secretary clinton and my u.s. colleagues in welcoming the chinese delegation. vice premier wang and counselor die, it is good to see you again in washington. when the strategic and that economic dialogue first met in washington two years ago, the president said the united states and china share 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 is prerequisite for progress on many of the most pressing global challenges. we have worked carefully and deliberately since then to demonstrate that basic truth. our economies are stronger today because of the commitment of president obama and president hu to deepen our economic relationship even as we each confront significant economic challenges at home. i want to compliment vice

premier wang for his leadership in this joint effort. he is a tough and forceful defender of china's interests. he focuses on the practical and the achievable. he recognizes that china's economic success depends on a growing world economy and a strong relationship with the united states. when president obama and president hu launched the strategic and economic in london of april -- in april of 2009, the world economy was in the grip of the worst financial crisis since the great depression. today, thanks in no small part to the actions of the united states and china, we have put out the worst of the financial fires and the world economy is growing again. and because of the success of the cooperative strategy we launched together with the g- 20, world trade is now expanding rapidly, companies around the world are investing in hiring,

and fears of deflation have receded. but of course we still face very significant though very different economic challenges at home. in the united states, even after a year-and-a-half of positive economic growth and more than 2 million private sector jobs created, unemployment is still very high and we still have a lot of work to do here in repairing the damage caused by our crisis. our challenge in the united states is to strengthen the foundations for future economic growth, and this requires a sustained effort to improve indication -- improve the education, to strengthen incentives for innovation and investment, even as we put in place the long term fiscal reforms the will forces once again to live within our means as a nation. in china, building on the remarkable reforms of the last 30 years, the challenge is to lay a foundation for a new

growth model driven more by domestic demand with a flexible exchange rate that moves in response to market forces with a more open, market-based economy and a more developed and diversified financial system. the reforms we must both pursue to meet these very difficult challenges are not in conflict, and the strengths of our economy are still largely complementary. and 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 nor effectively advance its interests in isolation. there's a chinese saying that reflects this same vision. in chinese, it reads -- [speaking chinese] in english, roughly, to share

fortunes together, meet challenges together. we're making progress and i'm confident we will continue to do so. thank you. counselor dai. >> thank you. so that i can stand taller. dear friends, just now i heard from my colleagues all that i have to say, so i will be brief. secretary of state hillary clinton, secretary of the treasury timothy geithner, vice premier wang qishan, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, is a great pleasure for me to join

you at the third round of the china-u.s. strategic and economic dialogue is here in washington. we need is a unique point in the history of china-u.s. relations, as this year marks the 40th anniversary of the ping-pong diplomacy and of dr. kissinger's secret visit to china. 40 years ago, the desire of the chinese and american people for friendly interactions, together with the decisiveness and courage of our political leaders, produced an unstoppable force of history. it pushed open the door of engagement between our two 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 review the past and look ahead to a better future of china-u.s. relations, we cannot but pay high tribute to those

icebreakers, pioneers, and the builders of china-u.s. relations. more importantly, we shall learn from their foresight and the pioneering spirit because we have to bring chinese-u.s. relations forward. the china-u.s. relationship is that is extremely important point in history. president hu jintao and president obama met in washington this past january, a time when we have just entered the second decade of the 21st century. together, the two presidents decided to build a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit, charting a clear course for the future of china-u.s. relations. 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 commitment into real actions as we may face all sorts of difficulties, obstacles, and interference on the way ahead. i am confident that as so rigid that so long as both sides grasp the right trend of the world and of china-u.s. relations in the 21st century, s t the direction set by our presidents with resolution, and never waver in our determination to overcome whatever difficulties come our way, we will blaze a new path of major country relations featuring mutual respect, harmonious

coexistence, and the win-win cooperation so that our people in the future generations will live in the sunshine of lasting peace, friendship, and cooperation. i am standing here addressing you as a 70-year-old man. i may not look that old. actually, i have turned 70, an age when i should have gone home and enjoyed the company of my children and my grandchildren. why then am i still flying across the pacific and sitting in round after round of candid and heart to heart 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 the 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. if we do come of we would be failing our duty and that would be unforgivable. dear friends, the people of china and the united states live in the same global village -- you on the west side, we on the east. i welcome more american friends to visit china, to see and feel for yourself the friendship of the chinese people and the importance of china-u.s.

relations. you may also learn firsthand the enormous progress china has made in various fronts, including human rights, and get to know what is a real china. to conclude, i wish this round of dialogues full success. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states. [applause] >> welcome back. hey, how are you?

good morning. thank you, all. it is an honor to welcome back to washington for the third meeting of the strategic and economic dialogue between the united states and china, two good friends. let me acknowledge the cochairs at the outset here. vice premier wang and state councilor dai, welcome back. i got an opportunity to spend some time with you, not as much as my colleagues have, but your trip with president hu was a great visit, and we got a chance to spend some time together. our -- the analysis could chairs are our a-team, our superstars. secretary clinton and secretary geithner. two of the best america has to offer, so we expect great things to happen.

we expect great things to happen with the four of you. ladies and gentlemen, we each have a number of important tasks in the day ahead and all designed to continue to guide our relationship to an even better place than it has already moved. also like to recognize secretary gary locke, the president's choice to be our next ambassador to china. gary has served with distinction in the cabinet, as well as before that serving as the governor of the state of washington. i know that once the senate confirms gary, and i expect that to be quickly, he will do an outstanding job in beijing. areas. and i'm not going to mention the trade representative sitting next to you because i told him if he was able to deliver a deal on -- with korea, i would nominate him for the nobel peace prize. [laughter] he did, and i have to. [laughter] at the rate, i hate doing

knowledge this, gentlemen, but i made my first trip to china as a young man in 1979, april of 1979. i was privileged to be with a group of very senior senators at that time. i think we were the first delegation to meet after normalization, senators like jacob javits of new york and frank church, and a number of other prominent members. on that trip, when we met with then priced the mayor of -- then vice premier deng and witnessed the changes that were being initiated, beginning to spark china's absolutely remarkable transformation, even back then it was clear that there were great things happening. and there was a debate here in the united states and throughout most of the west as 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 -- a rising china is a positive development not only for china but for america and the world writ large. when president obama and i took office in january 2009 we understood absolutely clearly that our relationship with china would be a key priority. the president and i were determined to set the relationship on a stable course that could be sustained for decades. our two countries, now the world's two largest economies, were bound by ever-growing ties of commerce and investment. we come of the united states, we always talk about what we import. we exported $110 billion in america and good sense services to china last year. but we are bound by much more than commerce. we have become increasingly linked through education, through work, and through

travel. last year 130,000 chinese were studying in the united states. they are really good. we're going to try to keep some of them. i'm only joking. i m only joking. [laughter] but they are. [laughter] 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. as a matter fact, my niece who -- excuse me, as we say in the senate, all point of personal privilege -- who graduated from harvard not too long ago, works for secretary geithner, she did exactly what we hope another 100,000 will do. she studied chinese and went and lived in china and is now devoted to making sure the relationship is better and better and better. and we are linked by our shared global responsibilities.

we both serve as permanent members of the united nations security council. we are both pacific powers. and for many of the world's pressing challenges, it is a simple facts -- when the united states and china are not at the table, the 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 2.5 years. nine times. president hu, as i mentioned, was just here in january for what all would acknowledge was a very successful state visit. i will go back to china this summer at the invitation of vice president xi, and i look forward to hosting him for a reciprocal visit later this year.

even these frequent visits and summits are not enough to sustain and build a relationship across our entire government, across all agencies. that is why we are here. it is not merely our economic issues. we want to build a relationship across the entire spectrum of our government. that is why we have asked all of you to come together for these dialogues. when president obama launched the first critique and economic dialogue in 2009, he issued a challenge to all of us to work together to address some of the defining problems of our time. some would say that is somewhat presumptuous for china and the united states to decide we avoid work on the defining problems, but as i said earlier, how we cooperate will define in significant part how we deal with the challenges of the world faces in the beginning of the 21st century. this is at the heart of our effort to build upon wofford partnership. we seek to cooperate to advance our mutual interest in not only

promoting economic growth that is strong, sustainable, and balanced, but trade that is free and fair. we seek cooperation 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. and we see 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 clerk -- curb proliferation of those weapons and technology from both iran and north korea. where do we stand two years after the president issued his challenge that we cooperate more? for this dialogue in the dedicated efforts of our governments and our people, i believe history will show we have made progress. but there is much more to do and that is why we are here.

along with our partners in the g-20, we were to sustain global economic recovery. we recognize that the united states-china relations generate global economic benefit, not to just both our countries, but global benefit. last year our trade with china supported over 500,000 jobs here in the united states, and we made tangible progress during president hu's visit, especially in the areas of innovation, intellectual property, and exports, all of which we are following up on. over the next two days, we need to build on this momentum and to make sure our commitments are aggressively implemented so that we can continue to move. you may have noticed that there is a debate in this nation how best to secure america's long- term fiscal future. we know that overcoming our economic challenges begin at home. we in the united states have to restore financial stability. we need to make the investments

necessary to win the future. we need to maintain our commitment to what we believe, the president believes, is the pillars of our economic future -- education, innovation, and infrastructure. i know that you are adjusting to your economy in the world situation as well. in china you are working to rebalance your economy and make growth more sustainable, with greater reliance on domestic demand. none of this is easy. but success in we orienting growth will be not only good for china, in our humble opinion, but it will be good for china -- the united states and for the rest of the world. the united states and china are the world's largest producers and consumers of energy and we share the common challenges that flow from that. and this creates not only a problem, but great opportunity for common efforts to find clean

the energy solutions. secretary chu likes to say, and i love this expression, science is not a zero-sum game. that amply is illustrated by the remarkable cooperation we have begun to forge in this area. let me just mention one example. our joint clean energy research center is funding 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 this area, and i know you will be doing -- having much discussion in these next two days on that area. it seems to be an area where there is a potential for great progress. on global security challenges, we've also made progress. president hu joined us at the nuclear security summit -- in

january, we signed the memorandum of understanding to build a center for excellence to promote nuclear security in china. we have cooperated in stemming nuclear proliferation from both iran and north korea, including preventing sensitive technologies from being exported to both those countries. the strategic dialogue is important to both our countries. just look at the agenda that you have for the next two days. it is of fulsome agenda. the list just a few of the topics on the agenda for the next two days, and illustrates the sheer breadth of our relationship -- china -- climate change, clean energy, our military relationships, regional issues such as sudan and afghanistan. our goal is to enhance the communication and understanding that we believe, and i believe 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 still be disagreement. but as we worked within our respective national interest, we have to move on what we seek in common, find common ground, and i would argue much of our mutual national interest will find common ground. but only by discussing a diverse range of topics, including sensitive ones, can we help mitigate the risk of misperception and miscalculation. my father used to say the only disagreement worse than one that is intended is one that is unintended. that is why it is so critically important we talk to one another honestly. we should be realistic. we will not always be able to work together. in some areas we have vigorous disagreement.

and some we will have vigorous competition. in still others we will have big ears collaboration. but on balance, we have much more to agree on than to disagree on, and so does the president believe that. a healthy competition in our view is good for both of us. competition is not bad. competition that is healthy is good. this is the reason why have held the view for so many years and continue to hold the view that a rising china is a positive development. as you might expect it is my -- 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 we will seek it will spur us both to innovate and both will benefit from it. as i have said earlier, it is a

board to be straightforward with one another. there is one area where we have vigorous disagreement. and i know and i understand that disagreement, when we voice said, is upsetting or rankles -- i do not know how that translates into chinese -- but how it concerns some of our friends in china. we have vigorous disagreements in the areas of human rights. we have noted our concerns about the recent crackdown in china, including attacks, arrests, and the disappearance of journalists, lawyers, bloggers, and artists. no relationship that is real can be built on a false foundation. where we disagree, it is important to stated. we will continue to express our views in these issues, as we did in the human rights dialogue in beijing two weeks ago. i recognize is some in china see our advocacy of human rights as an intrusion and lord only knows

what else. but sector to a -- but president obama and i brave -- believe strongly, as does the secretary, that protecting fundamental rights and freedoms such as those enshrined in china's international commitments, as well in china's own constitution, is the best way to promote long-term stability and prosperity of any society. the transformation of china's economy and society since my first trip as a young man in 1979 has truly been breathtaking. i doubt whether it has occurred at any other period in world history. it has been so significant and rapid. the immense talent of the chinese people, the incredible hard work and perseverance of the chinese people and their leaders have literally lifted tens of millions of people out of poverty and built an economy that now helps fuel the world's prosperity. it is remarkable. during this same period, the relationship between the united

states and china has also seen a remarkable transformation -- again, for the talent, hard work, and respected political leaders who have governed our country over the last three decades. the bonds between our country -- our countries come about through intense engagement from the moment of normalization, events like this one. we've already done much to make our relationship positive, cooperative, and comprehensive. and i am absolutely confident that we can do more for ourselves and for generations of americans and chinese as well. as i said, presumptuous of me to say this, if that occurs and continues to occur, it will benefit the whole world. some know it is time to get to work. again, welcome, gentlemen. welcome to your delegations. and i think you all for the

honor of being able to address you. that you very much. -- thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments, the pakistan prime minister denies his government knew about the whereabouts of osama bin laden before he was killed. in another 25 minutes, another look that u.s.-pakistan relations. after that, house speaker john boehner at the economic club of new york on federal spending and the debt ceiling.

one w j" tomorrow morning, we look at the debate over the federal deficit with representative robert latta. we will preview his speech on immigration tomorrow with the head of the net of hispanic leadership agenda, lillian rodriguez lopez. we will be joined by karen durham-aguilera from the army corps of engineers to take your questions about the near-record flood levels on the mississippi river. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> experience american history3 on history starting at 8:00 a.m. eastern. it is 48 hours of defense telling the american stores. hear about people who shape american history. the best known history writers of the past decade, and travel to important battlefields to learn about key figures and events that shaved though civil

war. visit college campuses across the nation as professors give lectures in history. go behind the scenes on museum exhibits. in focus on the american presidents, policies, and legacies. american history tv on c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. give our complete schedule long line and find out have been e- mailed to you using our schedule alert. you can access our programming anytime with the radio app. it is all commercial free. you can listen to our signature interview programs each week all available round-the-clock where every york. download it free from the collapsed store. -- app store.

prime minister of the pakistan told his country that pakistan is not the only country to blame. he rejects claims that pakistan knew about osama bin laden's whereabouts. this is courtesy of the outages here and now work. -- al jazeera network. truth cannot be for long submerged. sometimes we forget the sequence in context of fast-moving

events that flash on our television screens. however, everything has a context. it requires dispassionate examination. those to forget history are condemned to repeat it. near dixon countered dast narratives, the would-narrative and counter -- merrett tibbs and counter-terror dips. our real strength is our people in our state institutions. we are all united and fully committed to the sparing no sacrifice too appalled national

dignity and honor. to safeguard the supreme national interest by all means, and all resources at our command. no other nation has successfully met so many challenges. no other people has been put through some of the test by history and circumstances of geopolitics. no other nation has owned the collective burden of the internet the community. our nation has met all of these challenges. we have a firm belief that our societal values and traditions. ever since our independence, pakistan stood up for our values winter also universal, freedom, dignity, equality,

tolerance, humanity, harmony. our foreign policy as always reflected this. pakistan is not only the state. it is an idea. people in their daily lives strive to translate this into their reality. state institutions, the free press, open in intense public discourse. the of the dicks. bake guides and inspires them to teach equality, justice, security, peace, progress, and

prosperity. pakistan was impacted by that conflict in afghanistan. we together with the rest of the world decided to uphold the principle of self-determination for the great afghanistan nation. we opened our homes and our hearts to those who fled the conflict in afghanistan and supported the great jihad. however, is necessary to remind everyone about that era which has been so well documented, even the video of high-ranking officials to go back to their homes, to go back to the

mosques, in the name of islam and as a national duty. for all this was real. is it necessary for us to remind the international community of the decade of the 1990's? who was responsible for the birth of al qaeda? who was responsible for making osama bin laden? to find answers to today's questions, it is necessary to revisit the not so distant past. collectively we must knowledge and c are places in history. but we alone cannot be held accountable for what policies. we did not invite osama bin

laden to pakistan or even to afghanistan. who was osama bin laden and what did he personified? he was the most wanted terrorist an enemy number one of the civilized world. the elimination of osama bin laden is indeed justice done. we are not need to declare mission accomplished. the anger and frustration of ordinary people over injustice, oppression, and tyranny, which fuels the fire of terrorism in the world, and needs to be addressed. otherwise there will be new ways

of expression. pakistan believes in democracy and pluralism, a society that strives for equality and dignity. an open and just society is essential for addressing the rage and anger. in this war against terrorism, pakistan has lost 30,000 men, women, and children and more than 5000 armed forces personnel, millions of dollars lost, and we do not intend to put a price or seek an acknowledgment from anyone. the war against terrorism is our own national strategy. our nation is united the 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 anyone for terrorism. [applause] this national consensus was built by our democracy. the political leadership of this country and state institutions are all of united and his resolve to prosecute terrorism to its logical in. we will utilize all means and resources. mr. speaker, let me briefly retrace the first decade of the millennium. international forces dismantled the palestinian -- taliban regime after 9/11.

the tora bora bomb in resulted in the dispersal of al qaeda. the international forces led to the dispersal of al qaeda. al qaeda leaders and foot soldiers sought hideouts everywhere. in the mountains, deep inside cities, including pakistan. we did not invite al qaeda to pakistan. for the first time our armed forces were deployed during the tora bora bombings. 248 al qaeda members were captured by our armed forces. subsequently, we prosecuted and into-terror strategy with a high

degree of professionalism and superb determination. we captured many terrorist leaders. they were captured by the isi. pakistan on forces also carried unsuccessful operations in south -- carried out successful operations in south waziristan. no other country in the world and no other security system has done so much to capture al qaeda than the isi and firepower in -- our armed forces. it is disingenuous for anyone to claim pakistan or any institution in pakistan

including the isi and the armed forces are in cahoots with al qaeda. it was al qaeda and its affiliates that set out propaganda in nearly every city in pakistan and part of political leaders, state institutions, the isi, and the general headquarters. the obvious question is that how could osama bin laden hide in plain sight in this city of abbottabad? let us not rush to judgment. it was not complicity or incompetence. that is absurd. any speculative narrative are meant to create discord. we you will not indulge in a

blame game that stigmatizes palestine -- pakistan. it is self-defeating. yes, there has been an intelligence failure. ours but all theour intelligence agencies in the war. they had managed to elude global intelligence agencies for a long time. that gave information to the cia that enabled the u.s. intelligence to use technological assets and focus on the place where osama bin laden was eventually plan. all this has been explained in a statement issued by the foreign ministry and the isi as well as

the secure briefing from the foreign ministers. asymmetrical warfare is against conventional forces. osama bin laden used terror for whatever cause he espoused. ight, perhapsin sai another tactic that could be attributed to osama bin laden. nonetheless, we're determined to get to the bottom of how, when, and why osama bin laden's presence in abbottabad in may presence has been -- and an investigation has been ordered.

this is raised questions about pakistan's defense capabilities and the security of our citizens. as the abbottabad episode illustrates, the air force was ordered to scramble. they arrived at the scene quickly and this demonstrated that our armed forces -- about about hold 17 military training institutions. there is no denying u.s. technological ability to evade a heart attack. this unilateral action was taken without our knowledge. there is an inherent risk of serious consequences. suppose the operation of gone wrong. a u.s. helicopter was abandoned

and the stored on the side. this is a small bow important reminder of the risks in such operations. but no one draw in the wrong conclusions. any attack against pakistan, overt or covert, will find a response. no one should underestimate the armed forces defending our sacred homeland. there are issues that leads to is no question of sovereignty. this is a question. the security council by adopting u.n. member states to join in the fight against terrorism.

this is given out as an instrument to fight terror. but as we have repeatedly said, assaults on our sovereignty are counterproductive. we have strong differences with the united states. [unintelligible] i would like to it emphatically reject that idea. [unintelligible] 1 all the issues, all stakeholders are instructed to enter agency processes. the statement issued by the

foreign ministry and the military on the death of osama bin laden was authorized by the government. let me also affirmed the government's full response and intelligence. the isi has the full support of the government. [applause] we are proud of its considerable accomplishments and the anti- terrorism campaign. the me put the present situation in its proper perspective. our formal strategy requires security and stability at home in the region. the pursuit of this objective is the guiding spirit of our engagement with the international community. i must say that this and never has found -- [unintelligible]

the region is undergoing a past transformation. we're delighted that our all- weather friends come up the people of the republic of china, have made tremendous strides in technological development that is a source of inspiration and strength for the people of pakistan. apprehensions have been voiced about the relationship with united states. let me dispel any thing in this regard. we have a partnership of mutual interest. it is based on mutual respect and trust. pakistan in the u.s. -- and the

united states cooperate. it is not unusual to have a different point of view on the matter to achieve shared objectives. we have agreed that whenever we find ourselves on conflicting disagreements, we should make efforts to reach common understandings i'd deeper and more intense exchange of views. as for communications and official diplomatic levels, we have agreed [unintelligible] promoting and facilitating average for the reconciliation. on thursday, the following day,

senior officials met in a islamabad, and another trilateral is in the near future. we look forward to secretary of state clinton coming to islamabad in the near future. there has been a sea change in our relationships with afghanistan. they are interlinked. we have the responsibility of realizing our shared regions peace and prosperity. with india we are embarked on an important process season of engagement. it will help the people of south asia as a whole. we will pursue our engagement with india and the positive and constructive manner.

i like to conclude by underscoring the following. number one, pakistan is confident of its bright future. number two, our real strength is our people. they are determined to overcome all challenges. number three, we have an ongoing engagement with all major parties including the united states. fourth, our engagement will stay within the region and it is being intensified with shared stability and prosperity. 5, counterterrorism as a national strategy. 6, al qaeda has declared war on pakistan. osama bin laden's elimination from the scene a test of the successful and debt-terrorism. seven chemical operation is critical for the sustainment of

the war against terrorism. a camera blame games share no purpose. 9, an investigation in the matter has been ordered which of the conducted the-wool twill be conducted by a lieutenant general of the army. 11, there are no differences among the state institutions. 12, cooperation in counter- terrorism will fully accommodate pakistan's interest and respect for that. pakistan's relationships with its immediate neighbors are in good shape. 14, the promotion of national interest is the sole objective

of the government's policies. 15, the parliament is the right forum for the discussion of national interest. the will of the people shall prevail. on the 13th of may 10 that this parliament is called. >> more on the relationships between u.s. and pakistan. from "washington journal come" this is 45 minutes. zarate joins us talk about homeland security in the post-bin 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. but it was all the markers to suggest that it was a very high- qaedatarget in the al universe, and it was likely bin laden, given the compound, the

number of individuals, the fact was travelingidocourier back and forth. they did not know for sure if it was bin laden in the compound. even though we did so much good work to get to that point, still, at the end of the day, it was not clear until we executed the target, that it was bin laden in the house. host: mike in new york, new york. caller: what happens if we find out pakistani intelligence was involved in harboring bin laden? what kind of actions could we actually take?

it is a great question. one of the strategic aftershocks of this question is the deepening question between the relationships of the u.s. and pakistan. the whole thing with raymond davis enflamed relations with the u.s. and pakistan the president did not pre-notify the pakistanis, demonstrating a lack of trust in terms of the operational safety. but if we find there were elements of the pakistani intelligence service, or military -- and i think the evidence suggests that we may find some degree of that. this will be a crisis moment for the relationship. that said, the administration is doing two things. they are providing breathing space for pakistan to save face

publicly. they are not being overly harsh. they are allowing some wiggle room for the pakistanis to address this. but behind the scenes, you become extremely tough in your lines, and demands, delivering on other al qaeda leaders, taliban leaders in pakistan. frankly, holding the money that we have allocated for pakistan over their heads. we have to be real allies here, but if we continue to find these egregious cases of complicity, we are going to not only have to cut off funding, but some other harsh thing that you may not like. at some point, we need to have that conversation. no doubt, the administration is preparing for that. host: the pakistani president to address parliament on the bin

laden raid. this being reported by the bbc. in this address to the pakistani parliament, what does the prime minister have to say in order to reassure his people that his folks did not know that bin laden was there? and what does he say in this thing that reassures the united states that they did not know and were not cooperating with bin laden? guest: this is a tricky high wire act for president colodngi.

ani. first of all, they failed to control american overreach, which is ever sent there. -- sacrosanct over there. military services are held in pretty high esteem, considered a pillar of the state. in particular, with respect to india. one of the consideration for pakistan is, not only does it show a lack of ability to defend ourselves, not just from the u.s., potentially india, but also demonstrates a failure of intelligence. bin laden was at the compound, but you could imagine indian intelligence officers of the compound during the fairest things, from a pakistani standpoint. so galani will have to assure

the public that they will fix whatever went wrong. he will also have to demonstrate that there is resolved against the united states. these kinds of incursions' will not be allowed again. we heard this from the military last week. finally, he will have to measure his tone. to the extent that he comes out too bellicose or nationalistic against the united states, it will not play out well against the capital. it appears that the pakistanis were either completed or blatantly incompetent in terms of discovering bin laden in their midst, for five years. host: the pakistani ambassador was on abc this week. this is what he had to say about bin laden's whereabouts.

>> if any member of the intelligence service near where he was, we would have taken action. presence inaden's pakistan was not to pakistan's advantage. guest: i respect the ambassador quite a bit. i have dealt with him before certainly, that is the tape that senior leaders in pakistan have. the trouble is, the isi have longstanding ties to the taliban. they have longstanding ties to groups that are tied to al qaeda. so the elements of the intelligence service, both current and retired, have relations with al qaeda. so in some ways they play a double game that hurts the u.s. and the pakistani people. there is a pakistani calculus of

needing to hedge their bets, u.s., india. the key question here is whether there is some element within pakistani intelligence or military that knew about this, that established a network to support bin laden for five years. host: juan zarate is our guest. former national security adviser for counterterrorism in the bush administration. currently, the traditional threats project senior adviser at the center for strategic and international studies. brooklyn, new york. eileen. caller: i just have a few comments.

fromed not too far kennedy airport. i remember around 9/11, as airplanes were going up and down, there was the feeling, is this just a normal airplane? after a while, things got better. have never, i understand that this happened during the obama presidency, but i am so proud of everyone in the surface, everyone who put this together in counterintelligence. this also goes back to george bush, whom i greatly admire. these are two fears that i have. i know we had to take him out, but i get upset that the public and, particularly, the print media wants to -- so much the formation. we are not safe, we are far from safe.

to just be enthusiastic about the death of this enthusiastic leader is very foolish. i think we have to watch out. there are others right below him who are getting ready. i saw the riots and protests in london, screaming about getting rid of america and killing us all. i think very highly of the counter-terrorism people. yes, we have to know some things -- but for example, two of the headlines in the new york papers. i never thought i would be saying this kind of thing, but it is horrific to make fun of something like this. he is a horrific person. i am glad that we caught him,

but we have to be totally on our guard and be careful about how much information gets released which could aid our enemies. host: before mr. zarate responds, as the airplanes are going in and out of kennedy, do you feel more comfortable? caller: yes, i do. when i look out at night, i see them in the sky and i think of them as satellites, things that are protecting the shoreline. i love our country. i have our old values. i want the country to continue to do well, get rid of this horrific debt, start bringing things back to america. guest: great comments. i think one of the interesting things about this situation is

it has demonstrating an element of continuity between both administrations in a way that you have not seen before. the obama administration came in wanting to change a counter- terrorism policy, but i had been predicting more continuity. a lot of the key officials that they have relied on were bush administration and key officials. a lot of my friend were a part of this and i am proud of them. we demonstrated our persistence on this problem, the intelligence members, and they stayed on it and finally got it. incredible pride, i think, in the special operations community. all of those special forces that have done remarkable work, not just in this case, but in iraq,

afghanistan. a community that is extraordinarily valuable to us. i used to be a counter-terrorism official, but now i am on the other side. one of the thing that the administration is trying to do with what they are putting out -- we are getting some this weekend, maybe more. they are trying to undercut the image of the bin laden as a warrior. they are trying to undercut his image, in part, to go after the ideology of al qaeda. for counterterrorism officials, this is the start of a campaign to break the back of al qaeda leadership. we heard the president talked about this last night. some of the messaging coming out is not to fulfill the needs of the media and for all of us to know more, but also a message campaign to say this is not the man you thought he was. this is not a move that was once as dangerous as it was.

we are going to destroy it. by the way, we have more and we are -- we have more in the back pocket and we're coming after you. host: in his interview on abc sunday morning, tom donovan talks about going after ayman al-zawahri, but in doing that we still may not tell pakistan we have targeted him and may have to come again, across the border to get him. guest: if it is the most interesting, immediate problem regarding pakistani relations. if we have intelligence on the air apparent, the egyptian doctor, or others, do we tell the pakistanis? or do we do it in a way that

allows them to save face and repair the relationship? i would expect the latter. allow a beginning of the repairing of the relationship. the challenge there is, do we trust them fully? this is sensitive information. for example, we send special forces across the border again. are they going to be put in harm's way? all of that is part of the calculus. host: we want to let our viewers and listeners know that we are monitoring the speech of the prime minister that we mentioned earlier, prime minister galani. we are showing some of that now, courtesy of al jazeera. if he makes any news, we will bring it to you. back to the phones -- actually,

let's take a look at twitter. guest: i think this is the challenge for pakistan. frankly, the pakistani leadership uses this with the u.s. to say you do not want instability in pakistan. you do not want what is coming behind us, which could be a more extreme element in the pakistani government'. the challenge for the united states is, you have to have a relationship with pakistan. at the same time, you have to be demanding of and pakistan ally which has received billions in u.s. aid over the years. there is a challenge their but we need to see a stable pakistan. without that, you have to

instability in afghanistan, india, southeast asia. host: actually saying that we may go after ayman al-zawahri, does that make things more dangerous, for us at home, or does that further separate him from his al qaeda membership? guest: they already know it. if there is an attack under way, they are training for it. as we are starting to see in some of these documents, they were starting to gear certain attacks on anniversaries. generally, they launch attacks when they are ready. so i do not think it creates a danger. i think it plays into the psychology of the war on terror. you are tried to mess with the mind of the enemy.

putting out bits and pieces of information that may make them nervous, may force them into making mistakes. ultimately, we will find these guys if they make a mistake inadvertently. host: we are moving into vacation season. do you expect al qaeda will be putting out stock to mess with u.s. minds? guest: first, i think they need to worry about succession. they have not yet announced who the successor is. usually, you see that when they put out the eulogy for the person who died. presumably, it would be ayman al-zawahri. interestingly, they did not say that. that suggests to me that there are still internal divisions within the senior leadership. ayman al-zawahri is not well- liked, is not charismatic, and

has an alienated some of the other leaders. second, they may not have had a chance to get together to communicate. part of the challenge is getting the remaining leadership together and communicate to make a decision. they may be having a hard time doing just that. al qaeda will be worried about its survival, a succession in the first instance. what we have to worry about our reprisals from those who are already in the field, perhaps ongoing plots. of secondly, lone wolves. people that are angry, take matters into their own hands. homeland host: our next call comes from vienna, va., just outside of washington, d.c. thank you for reading.

caller: i served 30 years in the military and in vietnam. i do follow security matters. my giro question -- my general question, and i have a few points to substantiated, is how many have interest in following up on osama bin laden followed upon the failure of bora bora? me like this guest to tell if there is anything wrong with these facts. bora bora, we did not follow him. then i think it was in late 2002 when bush was interviewed and he said he did not know where bin laden was in the did not care. in 2005, he disbanded the cia

intelligence unit hunting for bin laden. when he left the presidency in late 2007-2008, he did not seem to care about not finding of some of bin laden. host: we believe it there. i want to answer this report that says their intelligence services have insisted they shared a confirmation about bin laden's compound two years ago with their american character parts. guest: i did not know if pakistan shared information. they may have shared information ancillary to the compound, but i am not aware of anything they shared that would have pointing -- would have pointed to this compound be and where bin laden was. i can neither confirm nor deny that. his question is an important one. what was it revealed in this operation in understanding how

this came about is a revelation that we did not lose sight of bin laden as a goal. this administration points to the work done in the prior administration to get to this point. i was in the white house from 2005-2009 and this was a top priority for me dealing with this issue. i will tell you we did not lose sight of this. this was a key goal of ours, not just because of the symbolism but because we knew that he was still operationally relevant, which is now coming down given the documents that have been found. he was an important figure for the global movement. bora bora was a big mistake. if we had a do over there, the leaders would have put more troops on the ground to assure that we had killed bin laden and a sure he did not escape. we allowed him to escape which led to a lot of years of frustrated hunting. i but not take the lack of

progress as a symbol that we were not trying. a lot of the starts and stops during the time between 2002- 2007 there about one of started to get more leads was really a dry hole. we were falling all sorts of leads possible. the unit at the cia was disbanded and that did not mean that we did not have enormous resources looking at this. as you read some of the reporting out in "the new york times" and other publications, the cia was involved in the other opportunities to get more intelligence on the ground in pakistan to the dust of the point where he was found, captured, or killed. host: juan zarate is the transitional threats senior adviser. that is a mouthful. what do you do? guest: it is one of the main think tanks in town. i hope that the transnational

threat project which looks out of the three strands nationally that are a concern, organized crime -- which looks at all the transnational concerns. right now, one of the things we are working on, and this is a fascinating time to be doing this, but it is a steady that will come out on the future about qaeda and its related movements. -- the future of the al qaeda and its related movements. is a very different organization in 2011 than it was after 9/11. and has metastasized, the rise of affiliates in places like yemen and africa, unaffiliated individuals that are radicalized but not necessarily trained by al qaeda. i call it the al qaeda hydra. we emphasize the core elements

of the bin laden and al- zawahiri, as it remains critical to the cohesiveness of this movement, and to the extent that we can get rid of bin laden and al-zawahiri, you are doing a great service in this tantalizing this. -- in dismantling this. we can start imagining that now. host: last week in "the baltimore sun, they had this story by brian bennett. what is the shelf life of the information that the navy seal team was able to extract from the compound? how long before some of the things that they come back actually changing and we will not be able to act on them? guest: great question. there will be categories of data, some information that is actionable now and will only be used in the next couple of

weeks. addresses, phone numbers that will likely to not be relevant because al qaeda members will relocate. there is a shelf life to some of the data. some of the data will tell you more about ongoing operations that are still being in the training, network building, financing, other elements that will be useful for a longer period of time. then there will be an entire suite of information, an encyclopedia, that will tell us a lot about the organization in the past, in the recent present, and in the future as bin laden was conceiving it. that information will be valuable for years to come because will fill a lot of the gaps that we had, and lack of understanding as to why they were doing certain things, how they operated, where their network is. this treasure trove will service not only in the weeks and months to come but in the years to come in understanding this number can ultimately dismantling it.

host: gainesville, va., you are on with juan zarate. caller: are in a first-time caller. just to disclose, i have spent a lot of my life in the subcontinent in this specifically, my comments and questions may be a little biased. after all this happened, and i hate to say this because i am sure you have heard this 8 million times, but when everything was going on, even up until the cargo wars, people on the subcontinent had been screaming and shorting and saying a lot of the terrorism was originating from pakistan. even in the mumbai attacks and all of the casualties are happening, and a former terrorism, whether it is one death for thousands of debt is

horrible and terrible. in terms of foreign policy, i find it a bit hypocritical in terms of if it happens in a different country, it happened somewhere else that their device is to have strengthened because, but what happens to the citizens of the united states, it ends up that we will go to war with this country and we will do whatever it takes. in that region, which is very unstable because of the dynamics of the power sharing, i would like to think that india would be a very, very strong ally in the terms of having a sense of stability, economic stability. i would really like a comment as to why that has been ignored for such a long period of time. host: sorry to cut you off, gainesville, virginia and.

guest: we appreciate the differences in perspective of terrorism and how it affects different countries. that is something to always keep in mind. the concept of india, one of the challenges with pakistan is that they have grown weary of the growing strategic relationship that the united states has built with india. many foreign policy experts will tell you that one of the achievements of the bush administration in the international realm had been to reconsider their relationship with india, build that up not only on the nuclear side, but also with counter-terrorism. something that i wanted to see when i was in the white house were those deeper ties with the world's largest democracy, to have those relationships. month and will know is that i wrote a piece in "the washington post" is that one thing many to be concerned about the fact that terrorism can serve as a flash

point for a greater conflict. between india and pakistan, we have been on the verge of war because of two terror strikes in 2002 and in mumbai. if another attack were to happen significant enough on indian territory, the killing of indian civilians, and there is enough of the sense that the pakistan citizens have not done enough, that could have served as a flash point. we will see a trial in chicago, david hedley, involved with one of the groups in pakistan, that trial will start shortly. part of the trial will involve the pakistanis involvement. this will be seen as aggravating in the context of india validating their views of what has been happening in islamabad. host: our next call comes from bergen county, new jersey for juan zarate.

caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, military monday. you are very, very informed. i would like to know but what is going on with this pilot. he was started in 2005 near an airport base. two witnesses spotted him and got his license plate. i believe that he is in charge right now. he was the second or third in line. i do not hear anyone talking about him. we need to know what is going on with these terrorists. i believe that osama bin laden has been dead for a long time. i do not believe he was killed just recently. i believe that this pilot has been ruling their roost for the last couple of years. i would like to know where the

intelligence is on hand. host: what is your evidence that bin laden was not killed when the administration said he was? caller: i can tell that is the same person when i watch the video is. i am no longer naive. i read everything. not many people not even know about this pilot. you might even find his name anywhere unless you read a world that daily. no one knows about the people in california who spotted him near the military base which is where the weapons taste -- weapons testing. two times they spotted and reported him. you'll never find that. you have to read about it. the townspeople in pakistani both said that osama bin laden was not living there. host: we will have to leave it there. guest: i could not agree more.

there was no interest in the bush administration on this one to make something like this up. it would be to any administration's political benefit, as we are seeing now, to have announced the death of bin laden. one of the things i walked away from the white house with was a deep, deep sadness -- deep dissatisfaction that we had not been able to find and kill bin laden. that was a failure for me as a senior counter-terrorism official. i would not have loved anything more than to have been able to help the president help the country declared that we had killed bin laden. it would have been strategically important so we would not have seen a metastasizing of the movement under his leadership and the symbol of his leadership. i could not disagree more. i encourage you to keep reading, but i would be careful of what you believe on the internet. it was completely in our interests to announce his death sooner than later. any notion that he was kept in a

closet or killed a long time ago is not true. i believe the administration when they talk about not only the dna evidence but the facial recognition, i witnessed testimony of his wives who were there, and the al qaeda announcement talking that has that's just recently. you do not have to believe us. you can believe al qaeda. i would encourage you to look at some of the other evidence. ok. host: we are showing some video right now of bin laden. there are no dates on this or anything, but the color of his beard seems to change every time we go to a different picture. that may be where some of this is coming from. is it just that he was a vain that type of guy and wanted to darken his beard? guest: that is what we are finding with some of the documents. before he had a really dark beard and people were laughing because it looked funny.

it looked like he would die this before -- dye before his various statements. the last video we had seen was 2007. he had put out audio messages, but not nvidia. the address -- audio but not video. that may address the caller's question. the pilot is now part of al qaeda in the middle circle. he will be an important with kashmiri. there are still senior leaders on the bench including those in an iranian custody that will be a part of the next stages of what i think the administration will do to go after al qaeda. host: a quick comment on this headline.

his voter will not be released. they would not in sight additional violence if the images emerged of others killed. your thoughts on whether or not the pictures should be released. guest: i think it is a good decision but a hard decision. and in the age of wikileaks, it is hard to keep this data confined for too long. part of the problem, too, is you will still have people with down's, like the previous caller. without seeing some evidence, you have trouble. the administration wants to control the narrative. they do not want gory images tainting the moral high ground in terms of killing the world's most notorious terrorist leader. host: in the terms of safety, does it make us safer and in the u.s.? guest: i think it does come especially right in the wake of the killing. it makes sense not to put something out that what inside the people to use as a tipping

point for those who are emotionally engaged to actually take violent actions on to themselves. host: scott on our line for independents, you are on with juan zarate. caller: if the navy seals had gone into the compound and bin laden not have been there, what would that have done it with our relationship to pakistan? guest: a great question. i think it would have been incredibly damaging to the relationship if we had gone in and it was just an innocent party. that was part of the risk involved. not only did we not know for sure whether or not he was there, but we were not sure if the operation would have been successful. if the pakistani troops in the region reacted and we had got into a firefight with them, that could have been, ultimately, --

it could have destroyed the relationship. now there is a very tense relationship, but it is made much less so by the fact that bin laden was there. great justification on all parts. the president said he would send troops across the border if we found him. it is very possible the pakistanis can get too upset about having the world's most wanted man found 35 miles from their capital. the fact that he was their tempers the reaction a bit. if he had not been there or if it had been an innocent party and we sent navavy seals that fr into

coughla>> now available, c-spa's

congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments. also information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at -- c-span.org/shop. >> from the national press club, this is a little more than an hour.

>> good morning. i am a volunteer and supporter of the tea party freedom jamboree coming up. we are excited to gather here today. i will take the opportunity to introduce each speaker that will come up, remind you who they are when they stepped to the podium, and then i will read a statement from congresswoman michelle kaufman -- michele bachmann. our first speaker is william temple. he was the face of the tea party and leader of 1.9 million t partyers who marched against obamacare in september 2009.

is a veteran of the secret service, the pentagon, and the vietnam combat veteran. that is william temple. the second speaker will be willferra -- joseph ferra. he is a nationally syndicated columnist with creators news service and author of "the tea party manifesto" and other votes. our third speaker is brian, the chief economist for first trust advisers in wheaton, illinois. is a former chief economist for joint economic committee of the u.s. conference and a member of the advisory council for the federal reserve bank of chicago. our fourth speaker is dr. daniel j. richards, the senior fellow

of the cato institute and former economist for the u.s. senate finance committee. we have the reverend brian, the director of the tea party founding fathers, a member of the red river tea party, in shreveport. he is a fellow at freedom works and how former member of the naacp. he is a documentary producer you can find out about that had his website. he is a baptist minister and founder of one nation back to god. finally we have bob come up the vice president of the tea party national convention. he was the 2010 candidate for governor in the state of iowa. what is the ceo and president of iowa-based organization called the family leader.

before i turn it over to william temple come a war read statement that we were given by congresswoman bachmann in lieu of her absence. the tea party is everyday americans who want congress to stop frittering around the edge of our government spending crisis with small cuts. they do not want the debt ceiling raised and they are demanding that washington live within its means. i am not able to be with you today at today's tea party president. if they work, i would tell you that i agree. it is time to reject the debt ceiling scare tactics and address the price new reality that our debt is at $14 trillion in growing. this will offer an opportunity that was wondered during the vote for the 2011 continuing resolution. even as we gather in washington today, bureaucrats are planting their roots of obamacare and

making us -- making it nearly impossible for us to stop this budget-busting entitlement. indeed both -- in the vote on the debt ceiling must include a vote to defund obamacare. thank you to the tea party for not giving up the fight. your determination to return our country to its founding principles is me great hope for the conservative principles in the house of representatives in for even greater victory in 2012. that was congresswoman michele bachmann. and now i will turn it over to william temple. >> i played a part of the the

first signer of the declaration of independence on the left. we are in the revolution 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 who have gone before is, have taken up the fight for freedom over and over again. my role as a founder of our local tea party group in the golden isles of georgia, i had the honor of literally leading the 2009 march on washington. with a fife and drum corps. 1.9 million of my fellow citizens as we marched in washington against obamacare and big government tyranny which obamacare represents. the first act of terror in a sense the british were kicked out of this country -- of

hyranny since the british were kicked out of this country. i am 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 of. to dc and spent their last pay check to do it. right now we are very upset about bowe's that 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 huge gop freshman class, while they were candidates, also promised us

they would not raise the national debt ceiling past the current cap of $14.20 trillion. based on his promises, the tea party 2010 efforts swept house republicans 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, mr. boehner has been a surrenderist , if that as a word, who waved the white flag before the first shots were fired, before the battle was even join. and instead of that $100 billion in cuts, he started his bidding at $35 billion. and obtained just $20 billion, a spit in the ocean, folks. worth about five days were the u.s. borrowing. it seems that house speaker john

maynard boehner and his rino republicans in names only seemed to love to spend money like his fellow democrats. we fought furiously against obamacare, but once in power, boehner's republican majority after a hollow, purely subjective repeal vote refuse to use their genuine power to fix medicare, medicaid, or any of the out of control entitlements which threaten to bankrupt our nation and destroy our currency. not even a question. washington is borrowing 40 cents per dollar of federal spending, to bury our children between this -- under this national debt. the wimpy house rino's refused

to hide obama as mastercard. paul ryan, we heard about his so-called courageous budget, adds $9 trillion to the u.s. debt and does not get balance until the might get this, 2063. i am old enough already. i will never see that happen. house republicans hold in their hands a wmd, a weapon of mass discipline, if they would use it, all they need to do is lock on and say, we will not even call a vote on raising the debt ceiling. we will not even think about unhiding your credit card and to you join us in enacting bipartisan entitlement reform and fixing the obamacare mess. that is what they should do. to wield this weapon of mass discipline, house republicans do

not have to pass anything. they do not need the cooperation of harry reid, the senate democrats, for 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 beyond the current debt limit. the tea party plans to scored just one both in the u.s. house for purpose of candid that breaking this year. if you vote to raise the debt ceiling, and you get a 0 for the year from the tea party. if you do not bode to raise it debt ceiling, you score 100 and you are here. everything else, the writers come but the appeals, it is just smoke and mirrors. this is your account. we will be judging the house republicans and their democratic colleagues on one issue only -- did you vote for more debt?

that is it. red ink requires pay slips. federal lace up -- pink slips. boehner aims to maintain full federal employment while the private sector bears the brunt of the washington economic collapse. i wish our tier full house speaker would just show some compassion for american taxpayers and our children, put me in his -- but he and mr. ryan had already surrendered to president obama. it is a cowardly act of treason against coming generation, it we may give him something really to cry about in 2012. hunting season opens. i have my musket but there is a flower in it. we did not do $7 million damage in wisconsin, by the way.

we say, stock these pro-debt rino's with phone calls. they will vote for more debt without repealing obamacare. obamacare must go. but please, not the pretty flowers in the barrel of my musket. we're calling are in this event that tea party woodstock festival. we are urging nothing but peaceful -- get that down, peaceful -- non-violent your relentless pursuit of all house republicans who have gone wobbling for more national debt. the tea party movement opposes any house gop action on the debt ceiling, and we oppose more debt, the tea party. but because i know our people

very well, i marched with them, i rallied with them all over, i think it is safe to say that the tea party movement as a whole might possibly, just possibly, for give boehner and house republicans a small bump in the debt ceiling and we might even forget to get our legislative score card printed. how does that happen? if obamacare is repealed before hand. we might make a deal. fiat think tains including cato, heritage, and others agreed on the top 10 things the house gop needs to fix -- obamacare and boehner and ryan have ignored it all. we might be in a forgiving mood

if the other health care entitlements of medicare, medicaid, and the medical inflation drivers get fixed before hand. everyone agrees from the president and deficit commission to conservative republicans that fixes are necessary. duh. what does paul ryan's budget delay these fixes for decade? another death. if the only thing offered is a dead hike of $100 billion, not a penny more, that is the amount house leadership, later denied to the 20 -- to the tea party. 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

all part of a month's worth of u.s. bonds, just one month. it says up another debt ceiling -- after we allow $100 billion in cuts, then we will talk about the next 100 billion. if they least half of discretionary spending gets cut, most of it either unconstitutional, unsustainable, silly, or evil, how can we tell future generations that we saddled them with trillions in debt for fannie mae, freddie mac, hud, planned parenthood, national public radio -- which is paid widget which is paid for by government funds, tobacco subsidies that cause cancer, and epa carbon dioxide regulation of human exhale. we're going to tell our grandchildren how can we tell

them we've dug. debt grade and hold official washington harmless from a kind of layoffs that the private sector has experienced? in a recession caused by congress's banking and housing policy, and yet none of them are going home. how can we tell them that we kept on ballwin $4 billion per day -- borrowing $4 billion per day by a corn for ethanol. and beninese to stop deceiving americans by echoing geithner when he tells them that house in action on the debt ceiling = default to federal bondholders pressure market is a lie. there are plenty of tax revenues to pay interest on treasury

bills, and g-8 himself is in charge of paying that interest. what he really means when he says we will default on federal obligations is simply, no more borrowed cash. it will not be available for every kind of spending polsorized by republicrat who cannot say no. it social security's unfunded liabilities and those of the entitlement programs including anti-marriage subsidies and u.s. welfare policy that fuel crime and other costly social pat corelogic is -- pathologies, they need to get dressed in advance. and another if. if the pentagon slows down in injecting opaline homosexuality and female and afford combat

roles -- is that necessary? when the pentagon's own study shows that the military if feminization may have a costly impact on recruiting and retention, when islamists have shown their ability to sexually brutalize american female reporters, what would john boehner, house republicans, cater to political correctness? why would house republicans who know better by posturing inappropriate attractions in the intimacy of tents, bonds, barry's, platoons, tang's, cowboys, the trains, showers, and locker rooms when we're fighting wars with 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 and senate for ratification by the states, and we will not hold our breath on that one, but we would like to see it, and then finally if rino house leadership starts falling voices like michele bachmann jim jordan, and senators rubio and moran who have been talking to us are planning to filibuster against raising the debt limit, but tea party will not be in a forgiving mood this fall at the tea party national convention in kansas city. we are going to casey, not d.c. this year. if house rest freshmen cave to

obama, we will find replacements for them this fall. thank you. >> thank you, william. i have a very brief statement. when republicans took over the house of representatives in last november's election, i immediately began thinking what 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 to propose cutting the budget but can 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 run goal with

democrats and take symbolic actions 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 republicans could take that would allow them to assert themselves and impose their governing philosophy on the senate and the white house. and those two actions are, saying no to any proposed tax increase, because without their consent, 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. and in this case, without their assent, there is no chance for democrats to continue business as usual or even implement programs such as obamacare. in fact, it would require something republicans have been calling for four decades -- dramatic cuts in the budget that

would actually require washington to return to something resembling a limited constitutional government. but by january, only days after the republican majority took over the house, as you have 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 as a minute amount of time looking at the options, i was initially mystified by boehner's position, in effect capitulating to business as usual in washington. i was naively, i think, sure, he had not thought this through properly. did he not understand the power he had in his hands?

so i organized and innovative grassroots, high-tech lobbying effort directed exclusively at house republicans to persuade them to vote no on raising the debt limit, as so many had promised to do while campaigning for the fall election. and that is the no more read the campaign, -- no more red ink campaign. it has delivered letters to 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 among house republicans, because we have been doing head counts. i am sure john boehner has been as well, but we have been doing them now for several months to see the change in votes. when we started the campaign, in the beginning of february, i

could only count about a half- dozen house republicans fully supportive of a no vote on increasing the debt limit beyond $14.30 trillion. today, the vast majority of those house republicans do. and we are approaching the necessary 218 votes to stop it cold. that is why i'm here today with my tea party friends to remind republicans of why they were sent to washington last november, and to warn them of the consequences of betraying their promises and their rhetoric to change the direction of washington governance. if republicans provide the votes necessary to continuing to borrowing and spending and thus we have seen of the last several years, they will be telling americans effectively there is no alternative to the democratic party lost their responsibility. they will be telling americans,

representative government is dead. republicans are all talk and no action. and they will be telling americans that there is virtually no difference between the two parties. and they will be sealing their own fate in the 2012 elections. thank you very much. >> my name is brian west. -- westbury. we are a money management firm out of wheaton, illinois. my day job is to think about how to protect people's assets and grow them over time. as a result, i get very worried about the size of government, growth trajectory of government, the tax rates, and the intersection of policy with the economy. also, back in 1995 and 1996 i was the chief economist of the

joint economic committee, so i was here when the government shut down in 1995 and 1996. part of that was over a debt limit vote, and i want to remind you that back then, the deficit was about 4% of gdp. we use the phrase $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. today we are talking about, a trillion dollar plus deficits as far as the eye can see, 11% of gdp verses 3% or 4% of gdp. when i compare this back to 1995 and 1996, i do it for reason. the government will shut down, it was a major political brouhaha, if you will, and 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 not in the government bonds. that was just 10 years ago. we now have an 11% deficit and that is why i am here. i support as a financial market represented to come 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 to increase, if we were to hold it steady is not a defaults on u.s. government debt.

never once in the past 65 years on a monthly basis have revenues been less than the interest owed on the dead. in other words as long as we decide to pay the interest, we can pay it every single month from now into affinity, basically, without a tax hike, without changing anything of the budget today. by the way to make any principled it comes to you, we can roll it over. we will issue more debt. it does not increase the debt cap. so the bottom line is that we will not default to our debt to foreigners come are ruining the united states credit raising, if we do not raise the debt limit 3 number two, at standard and poor's reduce the out look for the american bond market to a negative outlook. this was reported by some to be

because people worry that 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. they said, the obama administration has proposed trends of dollars in deficit reduction. representative ryan have done the same thing. if it were to get together and move and something will like this direction, cutting trillions before the election of 2012, we would not put the country on in-ballot. however, we judge it -- and i am paraphrasing -- we judge dead the sides are so far apart that they are going to be unable to come together before 2014. and in our opinion, quoting

standing imports come of the budget is a risk and that in fact they're putting us on a negative outlook because of the political environment, not on reaching consensus about cutting spending, not because someone like the tea party is talking about not raising the debt ceiling. finally, i was looking at the bible last night and read about solomon. solomon was considered wise. he asked for wisdom from god. he was presented with a dilemma, to women, one baby. they both claimed it was their baby. he said, a cut in half. and this smoked out the real mother, because she was willing to give up the baby, not have a cut in half. and i look at this debt ceiling debate has that kind of story. we have to be serious enough about cutting spending and using the debt ceiling as that tool

which perfectly, logically, it is not extreme, and my final point -- the global financial market is 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 that 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 the early 1990's was a jobless recovery. bill 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 an important battle. i think the financial markets can handle it just fine. but they are asking for is spending reduction, and at the tool of the debt ceiling is used, they are going to be a-ok with that. thank you. in my name is dan mitchell of the cato institute. i want to mention a couple of points echoing what bryan said. the federal government is expected to collect more than $2.2 trillion. the interest is supposed to be $2.7 trillion. even if we assume the forecasts are off, there's more than enough money to pay every single penny of interest on the debt. this is not an issue about the fall. the treasury sector -- secretary and the fed chairman are being very deceitful. the issue is whether now we get

government spending under control. i want to make one important point about this. the deficit and debt are the symptoms come of the underlying problem is a government too big, and it has been a bipartisan problem. during the eight years of the bush to ministers in, spending exploded to $3. 5 trillion. that is why we are in the ditch coming because the government under republicans and democrats over the last decade since we have a surplus, ryan was talking about, government spending has exploded. how do we get out of the mess. if you look to the budget forecast, is very simple. according to congressional budget office to revenues will increase by an average of 7.5% over the next year, that is assuming the tax cuts are permanent. it does not take a mad genius to realize you reduce red ink by

keeping growth under 7%. if we did with the canadiens in the 1990's, we would balance the budget by 2017. but even if you let government spending grew by 2% a year, you balance it by 2021. what are our options for achieving that fiscal discipline? all we have to do is limit the growth to get to that balanced budget. unfortunately there are very few leverage points. the debt limit is one of them. if the debt limit goes through without using that lever to impose some modest fiscal discipline to get us on a track record to wanted to do mistakes of president obama, we will have done a great disservice to our children and grandchildren. thank you. >> good morning. i am reverend bryant. i've been with the tea party

movement since 2009 where i'd 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 here then. i am proud to be a tea party year now. the truth was true then and the truth about what we are talking about and have been talking about these two years is true now. we do not want to eight fundamental change in the health of this country and what has made it great. the reason we stand together is to make certain that the core values of this country remain intact. we see that there is a stated effort both by democrats and republicans to fund 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 that 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 that you have and the big stick that you have so that you would not use it. what is the point in having the stick that we gave to you if you are not going to use it to protect the interests of the american people? also, we send this message to those who have spoken about changing the very nature and the very reason our army for texas

country. and the principles that guided. the pentagon has spoken and it has told this particular administration that it is not prudent to do the things they are doing as far as don't ask, don't tell. and as a pastor and the minister, i speak to other pastors across this country today. it is time for you to stand up to be bold enough to speak to the issues that affect the people sitting in your kind vacation. it is then they will be affected by the policies of this administration. a mere remind you that it was the pastor's there were hounded the most by the british call why? because they were able to inspire passion and the people

of this country to be who eventually became. america is the greatest success story the world has ever known. i am living proof because i stand here as the great grandson of former slaves by yet today, a free man, defending the document the constitution of the united states that may free and able to speak to you today. as i leave you, i say to each and everyone of you americans out there, stand up, for america, stand up for god and country. god bless the republic. >> thank you, reverend. you have quite an eclectic group of people. from a pastor to an economist to

the tea party to a well-known author and a family leader. you might wonder why the what i associate myself or why would this come together here is because cristero looking for his exceptional leadership. from my point of view, there is a serious threat to the family. if we do not have real leadership here. exceptional leadership is like beauty. it is difficult to describe but you know it when you see it. i will play an important role in -- iowa plays an important role in launching the the the the process and we take this role serious. when i am looking for in a candidate, we're looking for exceptional leadership. america faces real challenges if we're able to provide the next generation with the hope and stability of previous generations, that there america will be better off -- their america will be better off than their parents.

many of the next generation are questioning that. these challenges demand exceptional leadership. in 2006, president obama said, raising the debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. at that time he was against raising it. now president obama and his liberal cohorts are demanding an increase to the $4 tons. three -- $14.3 trillion. they are feeding a spending frenzy. his demand is a sign of leadership failure. failed leadership demands exceptional leadership from others. this is why i join with the tea party founding fathers in supporting their freedom

jamboree in kansas city and promoting our country's return to our constitutional rights. this is where we're calling on speaker banner and others to courageously stepped up and provide exceptional leadership -- speaker john boehner and others to courageously stepped up and provide the exceptional leadership. this provides the perfect opportunity tothis will reduce the size and scope of the federal government. to refuse the credit card limit and to begin the long overdue process of entitlement reform. this is our only hope for a sustainable and optimistic future for the family. it is not only important we have exceptional leadership in congress, but we elect a replacement for president obama who can provide leadership from the white house. we are ratcheting up our vetting of 22 of canada's.

-- our best thing of the 2012 presidential candidates. i tell them the family leader's initiative point toward strengthening the family and it has to do with life and marriage and the constitution, but it has to do with this fiscal issue as well. this includes advocating for families and giving them the best opportunity to thrive financially. in light of what we're here today, i am telling iowans and others that america needs a president that will lead on tax reform. on reforming medicaid and social security and cutting discretionary spending. we need a president who not only raises -- opposes raising the debt ceiling but opposes deficit spending that leads to death in the first place. a president who will -- opposing spending that leads to debt in the first place.

we're talking about an application -- add -- abdication of the constitutional matters. we need a president who will hold to the founders' intent about the limited role of government in our lives. this is a freedom issue. failure to do these things as a result -- and a tremendous setback. we need a president who is more concerned about the next generation than the next election. we need a president who cares more about week, the people that about me, the politician. we are of leading the charge to discover and to launch that leader. our standards are high because frankly, they need to be. i invite all of 2012 presidents to journey to iowa and to the freedom jamboree in kansas city

on october 1 and 2 to share their constitutional, conservative, and optimistic vision for america, which must benefit families for generations to come through exceptional leadership. make no mistake. regardless of what the president may say, america is an exceptional country. it demands exceptional leadership. we, the people will demand nothing less. with that, i thank my peers up here in their presentations today and we will open up for any questions from the press. the ripple effect leads to that. if your comments [inaudible]

when we lead the issues it will translate into poor economic policy, and that is what we're saying as to why people are not willing to grab that baton to get this budget intact. >> [inaudible] risking their lives in that event -- afghanistan and iraq, is that part of the core values? i was in combat in vietnam.

>> these sexual orientation of any of my fellow soldiers -- to work free will. don't ask, don't tell works. you did not ask me and -- or ask the question what my sexual orientation is. do not ask, don't tell will -- and we will get along fine. >> it is private. >> some of the tea party agree with you that speaker john boehner should be challenged in the praise -- primaries. are you going that far, do you think he should be challenged? >> i believe that we are -- we believe what we are about today.

we're trying to challenge speaker john boehner and hoping they will step up and provide that leadership. not increase the debt ceiling, repeal obamacare, do the entitlement reforms, cut spending, but we're looking for leadership. that jury for me is still out. >> are you going to be watching who votes for and who votes against? that is putting pressure on speaker john boehner? >> there is no doubt that we put pressure on speaker john boehner and other members of congress to say we're watching your actions. actions speak louder than words. but the the forgive me if this

-- for give me if this is repetitive. the first speaker i heard was calling boehner and ryan rhinos. >> he is a republican in name only. the press will agree that we were highly responsible for john boehner and the house tea party caucus, which they call themselves, to get elected. we expect that definition, we are defining them as republicans in name only on one issue. if they will hold the ceiling on the national that, they're not. if they raise it, they're going to be advertised ever where it will run candidates against

them in their districts if they raise it, on that one issue only. they have time to change. they moved the date to august now. we're going to pressure them. >> i am looking at the revenue stream compared to the gross domestic product. we increased spending by $800 billion. that is 18%. we had a drop-off ever since. shouldn't we demand and it is an obvious mathematical issue. $800 billion that they incur or decreased two years ago and

trend down to 14 or 15% so we can pay off the debt. this seems logical and prudent. >> that sounds wonderful. my math teacher would be all over me trying to figure that out. we have economists here who can address your question. >> the federal government spending was 18.2% of gdp and is up to 24 or 25%. that is the reason we are in a fiscal mess. deficits and the debt are a symptom. revenues are depressed because of the economic downturn. according to omb, they will climb back above their historic level. balancing the budget is the matter. >> the problem here is they never got to 26. the got to 20% prior to 9/11.

ever since they dropped it, we need sincere cuts below the baseline in order to stimulate growth that we need to reestablish this market to get off the bubble machine that has been -- we have been deriving income. >> the inflation washes out on both sides of the ledger. it is bad to have inflation. that is separate from the burden of government spending as a share of the economy and looking at the deficit and debt that occur because government spending is too high. >> that is great. i will agree with everything dan just said. one of the reasons we're having a slow recovery right now, one of the reasons the unemployment rate is still now 9%. because the government is so big. the formula is simple. the larger the government is,

the more a share of gdp we spend. the smaller the private sector is, straight out mouth. by borough and tax, the government can no longer be used in the private sector. the bigger the government is, the smaller the private sector, the smaller the private sector, the fewer jobs. cutting spending is good for the economy and your question about coming in at 10:00 a.m. and missing some things, what i said and others appear said, all lot of this today is about the debt ceiling and debt limit. using the debt limit is a good tool from an economist's point of view to get spending down. it will benefit the economy. cut spending. if you have to use the debt limit to do that, i think it is worth the effort. the economy will benefit on the

other side. >> i wanted to inject one more thing. on the issue of government, big government. energy, and terrier, commerce, none of them are found in the constitution as a federal responsibility. we have allowed that to be developed over the last 80 years. we have with us and he showed up, george washington. i want you to understand, that is a moral issue. >> thank you. we are here on monday after mother's day. i said my mother was the most beautiful woman i ever saw. all i am i wrote to my mother. every man, every woman in america and around the world owes a debt to their mother and father. that is a debt of gratitude. that is not a debt we owe

because our elected servants have been spendthrifts. they are different types of debt. in my farewell address on september 17, i set an important strength -- said an important strength of security is to cherish [inaudible] and one way to do it is to use it sparingly as possible. avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt. not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debt, which may have been occasioned by a the necessity of throwing upon us wars and throwing upon posterity our debts, is a burden

they ought not to bear. a debt is a tax upon the future of america. upon our children and our children's children's children. there is no practice more dangerous than that of borrowing money. when money can be had in this way, repayment is seldom thought of in time. the interest becomes a loss. exertions to raise it and the imposition of our industry, it comes easy and it's spent freely. many things in dullest in that would not have been obtained if it were not purchased by the sweat of one's brow. in a letter i wrote to james welch on -- in 1799, i said to want to contract new debt is not the way to pay old ones.

thank you. >> [inaudible] as juneau, there is no way -- and nobody who has benefited more [inaudible] how do you justify the continued policy? >> we -- we are up here individually as citizens. >> we -- we are up here individually as citizens. we need to be drilling here. we need to tap into the energy base that we have here in this country. we need to look at alternative

and renewable fuels like ethanol is a piece of that. we have taken a look that there has been a lot of things that have been subsidized and we're saying everything needs to be on the table. this debt ceiling is a huge issue to us. to pass on this type of debt to the next generation might be one of the most immoral things we could do. what we're saying is do not increase the debt ceiling. let's put everything on the table and repeal obama care and go after discretionary spending. all that needs to be on the table. >> what would you tell john

boehner tonight if you could? >> they can sit on their hands and do nothing, and if they do, we will not raise the national debt. this is endangering the lives of our children and grandchildren. >> one of the points we made is that not raising the national debt does not mean the fall. -- defaulted. . this year. interest is $207 billion. the other thinu