clearly find areas where

there will be disagreement. as we work to events our national interests, we have to move on what we see in common, find common ground, and i would argue much of our mutual national interests will find common ground. only by discussing a diverse range of topics can we help mitigate the risk of misperception and this calculation. my father used to say the only disagreement worse than the one that is intended is one that is an unintended. that is why it is so critically important we talked to one another honestly. we should be realistic. we will not always be able to work together. in some areas we have figures this a grimace. in some we will have a vigorous competition. others will have a curse collaboration. i believe on balance we have much more to agree on than to disagree on.

so does the president believe that. a healthy competition in our view is good for both of us. competition is not bad. competition could. this is the reason why i have held the view for so many years and continue to hold a view that a rising china is a positive development. as you might expect, it is my question i have overwhelming confidence in the capabilities of the american people, and those capabilities are enhanced when there is genuine competition from equally capable people. i welcome this healthy and fair competition because i believe it will spur us both to innovate and both will benefit from it. it is important to be straightforward with one another. there is one area where we have vigorous disagreement, and i know when i understand that this agreement when we voiced it is

upsetting or rankles -- don't into how that translated pass chinese. we have disagreement in the era of human rights. we have noted our concerns about the recent crackdown in china. no relationship that is real can be built on a false foundation. where we disagree, it is important to state it. when will continue to express our views. as i said, i recognize that some in china sea our advocacy in human rights as an intrusion. the president and i believe strongly that protecting the animal rights and freedoms such as those enshrined in china's international commitments as well as in their own

constitution is the best way to promote long-term stability and prosperity of any society. the transformation of china cost the economy since my first job as a young man in 1979 has been breathtaking. i doubt whether it has occurred in any other. in world history. it has been so significant, so rapid. talent of the chinese people, perseverance, and their leaders, have lifted tens of millions of people out of poverty and build an economy that now helps fuel the world's prosperity. it is remarkable. during the same period, the relationship doing the united states and china has also seen a remarkable transformation. again, because of the talent and hard work and a respected political leaders that have

covered our countries over the last three decades. the bonds between our countries, about through intensive engagement from the moment of normalization, events like this one. we have done much to make a relish of positive, cooperative, a comprehensive, and i am confident that we can do more for ourselves and for a generation of americans and chinese as well. as i said, if that occurs and continues to occur, it will benefit the whole world. now it is time to get to work. again, welcome, gentlemen, welcome to your delegations, and i thank you for the honor of being able to address you. thank you very much. [applause]

>> in a few moments, pakistan's prime minister denies claims that their government knew of the location of osama bin laden. later, tea party activists

criticize john boehner and house republicans regarding federal spending. >> tomorrow morning, the debate over federal spending with robert latta. we will preview the president's speech on immigration with the head of the national hispanic leadership agenda. we will be joined by a person with the army corps of engineers to take questions about the near record flood levels from the mississippi river. live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. this jin, the balance between security and liberty about the difficulties and climate change treaties and limits of international law. your questions for eric posner.

he will take your calls and tweets. i dissent as prime minister told his national assembly on monday that pakistan is not the only country to blame for intelligence failures concerning o'sullivan love it. he rejected claims that his overnment knew bin laden's whereabouts. this is courtesy of the aljazeera network. >> into the's age at intermission, it is important to set fax from fiction. it is the reality that obscures' --

truth cannot be long submerged. it makes us forget the sequence of fast moving events. however. every government has a -- it requires a dispassionate review of history. some of the recent discourse have missed point. reaffirmation is necessary. pakistan is a proud nation.

we are united to uphold the national dignity to say guard our supreme national interest by all means no other nation. has that so many challenges. no other people has been put to so many tests by history and by circumstancesour nation has met all these challenges with supreme confidence, which is borne out of our firm belief in the noble injunctions of our glorious religion islam, our societal traditions.

ever since our independence, pakistan stood up for our values which are also universal: freedom, dignity, equality, tolerance, humanity, harmony and brotherhood. hasstan's foreign policy always reflected our national ethos which, undoubtedly, transcends considerations of narrow interests or politics of expediency. pakistan is not only a state but an idea and an ideal that our courageous and talented people strive, in their daily lives, to translate into reality. our democratic and pluralistic polity as epitomized by this august house, state institutions, free press, open and intense public discourse are, indeed, our great strengths.

our friends can from this discourse fathom the depth of our sentiments, the aspirations of our people, the authentic spirit that guides and inspires them to seek equity, justice, security, peace, progress and prosperity. for over thirty years, pakistan was impacted by the conflict and strife in afghanistan. in that struggle we, together with the rest of world, decided to uphold the principle of self- determination for the great afghan nation. we opened our homes and our hearts to those who fled the conflict in afghanistan and also supported the great jihad. i talk of a bygone era. however, it is perhaps necessary to remind everyone about that era which has been so well documented including in the cnn series on the cold war showing video footage of high

ranking us officials exhorting the afghans and mujahideen to wage jihad, to go back to their homes, to go back to their mosques, in the name of islam and as a national duty. for us, all of this was real. we have continued to suffer from its effects. is it necessary for us to remind the international community of the decade of the nineties which saw the arab volunteers, who had joined the jihad mutate into al-qaeda? who was responsible for the birth of al-qaeda? who was responsible for making the myth of osama bin laden? to find answers to today's question, it is necessary to revisit the not so distant past. collectively, we must acknowledge facts and see our faces in the mirror of history.

pakistan alone cannot be held to account for flawed policies and blunders of others. pakistan is not the birth place of al-qaeda. we did not invite osama bin laden to pakistan or even to afghanistan. it is fair to ask who was osama bin laden and what did he personify? osama bin laden was the most wanted terrorist and enemy number one of the civilized world. elimination of osama bin laden, who launched waves after waves of terrorists attacks against innocent pakistanis, is indeed justice done. however, we are not so naïve to declare victory. mission accomplished, and turns around. the myth and legacy of osama bin laden remains to be demolished. the anger and frustration of ordinary people over injustice, oppression and tyranny that he

sought to harness to fuel the fire of terrorism in the world, needs to be addressed. otherwise, this rage will find new ways of expression. pakistan believes in democracy and pluralism. a society that strives for equality and dignity. an open and transparent society is undoubtedly essential for addressing the rage and anger arising from political or economic injustices. when we say that in this war against terrorism, pakistan has lost some 30,000 men, women and children and more than 5,000 armed forces personnel, billions of dollars lost as economic costs. we do not intend to put a price or seek acknowledgement or recognition from any one. the war against terrorism is our own national priority. our nation is united in its

resolve to eliminate terrorism from our sacred land. pakistan will not relent in this national cause and is determined not to allow its soil to be used by any one for terrorism. this national consensus was built by our democracy, this parliament, and the entire political leadership of this country. our patriotic citizens and state institutions are all united in their resolve to prosecute this campaign against terror to its logical end. we will utilize all means and resources and insha allah succeed. honorable members of the house, now, let me briefly retrace the first decade of new millennium. international forces marched into afghanistan to dismantle the taliban regime after 9/11.

in fact, taliban had already left kabul and taken along al- qaeda to their hideouts in afghanistan. the tora bora bombings resulted in the dispersal of al-qaeda. even at that time we had cautioned the international forces on the consequences of a flawed military campaign could lead to the dispersal of al- qaeda. al-qaeda leaders and foot soldiers sought hideouts everywhere, in the mountains, and deep inside cities, including pakistan. we did not invite al-qaeda to pakistan. in fact, for the first time, our armed forces were deployed in the tirah valley to form a security cordon to interdict al-qaeda during the tora bora bombings. in that operation 248 al-qaeda

members were captured by our armed forces. subsequently, pakistan's inter services intelligence prosecuted the anti-terror strategy with a high degree of professionalism and superb determination. in fact, some 40 of the key al- qaeda operatives including chief operation officer faraj al libbi and khalid shaikh mohammad, the master planner of 9/11 were captured by the isi. pakistan's armed forces also carried out successful operations in swat, malakand, south waziristan, mohmand and bajour agencies against terrorists and militants. no other country in the world and no other security agency has done so much to interdict al-qaeda than the isi and our armed forces. this was done with the full support of the nation and in accordance with the political

will articulated by the parliament of pakistan. it is disingenuous for anyone to blame pakistan or state institutions of pakistan including the isi and the armed forces for being in cahoots with the al-qaeda. it was al-qaeda and its affiliates that carried out hundreds of suicide bombings in nearly every town and city of pakistan and also targeted political leaders, state institutions, the isi and the general headquarters. the obvious question that has vexed everyone is how could osama bin laden hide in plain sight in the scenic surroundings of abbottabad. lets not rush to judgment. allegations of complicity or incompetence are absurd.

we emphatically reject such accusations. speculative narratives in the public domain are meant to create despondency. we will not allow our detractors to succeed in offloading their own shortcomings and errors of omission and commission in a blame game that stigmatizes pakistan. this issue of the hideout needs a rational answer. recrimination and misplaced rhetoric is self defeating. yes, there has been an intelligence failure. it is not only ours but of all the intelligence agencies of the world. the al-qaeda chief along with other al-qaeda operators had managed to elude global intelligence agencies for a long time. he was constantly being tracked not only by the isi but also by other intelligence agencies. it was the isi that passed key leads to cia that enabled the us intelligence to use superior technological assets and focus

on the area in which osama bin laden was eventually found. all this has been explained in the statements issued by the foreign ministry and the ispr as well as in the detailed briefing by the foreign ministry. asymmetrical warfare happens to be the tool in vogue against superior conventional forces. terrorism falls in that category. osama bin laden used terror for whatever cause that he espoused. hiding in plain sight, as is evident in this case, is perhaps another technique that could be attributed to osama bin laden in the realm of asymmetrical intelligence. nonetheless, we are determined to get to the bottom of how, when and why about obl's presence in abbottabad. an investigation has been ordered.

our people are rightly incensed on the issue of violation of sovereignty as typified by the covert us air and ground assault on the osama hideout in abbottabad. this has raised questions about pakistan's defence capability and the security of our strategic assets. as the abbottabad episode illustrates our military responded to the us forces covert incursion. the air force was ordered to scramble. ground units arrived at the scene quickly. our response demonstrates that our armed forces reacted, as was expected of them. abbottabad hosts a routine military training institution, which does not require any elaborate special defence arrangement. there is no denying the us technological ability to evade our radars. we regret that this unilateral

action was undertaken without our concurrence. unilateralism runs the inherent risk of serious consequences. suppose the operation had gone wrong. a us helicopter was abandoned and destroyed on the site. this is a small though important reminder of the risks in such operations. let no one draw any wrong conclusions. any attack against pakistan's strategic assets whether overt or covert will find a matching response. pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. no one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland. there are of course legal and moral issues that relate to the question of sovereignty. in a generic sense this is a question that continues to vex the international community as a whole. the security council while

exhorting un member states to join their efforts against terrorism has repeatedly emphasized that this be done in accordance with international law, human rights and humanitarian law. the drones are given out as an instrument to fight terror. yet, as we have repeatedly said these attacks constitute a violation of pakistan's sovereignty and are counter productive. on this question which relates to operational matters, we have strong differences with the united states. the media spin masters have tended to portray a false divide between the state institutions of pakistan. i would like to most emphatically reject the notion of divide. the political leadership is supportive of the strengthening of all of pakistan's institutions. we follow a whole government approach.

on all key issues, all stakeholders are consulted through inter-agency processes. the statements issued by the foreign ministry and the military on the death of osama bi laden were authorized by the government. let me also affirm the government's full confidence in the high command of the pakistan armed forces and the inter services intelligence. indeed the isi, is a national asset and has the full support of the government. we are proud of its considerable accomplishments in the anti-terror campaign. now let me put the present situation in its proper perspective. our foremost priority is development. this requires security and stability at home and in the region. the pursuit of this objective is the guiding spirit of our engagement with the

international community and in particular major powers as well as regional states. i must say that this endeavor has found resonance and we are well on the road towards giving this vision tangible form. we realize that the world and in particular the asian region is undergoing a fundamental and fast transformation. we are delighted that our all weather friend, the peoples republic of china has made tremendous strides in economic and technological development that are a source of inspiration and strengthen for the people of pakistan. apprehensions are being voiced about our relations with the united states. let me dispel any anxiety in this regard. pakistan attaches high importance to its relations with the us. we have a strategic partnership which we believe serves our mutual interests.

it is based on mutual respect and mutual trust. pakistan and the us have strategic convergence. the dissonance that finds hype in the media is about operational and tactical matters. it is not unusual to have a different point of view on the methodology to achieve shared objectives. we have, however, agreed that whenever we find ourselves on "conflictual" paths and disagree, we should make efforts to reach common understanding by deeper and more intense exchange of views. our communications at the official and diplomatic levels with the us, during this phase, have been good, productive and straight forward. we have agreed to a calendar of engagements. most notably afghanistan, pakistan and the us have agreed

to form a core group for promoting and facilitating efforts for reconciliation and peace in afghanistan. the three countries met in islamabad and held useful and productive talks. another trilateral is envisaged in the near future. on the bilateral track we look forward to the visit of secretary of state clinton to islamabad in the near future. as you know, there has been a sea-change in our relations with afghanistan. destiny of afghanistan and pakistan is inter-linked. we must assume full ownership and responsibility for realizing our shared vision of stability and prosperity. with india we are embarked on an important process of engagement that should yield dividends for our two peoples and for peoples of south asia,

as a whole. we will pursue our engagement with india in a positive and constructive manner. i would like to conclude by underscoring the following:- one -- pakistan is confident of its bright future. two -- our real strength is our people, who are determined to over-come all challenges. three -- we have an ongoing multi-track process of engagement with all major powers including the united states. four -- our engagement with states within our region is being intensified in the interest of shared stability and prosperity. five -- counter-terrorism is a national priority. six -- al-qaeda had declared war on pakistan. osama bin laden's elimination

from the scene attests to the campaign. seven -- intelligence cooperation is critical for the attainment of the goals of anti-terrorism. eight -- blame games serve no purpose. nine -- an investigation in the matter has been ordered which shall be conducted by adjutant general of the pakistan army lieutenant general javed iqbal. 10 -- our security policies are constantly reviewed to enhance defence capabilities. 11 -- there are no differences among the state institutions. 12 -- cooperation in counter- terrorism warrants a partnership approach which fully accommodates pakistan's interests and respect for the clearly stipulated red lines. 13 -- pakistan's relations with all states especially immediate

neighbors and major powers are in good shape. 14 -- safeguarding and promotion of our national interest is the sole objective of the government's policies. 15 -- the parliament is the right forum to discuss all important national issues. the will of the people shall prevail. a joint session of the parliament has been called on the 13th of may. >> from "washington jounral," this is 45 minutes. laden era. he is a former security adviser for counterterrorism for the bush the administration. currently with the center of

strategic and international studies. welcome to the program. "washingtoning's times" we have this had deadline -- guest: the fact that we got so much information, an intel bonanza, unlike anything we have seen since 9/11 -- in volume and in terms of quality. we have the electronic media files, all sorts of things that will not only lead us to al qaeda leaders, but also understanding the network, at large. historically, currently, and where it is going. it is a treasure trove of documents. for the most part, the administration will not want to talk about the details. we will be curious, asking a lot of questions, but the

administration will be careful to talk about anything sensitive. we see the bin laden story as the end of a story, that in many ways, given this was such a fruitful site exploitation, with all of these leads coming from it, in many ways, it is the start of a new phase of care terrorism operations. -- counterterrorism operations. but i do not think it is bad to signal to their leadership that we have a lot of this stuff. many of them did not have direct communication with osama bin laden. it is a good terrible to throat -- a variable to throw into their thinking. it may force arab that we can take advantage of. at some point, we may want to constrain what we are saying publicly so that we can take

action on the information we are getting. host: how much information that they got from the compound do you think the average person will benefit from, in terms of, how safe is it for me to get on a plane, train, travel across the country or overseas? guest: the first priority for officials is to see if there is any information about plots or activities target in the west. one of the things they are doing is looking for information of operatives who have been deployed to north america or europe. looking for information on attack planning. we saw a threat morning last week with respect to surface transportation. that relates to some of the memos found at the compound. it is not likely that you will see every day information coming out that will give us specific

information about threats, but, periodically, information that will signal that analysts have found things that are troubling and american public should be aware of. host: former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld says -- how do they fight that urge? they found all of this information. everyone wants to know about it. how do they fight that urge to say that this is what we have got, this is what we will tell you? guest: it is tough because there is such an insatiable appetite for the information that came out of that raid. the public has a right to know, in many ways, what is coming.

that said, what you will see happen is the counterterrorism community will start to take ownership of what happened down, in terms of the analysis and what is said. the more the analysis that comes out of this leads to counter-terrorism activities, the less it will be talked about. the problem for the white house is, how do they stop being the active voice of these updates? how do they stop being the fact witness? part of that challenge, to the extent that they have briefings, have the pentagon and intelligence community do it. host: juan zarate is our guest for the next 40 minutes, talking about homeland security in the post-bin laden era. if you want to get involved in the conversation, democrats, 202-737-0002.

republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. you can also reach us by e-mail and twitter. first call comes from michigan. mattie on the line for independents. caller: there was a story last week in "the washington post" about osama bin laden, and they said that they had found the guy that knew the guy that led to the guy. did they find that the merc of careers? that is what it seems to imply. -- network of couriers? guest: is a great question. part of the intrigue of this case is how we discover the breadcrumbs that led us back into bin laden's lair.

this started back in 2004 when we got news of a trusted courier network that he was relying on. one of the theories was, if we got enough information on it, these corridors could ultimately be the bread crumbs that would lead us back to his lawyer. over time we get bits of pieces of data, more granular day about what that and work looks like. -- network looked like. experts then honed in on that individual to find the compound. once they found a compound, concentrating heavily on what was going on there. however, at no point did anyone have visual confirmation that bin laden was there. no one had audio confirmation. so there was no certainty. so there was no certainty.