>> would take your live now to the national press club. momentarily when you will hear from afl-cio -- afl-cio president richard trumka who is expected to talk about the 2012 elections and labor issues in the midwest states. live coverage from the national press club here on c-span. >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. my name is mark hamrick, a broadcast journalist for the associated press. we're the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming of events like this, while also working to foster a free press worldwide. for more and permission about the national press club, please it is our website at

www.press.org and to no date -- and to donate to programs. you can find information they're also at www.press.org/library. i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event. our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists and for club members. if you happen to your applause, i remind you that members of the general public are in attendance, so that does not necessarily point to a lack of journalistic of to activity. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. our luncheons are featured on our member-produced weekly podcast from the national press club, and that is available for free on itunes. you can follow the action on the printer using #npclunch. after the speech, we live q&a, and you can ask as many questions as time permits.

it is time to introduce our guests. stand up briefly as your name is announced. and please hold your applause until all are introduced. from your right, donna van slyke, white house reporter of the boston globe. -- don of than slack, white house reporter of the boston globe. holly present grant, labor reporter for bloomberg news. paul shenkman, a reader reporter from wtop. alex hannah, a member of the wisconsin american federation of teachers, co-presidents of the teaching assistants association, a guest of the speaker. sabrina eaton, washington correspondent for the cleveland plain dealer. arlene baker is the afl-cio executive vice president and a guest of the speaker today. skipping over the podium, marilyn is senior business editor at npr. thank you for all your work.

skipping over our guest speaker, rod is a member of the press club's speakers' committee organized today's even. thank you for that. john sweeney, you'll recognize him, president emeritus of the afl-cio, guest but the speaker. thank you for being here. jennifer depaul, reporter for the fiscal times. beth ward, a reporter with platts. and craig gilbert, milwaukee journal sentinel washington bureau chief. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] as you probably know by now, organized labor in america has been under renewed attack this year. while it has not been as physically violent as seen in our nation's history, it has often been bitter at times. the benefits of collective bargaining rights of unions representing teachers, firefighters, police commanders

civil servants have become a special target. in more than a dozen states, politicians with unions to help reduce budget sharp falls by paying more for their benefits and giving up their abilities to negotiate working conditions. much of the evidence behind an anti-union legislation might be linked back to the 2010 election, which flipped control of many governor seats in the legislatures from democrat to republican. in april, ohio's governor signed into law a bill stripping state and local workers of their collective bargaining rights. and a similar bill signed by the wisconsin governor appears headed to the state supreme court. the democratic governors, too, presses like massachusetts and connecticut, for example, one union give-backs to help balance their budgets. their demands may not be driven so much ideology as fiscal necessity. but for a union member, that difference may seem to be academic. the assault on labor is not limited to public employees. 14 states recently have

considered right to work bills, barring mandatory union dues in private sector workplaces. all of this occurring at a time when unions are struggling to maintain their membership. today, 15 million, or 12% of working americans, belong to unions. it happens to be the lowest level in 70 years, comparing with roughly 20 two million in 1980, when our speaker was just beginning his career as a union activist and leader. richard trumka was raised and the coal fields of south was pennsylvania. after earning his law degree at villanova university in 1974. that is where my son christopher is a rising sophomore. had to put a plug in for have been having actually worked in the coal mines, he went to work for the united mine workers union, even to becoming, at age 33, the youngest president of the union's history. that was in 1982. he served three terms and brought the mine workers and to the afl-cio. in 1995, he became secretary -- secretary-treasurer of the afl- cio and served on the post until

his election in 2009 as the fifth president of the 55 unions in the nation's largest labor federation, representing more than 12 million members. please give a warm national press club welcome to richard trumka. [applause] >> mark, i want to thank you for that kind introduction, and i want to thank the press club for inviting me to speak here today. and i will get right into it, quite frankly. by the way, i want to thank the chef for those wonderful cookies. [laughter] i am sure all of you recognize that. i guess, how can we make sense of the spectacle that has been unfolding across the american political landscape? as mark alluded to, you have politicians in wisconsin and ohio and a dozen other states

that are trying to take away workers' rights to organize and bargain for better life. but that is not all. in state after state, politicians are attacking a voter rights by imposing id requirements, by shortening early voting times, by blocking young people from voting because they are "to liberal." and even levying criminal penalties and fines for breaking arbitrary rules in the voter registration process. all of which, so it will be harder for people to vote, especially the least privileged among us. just in wisconsin, listen to the list of who does not have state- issue voter i.d.'s that will be needed to cast a ballot under legislation that governor scott walker will sign next week. 23% of elderly wisconsinites,

59% of latino women, 55% of african american men in overalls, and a 78% of african- american men who are between 18 and 24 years of age. budget proposals unveiled in washington and state capitals across the country this year revealed a despicable canvas of cruelty. in michigan, a state senator thinks foster children should be required by law to purchase secondhand clothes with the $79 annual state and they get for those close. in maine, the governor thinks more children should go to work at half the minimum wage. in north carolina, the legislature things that we should balance the budget on the backs of autistic children. in arizona, the state senate

president floats the idea of locking up protesting public employees in desert tent city jails. in new york, a billionaire mayor proposes to fire 5000 teachers, rather than tax the bonuses of wall street executives who brought down the american economy. not meanness, but destructiveness. a willful desire to block the road to the future. how else can you explain governors of states with massive unemployment refusing to allow high-speed rail lines to be built in their state? how else can you explain these same governor's plans to defund higher education, a close schools, fire teachers, when we know that without an educated america, we have no future whatsoever? here in washington, the

republicans in congress have defunded housing counselors. they're blocking worker training and transportation infrastructure. i think the final out rage of these budgets is hidden in the fine print, because in state- after-state and here in washington, the so-called fiscal hawks are actually doing almost nothing to cut the deficit. the federal budget, embraced by house republicans, for december, cut $4.3 early and in spending but gives out $4.2 trillion in tax cuts that disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. florida is getting the jobless workers and using the money saved to cut already low

business taxes. and at the end of the day, our governments will be in a better fiscal shape than when we started, but they are just being used as they passed through, if you will, to enrich the already rich, at a time when any quality in this country stands at historic levels. now think about the message these budgets send. sacrifice is for the weak. the powerful and well-connected, well, they get tax cuts so they could become more powerful and more well-connected. all these incredible even this should be understood as part of the single challenge, and it is not just a political challenge. it is actually a moral challenge. because these even signal a new

and a dangerous phase of a concerted effort to change the very nature of america. to replace the land of liberty and justice for all with the land of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. you see, i personally believe the united states is not a place as much as it is an idea. for working people, the united states of america has offered from its foundation it promised that everyone can be a full participant in a national life. i promise that we, the people to make the rules, so that hard work is rewarded with economic security and a fair share of the wealth that we all helped create. now that promise has always been a work in progress. this year, we commemorate the 150th anniversary of our

bloodiest war. the war that resulted in the extension of the american promise to african-americans, who did so much of the work of creating the united states. we were the first country in the history of the world to embrace the idea that you do not have to own land to vote. that citizens come from -- citizenship comes from or you live, not what you own or who your parents were. we were the first country to make land available to those who would work that land in the homestead act. and in the modern era when giant corporations dominated our economy, we pioneered the idea that we had the right to voice on-the-job, a right made real when we came together to bargain collectively and to form unions.

while boeing into the chamber of commerce may not like it, the law of the land protects working people who exercise that right against any retaliation by their employer. public employees finally won those same rights. working people remember full well that these rights were not easily won. the pivotal 1968 memphis sanitation workers' strike began with two men crushed to death in a garbage truck, and ended with the dr. martin luther keen on giving his life for the cause of public workers' rights to organize together. from the beginning of this country to our efforts and our ideas, working people have made it the american dream real.

and what is that dream? well, it is the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you'll enjoy economic security and better future for your children. it is not that a few of us will be rich, but that all of us will be treated fairly. that we look after each other and that we all have a share in the wealth that we all helped create. this spring, working people are engaged in a great struggle to defend their dream. in green bay and indianapolis and benton harbor, michigan, and in columbus, ohio. and not just in the midwest. in new york, los angeles, florida, and texas and, quite frankly, in every corner of our nation, this struggle began

after last november's elections brought to power politicians in state capitals across the heartland who had a hidden agenda. an agenda worked out at posh resorts with the american legislative exchange council and other shadowy groups. politicians like john kasich and scott walker campaigned, promising to do something about jobs, only to reveal when they took office that their jobs agenda was to make them disappear. but the real passion, at their real passion, was for eliminating the rights of working people and destroying their unions who are standing in the way of their agenda. and in response, working people took to the streets. on april 4, under the banner of

"we are 1," we came together all across america, and then we did so again on may 1 when we stood together with our immigrant brothers and sisters saying again that we are truly one. in science all across the rotunda in wisconsin state house, we proclaim that we were there to defend the principle that in america, we look out after each other. one of the people who was there is here with us today. i would like to introduce him. alex hannah is a graduate assistant at the university of wisconsin madison and a co- presidents of the future assistance association of the american federation of teachers. stand up, please, alex. [applause]

now, alex stood up for teachers and other public workers in madison over the last couple of months, even as he built solidarity with workers in the middle east. you see, his family comes from egypt, and he has strengthened links between movements for change all around the world. and alex, i want to thank you for your inspiration in everything you have done so far. you have been a wonderful example for all of us. i would also like to thank those democratic senators in wisconsin who stood up and walked out on behalf of working people. [applause] and those democratic senators in indiana who did the same thing and brought a screeching halt to that. [applause] quite frankly, i would like to thank our democratic and republican friends in the ohio

legislature that stood up for workers. they deserve a round of applause. you see, alex and bodies the fact that we're not a nation of isolated individuals. we are a land of communities. we are a land of families. our republic, our democracy, is an expression of our solidarity, of our common values, and our common life as a nation. in america, firefighters rushed into burning buildings every day, risking their lives to save people they have never met. social workers care for other people's abused children, and home health workers provide care and companionship to those who need it. and every day, you and i pay our social security taxes in medicare, and that same money is sent out again to provide

comfort and security to other people's parents and grandparents. see, this is not just a matter of morality, but it also makes economic sense. and being a community makes more economic sense today than it ever has in the past. it will simply not be enough to beat back the scott walkers and the john kasichs. america's economic fate depends on us coming together to educate our children, who invest in our infrastructure, to face the threat of climate change, and to reverse the economic inequality that threatens our future. let me be specific. unemployment stands at 9%. underemployment is that 16%. housing prices are falling, and foreclosures remain at historic

highs. economic growth is hovering at around 2% annually, not enough to put a dent in unemployment, especially as tax cuts expire and as the recovery act wind down and state and local governments to gear up for more it deep cuts. yet, instead of having a national conversation about putting america back to work to build the future, the debate here in washington is about how fast we can destroy the fabric of our country, about breaking the promises that we made to our parents and our grandparents. now understand, at the paul ryan budget destroys jobs. it destroys almost all the jobs created during the recovery so far. it gets medicare. it attacks social security.

the one piece of the retirement security system that actually works. and now we see speaker boehner and his colleagues engage in a new round of blackmail. with a ransom note that reads, "cut medicare, dismantle the government, destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs to fund more tax cuts for the rich, or we will cause the united states to default on its debt." now, why is our national conversation in such a destructive way? not because we are impoverished. we have never been richer. the american economy has never produced as much wealth as it produces today. but we feel for it, because the wealth of our society has flowed

to a handful of groups. 100% of all income gains going to the top 10% in the last 20 years. and they and the politicians who pander to the worst and streaks of the wealthy would rather break promises to our parents and grandparents and deny our children a future than to pay their fair share of taxes. you see, america's real deficit is a moral deficit, where political choices come down to foster children and forcing them to wear hand me down clothes while cutting taxes for profitable corporations. powerful political forces are seeking to silence working people. to drive us out of the national conversation, and i can think of no greater proof of the moral

decay in our public life than that of wisconsin governor scott walker would dare to give a martin luther king day speech and at the keing, same time he drafted a bill to take away the collective bargaining rights from sanitation workers in wisconsin. busey, the ultimate goal of those to blame workers for wall street's economic crisis is to unravel the fabric of our common life in pursuit of greed and in pursuit of power. and this environment, working people in our unions must do more, more than just protect our own rights to a voice and the life of our nation. we must also raise our voice for

our working people, every last one of them, here in america and around the globe. here's what we're going to be doing. first, we're going to use that voice to in that the scott walker agenda as a viable political strategy by winning recall elections in wisconsin and senate sent winds of destructive legislation in other states and then retaking state houses -- [applause] then we will spend the summer holding the elected leaders in congress, as well as states accountable to one measure. are you in improving or are you degrading life for working families? and moving forward, we're looking hard at how we work in this nation's political arena. we have listened hard. and what workers want is an independent labor movement that

builds power of working people in the workplace and in political life. working people want a labor movement strong enough to help return balance to our economy, fairness to our tax system, security to our families and moral and economic standing to our nation and our role is not it does not matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside to let it happen. the outcome is the same either way to us. if leaders are blocking the wrecking ball and a advancing working families' interests, then working people were not support them. this is where our focus will be now, in 2012, and beyond.

we will uphold the dignity of work and restored -- restore the respect for working people. decent jobs and economic security have been cast as more than america's workers deserve. low-wage, part-time, temporary, no-benefit work is being sold as the new normal for the economy. we know that only a dynamic effect of movement of working people working together can reclaim the value of work. so while unions must reach out to every working person in america, for those whose jobs have been outsourced and downsized, to a car wash workers in los angeles, to domestic workers who have few legal rights, to freelancers and young workers who have gigs rather

than jobs. and together, with the afl-cio' s construction and manufacturing workers, our public employees, bakers, and others, we will be heard. because the stakes are so high for working america and for us, working families. so the question becomes, will the country be ruled by greed, by people who would cut or take pensions away from first responders, people would take away the fundamental human rights of our workers, who would choose tax breaks for the richest among us over a future for all of us? or will we be a country where we choose a future, where we look out for each other, where we all have a voice? who only win investments in our future if we a grin embrace the idea that we are one national

community, that our identities are bound up with the promise that all of us have a voice in the workplace, at the ballot box, and that we're all responsive in a deep sense for one another. the fabric of our government, our democratic republic, is about making that responsibility for each other real. this is the message that working people have always brought to our national conversation. it is the message that alex and hundreds of thousands of others who took to the streets of the midwest this spring and that we will take to the polling places of the heartland in recall elections and in citizens of. campaigns in the coming months. and it is the message that will continue to shout this year and next year and the year after that until we are heard.

the moral character of the america cup is worth fighting for, and that is exactly what working people are going to do in the days and the weeks and the months ahead. thank you. [applause] we have manyeful of supporters here in the room, along with reworking journalists, hard-working journalists. part of our job is to take a

look at the skillful perot's you delivered here today and tried to read between the lines. . i hope you can understand some of the questions and why we're directing them to you today the way we will. these are supplied from our audience, as well as some we came up with, having had the benefit of some of your speech having been released in advance. with all then-president attacks against laborer at the state level, is in that time to redirect all campaign contributions to the battleground states, and what will that take? >> well, we're actually redoing our entire political program. as you know, the afl-cio gives very little money to candidates. most of the money we do is used to educate and mobilize our members. our affiliate unions to give considerable amount of money to candidates, and we hope to be a lot to coordinate that spending

in a much more effective way to build power for working people. some will be targeted to battleground states. some will be targeted to france to the stood up for workers. some will be republicans and some will be democrats who stood up to help us, and we will stand up to help them. so we will change the way we spend, the way we do, and the way we function in a way that creates power for workers and hopefully brings the america back, at least in the conversation we're talking about. >> so that is a broad framework. one might ask, warranty doing that all along? and if not, why not? >> well, it is a good question. we have been educated all along. the question becomes, are we going to spend all our money in the battleground states? and we have never done that. we have spent money where we have friends, and we will continue to do that. our focus will remain in this battleground states. that is why they're called

battleground states. [laughter] but we will also focus on our friends, that someone who has stood up for us but is not in a battleground state, we will stand with them. and we will take talent and people who have been against us as well. some will be in battleground states, and some will not be in battleground states. >> so someone hearing this up to this point asks, does this mean that you'll be concentrating less in fighting against congressional attacks on social security and medicare? they're worried that you might see the kind of ground. >> actually, we will be fighting more strenuously for those type up fights. let me make this one personally clear. the afl-cio and the working america will fight against any proposed cuts to social security and medicare, regardless of who proposes them. that is the first point. but we will be mobilizing, hopefully, in a year-run bases. we will be able to hold people

accountable. in the past, we dismantled our process after the election. then we would have to reenergize that when issues came up. we intend now to keep the process in effect. and when friends or fellow get a little wary and forgetful about who they should be representing, we will remind them that with an educated and immobilized rank- and-file. >> as i look at the broad picture, is it your sense that washington, in general, has made too much of a priority l the of what might be viewed as to try to be more fiscally prudent? >> let me answer that in two ways. .irst, let's look at the states other states the deficit problems? yes. are there states using deficit problems as hysteria and as a frontal attack working people? most definitely yes. [applause] and here, there's not much difference. we do not have a short-term

deficit crisis in this country. anybody will tell you that. any other country will tell you that. what we have is a short-term jobs crisis in this country. create jobs, you lower the deficit. do some other things, have a real health care program, you lower the deficit. so the deficit has been used as a way to cut, cut, cut, and a to do and ideologies. some deny care about the budget. they care about shrinking government. the best way to do that is to stop any revenue from increasing and make continual cuts. that means a difference of america. they keep telling us, they keep telling the public. we cannot provide good jobs. we cannot provide retirement security. you have to scale back your definition of the american dream. we totally reject that. this is one of the richest nations on the face of the

earth. other countries have figured out a way to do it. it is a matter of priority. and of the priority should be having everybody have a chance to get ahead. every worker get a fair wage. everybody has some health care. everybody has a retirement security. not just the top 10% or 1% or 0.1%. they have to do quite well the past 20 years, but the rest of america has suffered because of it, and these deficit fights that the talk about our and in that direction. in the long term, i want to say this. in the long term, there's something. so you do have to adjust. but it should be shared sacrifice. and people at the bottom have already sacrificed. first, they sacrificed with their jobs. 11 million of us lost the jobs. 14 million unemployed. they sacrificed with their homes. homes were foreclosed on.

then we sacrificed with our taxes as we paid to bail out wall street for their excesses', and they're back to business as usual. nothing has changed for them. they have not lost their third home. the have not had a decrease in salary. and then if they come back to us and say, nobody had paid three times, because of these deficits, let's eliminate social security or medicare and make you pay again. we think this sacrifice should start at the top, and i think most americans totally agree with us on that. that is why they support by almost 80% attacks on millionaires. [applause] -- by 80% a tax on millionaires. [applause] one short-term problem that is looming as the debt ceiling. we have come up against that, and the secretary the treasury, who also is a democrat, of course, has of its deal with

this before it is a crisis that the financial markets present to us when we cannot necessarily see it coming, you know, a day or two about. we have seen that happen in europe and south america and a round world in the years passed. that does not mean it that you need necessarily to be in sympathy with the republicans, but how serious a problem is that, and question members of both parties be willing to give up to attack the issues that surround that? >> well, look. increasing the debt ceiling is ministerial. it is the budget and the long- term debt is that you have to look at the that the republicans are going to try to say that in order for us to increase the debt ceiling, we have to make these more draconian cuts. get rid of medicare, raise the age of social security, take away headstart for 200,000 kids.

agreed school and secondary schools by 25%. take 8 million students, student loans away from 8 million people, and we will not do anything unless you do that. it is the solvency and of the credibility of the united states. it is not about the debt. if there were serious about the deficit, they would not have proposed a budget that cut $4.3 trillion out of it and then gave $4.2 trillion away. that means over 10 years, their budget is going to reduce the deficit by $100 billion, $10 billion a year. now, my math says that does not get it, and that is not going to help us. they have to look at the problems and be realistic about it. raising the debt ceiling is something we have obligated ourselves to do. it is like you went home one day and bought a house, bought a car, and one day you said, you know, our debt is up to $50,000. if it goes up to $51,000, i am

not paying. [laughter] duh. so they take your car and your house because you do not pay. not standing in the world it's very tarnished, because the dollar has been the currency for the rest of the world, and i think people should honor that, on the commitments. if you want to talk about the deficit, talk about it really. do not come to us with the deficit4 this is deficit.3 trillion i could so we can put most of the back to the rich and kick kids off on headstart and all the draconian things of that budget did. not mentioning gutting medicare and things like that. >> unions have threatened to pull support from democrats many times before when they did not seem to be pursuing labor's agenda. it seems like unions always come back because they did not realize the alternative, meaning republican leadership is

worse. is there something different this time? >> ask blanche lincoln. [laughter] [applause] >> are you willing to apply that standard more broadly? >> where not applying a litmus test. what we're saying is people that support workers, we're going to be with them. and candidates that enough support workers, well, we're not are to be with them. >> what is the difference? >> here's the difference. it covers the whole broad issue, not just one single issue. you can be a friend and make a mistake once in a while. [laughter] we will forgive you for that mistake. but the difference is this, that we're not going to spend precious resources helping candidates that cannot stand up and help us. we're focused on those people that help us. and we will have more resources to spend on protecting our friends. >> people want to know how far you're willing to go.

you mentioned the need for independence from democrats before for this manifest itself in support of third parties, such as the green and labor parties. >> was there a question there? >> are you willing to look beyond the two-party structure? absolutely. >> here's what we're looking at. we're looking at training workers and a recruiting workers to be candidates. so that in primaries, we have real choice. >> is that an answer that you look at a third-party candidate? >> it there were supporting working people, we will look at third-party candidates. we will look at all the candidates out there. that is what we're paid to do. and we decide which one is the best for our members. and we would support the one that is best for our workers. >> do you need to look outside the traditional structure? is the current structure getting the job done? >> no. how much time do we have left? [laughter]

that is a longer conversation. if you want to look at this system, the system is broken. the supreme court held break it even more with citizens united. the system needs to be changed so that average, ordinary americans can have a stronger voice, as exxon and mobil does in the commerce. it needs to be changed. the campaign finance laws need to be changed. i would be for an overhaul. o it started the supreme court probably, because they believe that money equals free speech. that is what their decisions say. that means that the four other centers on the table one day and said, you know, george, you have $500,000, so you get $500,000 of free speech. and you know, alexander, you only have $100, so you get $100 of free speech. i just do not believe the conversation took place.

i do not believe that. yet, this supreme court equates that. we need to take on this system and change it and make it more rational so that we can have, again, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. [applause] >> so back to your speech, someone asked, what is your game plan to spread the spirit of the wisconsin protests to other parts of the country? >> we're out there every day, educating and immobilizing. it is not just in wisconsin. we have cross-pollinated wisconsin people with ohio people, missouri, tennessee, indiana. we have gone all over the country, and people have mobilized. it is not just union people. it is working people in general. smart business people are out there supporting us. union workers are out there supporting us. because they think these people have gone too far in trying to pay back their rich donors by destroying the rights of workers

out there. we're taking that message everywhere. we're seeing it take effect. apparently, we're doing something right, because guys like scott walker, his ratings in his own state have fallen like a big rock in a small pond. they think he's going to far. >> someone says i did not hear the word "obama" in your prepared remarks. doesn't the president warrant at least an honorable mention? [laughter] >> well, i was talking about people who are off on the wrong course. so of course i will not mention him. i think the president has done a good job. i think this skill has been limited, either because he was too low on things in the fixing or because the republicans that prevented him. but if you look at the framework that he has tried to lay out for getting the economy back on track, i think it has been the

right framework. and that is to create jobs. that is to rebuild our infrastructure. that is to give aid to state and local governments. that is to try to get money back into the hands of small business and medium-sized business through loans that these big banks are not giving out. i think that is a step in the right direction. i think the scale has not been there, and we will work on that. of course he has made some mistakes, too. we will get to that another time. >> we have time. [laughter] we do. >> i think he made a strategic blunder whenever he confused his stimulus jobs agenda and allowed deficits to start walking on top of them. he confused everything. no one understood the importance of the stimulus package. they started talking about deficits and equated the two. i think that was a strategic blunder. i think putting the colombian free-trade agreement out will be

a strategic blunder. one, because i think it is morally wrong to reward a country that assassinated 51 trade unionists last year. and -- [applause] and assassinated a labor leader and a teacher just the other day, day before yesterday, they killed him. yet, we're going to reward them. it will be an agreement that allows, for a country that is not in compliance with ilo standards, there will be getting a free trade agreement with us, and that is in st.. we will fight that. >> so if the scale is your criticism, if you had to give him a letter grade, what might that be? >> well, there were a lot of subjects when i got report cards. most of my grades were the same. [laughter] it all depends on what you're doing. if you look at in forcing health and safety laws, i think the president gets an "a."

with enforcing trade laws, he gets an "a." negotiating trade laws, that goes down on the scale. execution, well, he does not make the honor roll with that one. but there are a lot of variables, some of which are way beyond his control. i mean, he had a determined opposition that says no to any taxes and things of that sort, and then it is not his fault. i hope we'll fight a little harder to create jobs in this country. i think you'll see him over the next several months making jobs the centerpiece of what he tries to accomplish. >> so he would make europe dean's list? no c's? >> i will say it is finals week, and we will see. [laughter] [applause] >> something in the news on the health and safety front just yesterday, an independent report

from the state of west virginia found that the mine explosion that killed 25 men last year resulted from the failures of the owner massey energy and a rejected the company's assertion that the setting gas buildup was to blame in the deadliest called disaster in four decades. what is your reaction? >> no surprise at all. you have an explosion in the mine. one of two things that to happen. either the laws were inadequate to protect those miners or they were not complied with. with massey, there is a record of not complying with the laws. making shortcuts, allowing things to happen. when you start making shortcuts, it is inevitably going to catch up with you. and those miners and their families paid the price, and quite frankly, they're still paying the price. i mean, every male in my family died from black lung disease. we knew about black long. we could have prevented it. in the u.k., it was an occupational disease in the 1920's. and we head -- and we had proof

positive that breathing coal dust was good for you in 1969. i offered to pump it through the air conditioning unit, but there were not interested in that. [laughter] but look, miners get killed every day. workers get killed in this country every single day. they also contract pieces of occupational diseases every day. and that does not make the headlines. it makes the headlines when we kill a bunch of them or they are trapped and we're trying to get them. and we're glad that makes the headlines then, but they die in ones and twos every single day, every single day. and the disabled every single day. whether you are a construction worker, which is a highly dangerous occupation, whether you work in different on to patients around the country, they get killed every day. and until we get this secretary of labor -- the last eight

years, it was like killing fields out there. now, at least, we have a secretary of labor that is enforcing the laws and saying you should not have to sacrifice either your life or your health to make a living in this country at this point in time. and i might add one other thing, the lunacy of operating a facility, whether it is a mine, factory, school, hospital, or anything, that is unsafe, because every single bit of the literature will tell you that the safest facilities are the most productive facilities. so it is a two-fer. there's no reason to do it, yet, it happens every day. workers die with impunity. thousands and thousands and thousands a year. if we had had -- by the way, we dorff what happened in a 9/11 --

wheat board for happened in 9/11 each year with workers killed on the job in addition not happen. i was chairman of the health and safety committee, and i took the job seriously. because i wanted every minor that went in that hole to go home at the end of his shift, with all of their fingers and all of their eyes and their legs and their ears. and we should all be outraged about what happens when workers get killed and slaughtered in this country. [applause] >> of course, you're here at the national press club. we have an appearance of coming by aryan the huffington. the newspaper guild is calling on unpaid riders from the huffington post a boycott that. they complain that huffington and others will get more than $300 million from the sale to aol, well unpaid riders will not sure that wealth. had you feel about that issue in general? and i will follow up with a question about the news business. >> well, i could talk about the

news business, too, because i do have some perspectives on that as well. [laughter] i think we can make you guys a lot better. [laughter] look, i stand with workers on that issue. workers are entitled to a decent rate of pay. they should be negotiating a fair contract that gives them a decent rate of pay so that the entity becomes productive, can make money, and that those workers can have a decent standard of living. >> and this one says, we have lots of corporate business-own media, other than specialty magazines. why is it that there are no labor-backed unions, news organizations, doing investigative reporting with beat reporters? i guess the ownership of news media properties? >> well, first, it comes down to resources. in order to do the news media, you look at whether this print, written, radio, what ever it is, it takes a lot of resources.

at the time, we do not have the resources to be able to spread them around in all those directions. let me ask you this. let's assume that we owned and network, the labor network. what would be the first shot you guys to look at us, and what would be the first shot that missed conservatives do? you cannot listen to those guys. that is labor. an independent press is a good thing. an independent press that is a watchdog on the those that are out there with responsibility to workers, whether it is at the federal level, the state level, or anywhere else, is a good thing. pack journalism is not a good thing. and the fact that you guys are getting squeezed with money and cannot do the type of investigative stuff that you use to do is a tragedy for the country. and networks like fox are really entertainment. they're not actually networks

because their perspective is so slanted towards things. i do not say that about every one of the journalists on fox, because i think they have some real independent journalists that i think do a credible job. but by and large, the network and the programming is awful slanted away from working people, and that is a tragedy. >> i will ask to be someone more succinct in this next one because of time. in a week, we will have the executive director with the nfl players association here with a marquee player to be named later. that is part of the afl-cio. americans and to have one primary thought here, and that is they want their football. is this going to be resolved by the fall, and how you see this playing out? >> look, we certainly hope it is resolved by the fall. let's start off with the base of all this. the football players did not ask for a single thing.

they did not ask for a single increase. they have asked to maintain what they had. that is all they asked for. now the owners, on the other hand, asked for a couple billion dollars in give-backs. they want their players to pay for the practice facilities, to have the players pay for their travel to and from games. it is a $9 billion industry. but guess what, it is not just the players and the owners. there is almost 200,000 workers out there that will get hurt because of this lockout. and remember what a lot out is, it is the employern sayingtheo, you cannot come to work. it is not the players say they will not come. they want to come. but you think about who is going to get hurt. it is going to be the guy that sells the hot dogs, the groundskeeper, and the small business person at the stadium

next to them. is going to be the bus driver, the taxicab driver, and the cities are going to get hurt because of all of this. here is the truth about it, i believe. the problem with this is the owners have not cut the deal among themselves yet. they cannot negotiate. they do not know what to negotiate for, because they have not cut their deal. we should be putting pressure on them to say, look, y it getour butts in a room somewhere, figure out your deal, and come back and let's negotiate this thing out. because, while it is a wonderful sport and i happen to love football, i love it with all my heart, it is not just football players and owners in all of this bill is all the other people that will get hurt in this process because the owners cannot come up with their own deal on how to split the revenue before they come and talk to the players. >> fair enough.

we will continue the conversation in a week. we do certainly welcome the nfl commissioner for representative for the owners to come and speak in this venue as well. we're almost out of time. before we ask the last question, a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first, i would like to remind you all about some upcoming election speakers. may 26, 1 juan williams, fox news, to reply to some comments made earlier this year by the then head of npr. dr. smith will be here on may 27. gary sinise, late in june, the oscar-nominated actor will announce the formation of a new foundation dedicated to raising funds for charities supported the military. of course, it is our tradition, if i can find it, like to present you with our traditional npc mug as a token of our thanks today. >> thank you. >> absolute lee. [applause] i would like to now ask the last question. we're talking about football. you're a native pennsylvania,

football country, a lot of great quarterbacks from there. huge steelers fan. these days, that does not take a lot of investment, but you're hanging in there. you come by than naturally. given that you are a leader in the political arena, if you had to choose, would you rather have lunch with the manning brothers, not steelers blairs, or the koch brothers? [laughter] >> first, it would depend on where the lunch is going to be. i personally would probably rather have lunch with the manning brothers. the koch brothers, me talking to them would not do a lot. although, let me think about that for a second. [laughter] i would like to have lunch with them, as a matter of fact. i like to give them a few minutes to explain to me with a thing, and i would like to indicate, some mild fashion, what i think, and then see where we went from there. >> very well. how about a round of applause? [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you. thank you to our national press club staff for organizing today's event. thank you, and we are adjourned.

>> our you doing? jimmy, thanks for being here. >> glad to have you here today.

>> thank you. >> we could have done another hour.

[crowd chatter] then a fairly busy schedule for president obama, wrapping of the meeting this morning. this afternoon with benjamin netanyahu. we will tell you about it in a moment. the president will head over to langley, virginia, to speak to cia employees at the headquarters. live coverage beginning at 3:10 p.m. like on c-span. road to the white house coverage this weekend and also c- span.org. herman cain announces his republican month for president in atlanta at noon eastern tomorrow. we will follow it with one cause a reaction. and more road to the white house coverage with former utah governor and ambassador to china jon huntsman speaking to ballston franklin, new hampshire. you can see it at 430 eastern --

four-o'clock 30 p.m. eastern. we mention president obama wrapping up a meeting a short while ago with benjamin netanyahu. the associated press saying the president conceding the u.s. says differences with israeli president -- prime minister benjamin netanyahu on a future state for palestinians but such disagreements have been with friends. netanyahu said israel can make the concessions but the 1967 lines are open " indefensible. -- r. "indefensible." we will have video and a possible briefing from the white house coming up over on c-span 3.

>> on the issue of the middle east, yesterday arizona senator john mccain said that the senate is close to finishing legislation unfreezing libyan assets for the opposition in that country. in a speech before the institute of peace is an evening senator mccain also said the u.s. should do everything it can short of military action to aid protesters in syria. the comments from yesterday evening are about 35 minutes.

>> i want to join the vice- president and welcoming you all to our home. we have been here two months now and just a feeling for some of the remarkable things you can do in this space. this great hall has a resonance that i think has moved us all a great deal. at an earlier and then there was a children's choir of that sang to the construction people that build this place. we just find it is a remarkable piece of architecture. we have our staff working late at night, being paid over time, of course, for the work that

they do. and we want to thank especially the navy sea -- very inspiring. this is the first acheson lecture and a permanent let headquarters' answer is a president -- presentations by senior officials was conceived by board member chairman robin qwest. unfortunately he cannot be here today but i do want to recognize our vice chair and nancy, our board member. we are very pleased they can be with us. but the institute is especially indebted to congress and the u.s. navy for their generosity and support in making available to the institute this unique building site, the southern end of what is referred to as need be hill which was the site of the navy's first observatory. back in 1996 i approached then undersecretary of the navy richard danzig and enquired

whether we could build a facility at this site. the secretary said, if the institute can keep us out of just one war, you would have more than justified the deal. well, it is often hard to prove something you prevented, but we do feel the deep obligation given the use of this historic site in it -- and this dramatic architecture to fill our congressional charter which is to focus on preventing, managing, and resolving international conflicts by political means so that deadly violence and war are not the outcomes of the many conflicts situations that we know exist all around the world. in the years since the incidents creation in 1995 -- 1984, which have become an active and productive partner in many organizations and individuals in

the peace building field. not list, our military services, and certainly, includes an but u.s. navy. today the institute is working on the ground in iraq and afghanistan, supporting the military to promote political stabilization. and our efforts are enabling american troops to redeploy while leaving behind more stable political environment, saving lives and saving money in the process. a few years ago the chief of naval operations asked us to get him to gather with the humanitarian assistance ngo's to improve coordination for disaster relief operations. and we helped the two communities to develop ground rules for greater collaboration even as we supported navy relief operations most recently in haiti. the institute is active on the ground across the arab world, working with reformers,

political groups, on issues of coalition building, non-violent opposition, interfaith reconciliation, and the promotion of transitional justice. for if there is non-violent political change, as had occurred recently in tunisia and egypt, it prevents the need to commit military forces, as unfortunately we are seeing now in libya. again, an example where we -- as say preventive action is an obvious difference. a few of the applied programs of conflict management and peace building. i don't want to take more time from our primary speaker. but let me just say today's event is one at a series of presentations designed to honor our 51st secretary of state dean acheson. why dean acheson? the phrase we most frequently associated with dean acheson, of course, is present at the creation. he served the truman

administration and that transition period from the end of world war ii to the onset of the cold war. he helped create key institutions and implement policies that got us relatively peacefully through the decades of confrontation with the soviet union. the truman doctrine, the bretton woods international monetary institutions, the marshall plan, and the onset of the nato alliance. today we are in another period of profound change and challenge in international affairs, and we need leaders with the foresight and skill of dean acheson to help us create and adapt our institutions and policies to this new era. and our keynote speaker today has provided and continues to provide such inspired leadership. senator john mccain that a record of public service is truly exceptional. from his years of heroic service and personal sacrifice in the

navy to almost three decades in congress, he has been a leader on issues of war and peace. he understands firsthand power, the uses, and limitations of america's military. he understands the importance of diplomacy and civilian support for peace building efforts. and he understands the importance of political reconciliation, as was so evident in his support for normalizing relations with vietnam. today one of our greatest foreign-policy challenges is figuring out how to deal with the shaking turmoil and political transitions now on the way in the arab world and we are truly honored to have senator mccain speak to us today about america's policy interests in a revolutionary middle east. senator mccain? [applause]

>> thank you, thank you. thank you, dick. thank you very much. thank you for that kind introduction and thank you for this surprise of the sea chanters. it is always wonderful to see them. i think many of you may know i have two sons, one who is a navy pilot and the other who is in listed in the marine corps and served in iraq, a tour of duty in in our province as a combat interact -- infantrymen. there is a certain amount of competition between the navy and marine corps, as you know. and probably the best line i heard from my son who said, you know, dad, the marine corps is

part of the department of navy, the men's department. [laughter] >anyway. my other son was not amused. i wanted thank you, dick, for your leadership of the u.s. institute of peace. i appreciate this east -- essential work, the brief amount that describe a very large amount you do here in washington, in the field, to help prevent conflict, which is directly relevant to and supportive of our men and women in uniform. i want to thank dick for knowledge in this event and my remarks tonight on the middle east were planned in advance of the president's speech at the state department today. it is impossible to upstage any president, especially one as eloquent as president obama. so anyone who is attended to see a conspiracy in this evening's program has a far higher estimation of my speech making

prowess that i do and a far lower estimation of dick solomon's judgment that is a program. one thing we can all agree on is i have certainly got a nicer venue. [applause] i am deeply honored to have the opportunity to deliver usip's dean acheson lecture. i am a great admirer of dean acheson but as a career legislator i am not supposed to have any kind words for him. after all, here is how atchison describe his interactions with congress. in making our calls, particularly in the senate, he wrote, we learned to bear the irrelevant with more than patients as it ate up precious time. those who assert that i did not suffer fools gladly do mean less justice -- less than justice for

these anguishing hours. [laughter] you know, a lot of things changed but some things never change. i am especially honored to speak to you this year on the 10th anniversary on the attacks of september 11, 2001. and i am very pleased that osama bin laden want to be around to mark the occasion. w around toll not be mark the occasion. the president -- i especially commend him for ordering the raid instead of just turning the compound into a smoldering crater. it took real courage. the risks of failure were far higher -- but the president's decision scared many innocent lives, preserved and intelligence windfall and ultimately gave us the certainty that a bin laden is dead. this is a major setback for the global terrorist movement but

another recent development that could prove to be the real death blow. i am referring, of course, what some are calling the arab spring. the massive and almost entirely peaceful uprising for freedom and justice that have swept across the middle east and north africa this year, and perhaps the most remarkable thing about this movement is it is not about us. million people a taken into streets in protest, passionately, zealously, often filled without rage, i cannot recall seeing one american flag burned, nor can i recall seeing one israeli flag burned. instead, the demonstrations have been a collective demands for human dignity, economic opportunity, and peaceful political change. in this way, the air the spring is a profound repudiation and now -- imaginable everything osama bin laden ever stood for. it's also put to rest the ugly

claim heard all too often over the past decade that the arab world is somehow condemned to despotism, that unlike people everywhere else, arabs are not ready, not capable, not fit for democracy. we didn't initiate it or leave it. the air this spring should be a clarifying event for the united states. it is now clear that in the decades since the september 11 attack, the old original order in the middle east has been in steady state of collapse. and now, many of the last remaining pillars have either fallen or are badly shaken. this should certainly give us pause. if history teaches us anything, it is that a revolutionary moments like this one always have the seeds of chaos and conflict zone within them. and indeed, we can already see the dark forces of sectarian strife, religious radicalism,

and it rapacious regional powers lurking in the background, eager to exploit this hopeful moment for their own sinister and spirited we can not be paralyzed by this tectonic change. in said -- instead, we must work to shape it. in the last few months i visited nine countries in the middle east and north africa, in addition to israel and the west bank. among the many democracy advocates and young revolutionaries i have met, there is definitely a degree of skepticism, even a certain amount of anger toward the united states. many of them believe that we stop to long with the rulers they were trying to overthrow. but this does not mean that they want america to be neutral or non-aligned. to the contrary. they want american leadership and they want us on their side for their cause, but not dictating them but supporting them and assisting them. i believe this era of spring is

the most consequent -- arab spring is the most consequential political event since the end of the cold war, perhaps since the fall of the ottoman empire, and it is an opportunity for the united states to better align our interests and our values in a region where they have often diverged. it is an opportunity to rebuild a bipartisan consensus that existed in this country just a few years ago, that promoting human rights and democracy in the middle east is not only in our moral interest but also in our strategic interests. just as dean it -- just as the dean acheson join forces with the general -- to solidify this award consensus of containing communism and supporting free peoples, this is a moment that calls for similar national unity. this is a moment's when he must clearly define what we stand for, not just what we are

against. in short, this is a moment when america must lead. the question for us now is, what will be the contours of the new regional order in the middle east and how can we support our friends and allies in building it? i would submit to you we should focus our efforts on four strategic objectives. the first objective is the peaceful change of regimes -- reconcile but tyrannical, anti- american and hostile to the order we seek to build. put simply, these are regimes that are incompatible with the freer, more peaceful middle east. and at the top of the list is the current government of iran. it should be clear for all to see that the iranian regime has no plans to bargain away its nuclear weapons programs. furthermore, it is using this threatening pursued to further

its hegemonic ambitions in the region. iran operates a network of terrorists proxy's and military intelligence forces that use every means at their disposal to destabilize our friends, destruct -- disrupt the muskrat transitions and spoke sectarian conflict. though the arab spring is a repudiation of iran that goals and should serve as a check of its power, iran is doubling its efforts to sow chaos at this critical time that is why our strategy should be to squeeze iran through the toughest strand -- sanctions we can muster, set back its nuclear progress as much as possible, and speed up the moment when the green movement inside iran is able to peacefully change the regime. and know they have our moral support. in addition to iran, there is syria. i know some have entertained the believe that's al assad is a

reformer, but at this point with his tanks and artillery and troops terrorizing cities across the country, after countless peaceful dissidents have been detained, but the regime soliciting council under pressure in -- and oppression from the roll was ever ran and the death toll in syria now closing in on 1000 civilians, to believe that despite all of this that assad is a reformer is an exercise is gross self deception. lest we forget, this is a regime that has the blood of hundreds of u.s. troops and countless iraqi civilians on its hands. it serves as of the main gateway for influence and weapons into the -- and it is a major state sponsor of hamas and has a lot in the region -- hezbollah in the region. seeking to divert attention away

from its own internal unrest by fomenting attacks on israel's borders. for those worried about who or what might follow assad, i would just ask, how could it be worse? indeed, the strategic impact of relief -- regime change in syria could be enormous. it could blunt iran policy reach, remove a longstanding threat to israel, diminished -- diminished has the law's influence. we must do all that we can short of military action to help the syrian revolution succeed. i commend the president for imposing additional sanctions on top syrian officials, including assad himself and i would urge and the administration to continue ratcheting up the pressure and constant with the eu, and very importantly, turkey. the president should also called publicly for assad to go, just

had a bid with mubarak and gaddafi. finally, we must seek regime change in that libya, which may not be the stated intent of nato that a military intervention, but it is certainly furthering that goal as it should. what i would like to see as the differently is move away from it increments of escalation of pressure on gaddafi in favor of a more decisive course of action. that is what i call for getting america's unique strike aircraft back into the fight, to degrade gaddafi's war machine and destroy his command and control. that is why i urge the administration to recognize the transitional national council in benghazi as the legitimate voice of the libyan people. and that is what i want to see a greater u.s. role in providing support to the opposition, including money, and the facilitation of arms. in fact, my colleagues and i will soon finalize legislation

to transfer billions of dollars in gaddafi's frozen assets to the libyan opposition. nevertheless, i still hear it said that we should not do any of this because we don't know who the opposition is. and that it could be al qaeda. this is just willful ignorance. i visited the guy's a last month where i met with the opposition. -- i visit at guys a last month. the prime nestor has a doctorate at the university of pittsburgh, the finance minister was recently teaching economics at the university of washington in seattle. some were former members of gaddafi's government who broke with them when he began slaughtering the libyan people. others are lawyers, doctors, women activists who fought gaddafi in the courts. young libyan americans who have returned to help. if these people are al qaeda, my friends, then i am a liberal democrat. the one thing is for certain.

the surest way to get al qaeda in libya is through a stalemate. ultimately my trip to benghazi left me optimistic about the future of a free libya, an amazing experiment in homegrown civil society is occurring in the liberated parts of that country. media outlets, political associations, police forces, and other institutions are being built from scratch. gaddafi has left the country literal and the way of authoritarian institutions to dismantle and much the way of frozen assets. more than $100 billion in total to pay for future reconstruction. all of this makes me hopeful that libya is well-positioned for a democratic transition, which is all the more reason to increase our efforts to get gaddafi out as quickly as possible. as we work to support democratic revolutions in iran, syria, and libya, our next objective should

be to consolidate democratic transitions in countries where they have already begun, especially in tunisia and egypt. tunisia, as you know, is where the arab spring started and it is strategically important for democracy to succeed there. and egypt, of course, is the heart and soul of the arab world. for egypt into a merger as a successful democracy would be a game changer. it would be an anchor of stability and a new regional order not surprisingly, both tunisia and egypt have significant challenges to overcome in their democratic transitions. both have a huge amount of work to do if they are to hold free, fair, inclusive and competitive elections in a few months, the stakes of which are vitally important as a benchmark of democratic practice. both countries are facing an explosion of political activity.

tunisia, i am told, now has 65 registered parties which will make it harder for secular groups to compete with better organized religious ones. finally, both countries -- and this is very important -- are facing serious short-term economic difficulties as a result of their revolutions. and there tourism sectors have been shot. when senator lieberman and i visited tunis we stayed in a huge hotel. we were the only ones there. similarly when i visited the pyramids a few weeks ago in cairo, the place was deserted. it is the economies of these countries that will largely determine their political fortunes. expectations in tunisia and egypt are sky high. everyone expects the benefits of democracy to come quickly and all at once. many fear what will happen if these expectations are not met.

as one women's rights activist told me in tunisia, it is not the first election we were read about, it is the second election. these young people appreciate our assistance with their elections, but what they want most from america is our investment, our support in creating jobs. for this reason i strongly support the new economic assistance initiative is that the president announced today. from debt forgiveness to the announcement of free enterprise funds, to the proposed expansion of the european bank for reconstruction and development. i worked with senator kerrey to draft authorizing legislation for many of these new initiatives and they can make an important difference. but ultimately, no one should expect congress to pass a marshall plan for the middle east. these new members were elected to cut spending, not to increase foreign assistance. like it or not, it is just a

fact. so if we are going to help countries like tunisia and egypt to grow their economies we will need to be much more innovative. we should move urgently to begin negotiations with free-trade agreements with egypt and tunisia and explore ideas for new trade areas in the middle east and north africa. we need to find creative ways to marshal support our private sector, as well as the generosity of what the partners might qatar, was leadership during the arab spring has been indispensable. i will be teaming up with jeffrey immelt, a delegation of american ceo's to egypt and tunisia next month. our goal is to reinforce the message that greater economic reform can lead to greater foreign investment. beyond tunisia and egypt there is another country that can and should continue to emerge as a pillar of stability in a democratic middle east. iraq. i traveled to baghdad two weeks

ago and its democratic system continues to take a steps forward and one step back. but it is largely going in the right direction. the key decision now is whether we will keep a small military presence in the country beyond this year. the goal of such a presence would be to help the iraqi security forces fill critical gaps in their capabilities such as intelligence, their sovereignty, and stability operations along the arab-curd fault line. i am confident we can reach a new security agreement with iraq and that this can be a cornerstone in its continued development as an example of people of different faiths and ethnicities can live together in peace in the hearts of the middle east. third objective i would propose is perhaps the hardest of all -- for it involves some of our most important security partners,

governments to share our strategic interests but not always a democratic values, to embrace revolutionary reforms as a means of stabilizing their countries. if the arab spring teaches us anything, it should be this -- when people have no voice in their political systems, their demands will only grow more radical and essentially they will take these grievances into the streets. with the call for regina's a long have to control to begin losing a grip on power -- although it is difficult for regimes begin to lose its grip on power -- it is the process of evolutionary reform. all, lay it is the best way to stabilize their regimes, protect interests and enhance our partnership. some of our friends have embraced this fundamental bargain -- the king of jordan, the king of morocco, zoltan of oman and the emir of qatar late

out forward-looking reform agendas and the challenge of them is following through on the painstaking but essential work of implementation. some of our other close friends, however, are in a more challenging position. bahrain, rather than further crackdowns on the shia pact of -- population, which inflame sectarian tensions across the region, the kingdom might consider initiating new political reforms unilaterally, which can begin moving the country to a constitutional monarch. the united states is fully committed to our partnership with the kingdom of bahrain as well as its gulf neighbors, but we want them to stay on the right side of history in their countries because that is where the united states must and will remain. the final objective we must pursue is the vision of two states -- israel and palestine,

living side by side in peace in security. to be fair, the realization of this vision has gotten more complicated with the recent reconciliation between fatah and hamas. there are still a lot of questions to be answered about the composition and platform of this unity government. but whatever the outcome, the palestinian unity government must state unequivocally that it recognizes the existence of israel, because the end of the conflict, the end of the occupation, and the creation of a palestinian state will only come as a result of negotiations between the parties -- not unilateral declarations at the u.n. although the arab spring has not been alike -- about israel, there are those like syria and iran who want to make it about is a row to distract attention from their own families. i worried how a stalled for the tiering situation between

palestinians and israelis might play in a new democratic politics of the middle east, and i will be eager to hear from premise turn netanyahu when he comes in town next week. the four objectives i have suggested tonight -- changing anti-american regimes, consolidating new democracies, reform in pro-american autocracies and renewing israel and palestinian peace effort could form the basis of a new regional order in the middle east, one that is beneficial to our interest, aligned to our values, and consistent with the aspirations of people across the region. however, there is need for some straight talk. even under the best circumstances, a democratic middle east is going to be a very different, more challenging, place to navigate than the region we have been accustomed to. this is how a jordanian official who i met in oman described the

difference. for years, he said, the united states has paid wholesale for its policies in the middle east. now you will have to pay retail. engaging in a retail politics in a democratic middle east and north africa will not be easy. we will confront new political actors, particularly islamists, who are not inclined to do us any favors and who would prefer to keep america at arm's length. many of these new political actors will be hostile to our interest, and at times, our values. but through it all, we should judge future governments in this region not by the nature of the peoplelele groups who compose them, but based on their actions and policies. did they respect the universal rights of all of their people? do they abide by the rule of law? do they uphold democratic practices and processes? do they honor their

international agreements? do they foster peace and security? ultimately a more democratic middle east and north africa will be one in which countries are more willing to go their own way, to do their own thing, to -- our advice and protestations. we can't change that. but the important thing is these will be their decisions. they will have a choice. it is the people of a broader middle east to at last will be determining their own destiny. we may not like the decisions the free peoples will make, but we must recognize that it is that a freedom, this dignity to choose and govern oneself, that is the true source of lasting stability in the world and the ultimate remedy for violence radicalism. if there is any consolation in the fact that osama bin laden lived as long as he did, it is that he got to witness the beginning of the new era that he

fought so hard to destroy. he got to witness his fellow arabs and muslimss, the repeople he tried so hard to convert to this twisted way of thinking, rising up by the millions to reclaim their dignity and sees justice for themselves -- not through mass murder and self destruction -- but through political freedom, economic opportunity, and peaceful democratic change. this could be the death knell for that brand of global terrorism that attacked us 10 years ago. and i, for one, and happy that osama bin laden got to hear it, just before a team of american heroes and did his wretched life. thank you very much. [applause]

>> senator, we are deeply appreciative, and as a modest token of our appreciation to have you with us today, this is a little way of putting something on your me wall, if there is any room left on it. thank you very much. thank you very much for joining with us today. [applause]

>> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu is in washington wrapping up an hour and half meeting with president obama just a short while ago. he will be speaking to congress next tuesday, a joint meeting of congress, and we will have live coverage tuesday at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. we are waiting to take live shortly in about half an hour to the cia headquarters just across the potomac river in northern virginia where president obama will be speaking to cia employees and congratulating them, thanking them for their efforts in that osama bin laden mission. it is scheduled to get underway at 3:10 p.m. eastern but everything at the white house has been running a little behind because of a lengthy meeting with the premise the netanyahu. we will have that live for you when it does start, you're on c- span. in the meantime, we will take you a discussion from this morning's "washington journal," follow up, roundtable discussion about the president's mideast speech.

e east in light of the president's speech yesterday. two guests will guide us along the way. professor akbar ahmed, chair of islamic studies. we're also joined by aaron david miller, a public policy scholar at the woodrow wilson center and also a former middle east negotiator from 1988 to 2003. both of you gentlemen, thank you very much. now that we have heard the speech, what are the policy implicationgoing forward for the president? if we can start, one of the things he focused on was a call for democracy. in certain areas of the middle east, we heard the call as far as policy. what does it mean, mr. ambassador? guest: there were some comments from president obama's reactions. they were somewhat unambiguous, somewhat lacking in direction.

there were statements, but there seemed to be some lack of clarity. yesterday, he cleared the air. he emphatically laid down the marker that this iwhere we stand. is is where we stand. we will support democracy and human rights. we will support every kind of desperation of the people of the middle east. took the range of countries into a purview. he talked about egypt and tunisia, who began the uprisings. he talked about syria. he was harsh on syria. it was interesting. he did not mention a key ally of the united states. he talked about bahrain. the same time, i thought this was a vision of a statement. he's looking at the global landscape. now, policy has to be filled in. you still have the nuts and bolts of foreign policy to be imemented. host: mr. miller, as far as

vision is concerned, what does it mean as he goeforward? what kind of things wi have to be done, especially with the meeting today at the white house? guest: presidential speeches purrsucceed in persuading. i'm not sure this one did that. presidential speeches are designed to explain. the president believes himself to be transformed t political figure. he presided over a transforming a set of events in the middle east. when the 3:00 a.m. proverbial phone call came in the middle of the night, the president responded pretty well to his first foreign policy crisis. he feels pretty good about it and he felt the need to associate himself with th broader vision. the problem, first, these are words that need to be translated into policy. two, they have to be translated in a way that's frankly not possible with a measure of consistency and predictability. we confront the arab strength,

tunisia and egypt, where the president has done pretty well. these are hopeful situations. also, what i call the error of winter, syria, bahrain. we have not said anything anythingbahrain -- a thing about bahrain. yen is the same. there's a gap here. we do not say these things because we have specific interests in bahrain. in yemen and even in syria, where the gaphere how we behave on libya is amazing. gaddafi tilsit people with impunity and we said in a tub. -- gaddafi kills people and we send in nato. host: as far as the democracy or

the themes he laid out, all the papers this morning,lements you found when president bush made a similar type of speech during his administration. is that a fair assessment? yes, in thatt: sense, both presiden could take some credit for associating with these american virtues and lues and seeing them in the arab world. i would say that giving a final assessment is premature. we are in the middle of a massive transformation taking place the middle east. we're not really sure how this thg's going to end. i hope and pray that the aspirations for democracy and human rights will find their logical outcome, reached their conclusion. the battle is on. libya, there's a stalemate. cherings goingdu

on. the fact that the president of the united states is quite strongly and clearly on the side of democracy and human rights does mean a lot. i agree that there was some cynicism and indifference to the speech. at the same time, it has encouraged people to feel that america is on the side of democracy and human rights in the arab world. host: mr. miller, when you see the president talk about egypt and debt forgiveness -- what does that do as far as the idea of democracy building and other places in the region, as well? guest: we have a comparative advantage. we can make a difference. economic assistance is very important. the problem is the $2 billion is not real money. we're talking about loan guarantees and debt forgiveness. it ismportant, but we have

austerity problems here. as important as egypt is, you'll not find congress wanting to increase in real time, real dollars, american assistance. one final point he made is tt it is a paradox. obama has become, in many respects, george w. bush. double down in afghanistan. now with the freedom agenda, he has operated within the parameters set by his predecessor. i think it reflects the cruel and unforgiving nature of the world. guest: in the moslem world, a lot of people do not see obama and bush as democrats and republicans. they really see an american president. a lot of people of great expectations of an american president. they associate america with these great values, the founding fathers, the founding methodology. -- the founding mixology.

in that sense, the muslim world sees the american president clearly making a statement. host:ere is how you can get involved. and also journal@cspan.org. you can send us thoughts on twitter, as well. before we go to the calls, the one thing he did at the end of the speech was a discussion about israel and the change of borders to 1967. as far as the speech, what does it mean going forward? guest: the president has a problem. he committed himself to this issued two days after he was inaugurated, after the appointment ofs mitchell, who

has resigned -- of mitchell, who has resigned. frankly, speech or no speech, the challenges of doing that remain huge challenges. i think the president wanted to create some commitment -- a down payment, if you will, on the image that barack obama is serious about israeli peace. actually getting to those negotiations and producing an agreement on jerusalem, border security, and refugees would be very hd to do. host: on the concept of land swaps, what is your thinking, mr. ambassador? guest: i agree that the situation on the ground is probably more bleak than it has been in a long time. the reaction of the palestinians and israelis responded

negatively. they both see something else in obama's speech. the reality is the arab-israeli conflict is an ms in this large tidal wave of change that is taking place. the israelis and palestinians need to step back. why can't we come closer together? why can't we begin the healing process? to miss out on this great change taking place around these two nations means that they are n taking up this great opportunity. guest: one. needs to be clarified. i spent an enormous amount of time in the last 20 years. the notion that the president has asked israelis to go back to 1967 borders -- i do not know

where the president has gotten these from. he saiit should be the basis of an agreement with mutually agreed swaps. mutually agreed swaps essentially negate the principle of returning to june 1967 borders. israelis will defe x, much land they need. the palestinians will come back with a counter position. somewhere in the middle, between 8% and 1.9%, which is the current palestinian position of what they're willing to give up from the wesbank -- something between those numbers is the agreement. it's not a return to june 1967 borders. host: let's take a call. new jersey, you are first for

our guest. reblican line, good morning. caller: good caller: i was very disappointed that he did not address the terrible problem of the slaughter of christians in egypt. in afghanistan, >> we want to take you live to the president speaking to employees at the cia. [applause] >> mr. president, director panetta, members of the intelligence community, both those who are here and those collected electronically -- connected electronically. recently i received an e-mail from a former student of mine at georgetown lost his wife at the world trade center. he wanted to thank those is

possible for the take down -- takedown of osama bin laden. it represented closure for him. and, in a sense, this dramatic event represents a measure of closure as well for the intelligence community. a historic milestone in a relentless campaign that continues on. those heartfelt thanks of my student deservedly go to many. to the men and women of the intelligence community who contributed directly, notably from cia, nsa, nga, nro and ntcc. and many from intelligence organization to contributed indirectly, taken together a magnificent example of teamwork and intelligence integration. but most assuredly, thanks must go to the presidents, our commander in chief, for making -- [applause]

from making perhaps the most courageous decision i have witnessed an almost 48 years in intelligence. he made this decision based on very compelling, but largely circumstance all -- circumstantial intelligence. and, sir, we are all grateful to you for your faith and trust in us. we are honored by a visit and by your speaking to the intelligence community. and i think it is most appropriate that you do so here at the heart of american intelligence, and the president -- presence of the stars on the wall. we remember as well across the community those who sacrificed their lives on or sent 9/11.

it is now my great honor and privilege and pleasure to introduce leon panetta, who himself played a crucial role in this operation. [applause] you have been a superb director of the cia, a great partner, and a wonderful friend. i think to you and the men and women of this magnificent agency. leon? [applause] >> thank you. thank you, jim, for all of us here at the cia it is a privilege and a pleasure to have our intelligence community

family here with us, to have all of our military partners with us, and i also want to thank the white house staff, particularly those involved in national security elements, to be with us today. we welcome all of you. and i think it is fair to say that we have never had a closer, more effective more -- working relationship, both within our community and across the national security sector of our government. we thank all of you, all of you, for the team effort that was involved in the operation to go after bin laden. it would not have happened without your full cooperation. jim clapper deserves a lot of credit for his leadership in bringing the intelligence community together. and i wanted thank you, jim, for everything. [applause]

mr. president, on behalf of everyone here at the cia, we are truly honored and very proud to have you here. i can't tell you how much it means to all of us to have you here, to mark one of the greatest intelligence operations in our history. and it is one that had so many of our officers working day and night for some many years. throughout that time, some of our officers made the ultimate sacrifice. last year we lost seven men and women to a terrorist suicide bomber at a base in afghanistan. their stars are now on this wall behind me. along with those who gave their

lives in this fight -- their devotion, their skill, and the inspiration that we take from their sacrifice help make of this day possible. tracking down the most infamous terrorist of our time be acquired the very best tradecraft and the very best technology. but it also demanded the very best of our people. the highest level of creativity , dedication, teamwork, analysis, and just sheer dogged determination to never give up when the trail went cold. those are basic american qualities, and they are reflected in our country's intelligence officers and our war fighters, the team there really carried out this mission. but it also required one other

it is central american quality. the courage to take risks, the kind of risks that you have to take on if you want to succeed. and, mr. president, joining with jim, all of us in the intelligence community deeply thank you for the gutsy decision you made to follow the intelligence, to conduct this operation, and to bring bin laden to justice. [applause] . >> we are grateful to have a commander in chief who is willing to put great trust in our work, and in return, as we approach the 0th anniversary of

9/11, we commit to you that we will continue to do everything in our power to fulfill your mission of defeating al qaeda and their militant allies. we will do whatever it takes to protect this country and to keep it safe. this has been a long and tough fight, and it's not over. but as we have just proven, it's a fight that we're going to win, for you, mr. president, and for the american people. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to introduce the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you all. thank you.

thank you so much. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. well, thank you, leon, and thank you, jim. when i chose leon panetta as director of the c.i.a. i said he was going to be a strong advocate for this agency and would strengthen your capabilities to meet the threats of our time. when i chose jim clapper as the director of national intelligence, i charged him with making sure that our intelligence community works as one integrated team. that's exactly what these two leaders have done, along with all of you. so, jim and leon, thank you for your remarkable leadership, not just in recent weeks, but during the entirety of your tenure. you have done a great job. [applause]

this is my third visit here to langley as president, and each of these visits has marked another milestone in our mission to protect the american people and keep our country safe. on my first visit, just months after taking office, i stood here and i said that this agency and our entire intelligence community is fundamental to america's national security. i said that i believed that your best days were still to come, and i pledged that you would have my full support to

carry out your critical work. soon after that visit i called leon into the oval office and i directed him to make the killing or capture of osama bin laden the top priority in our war to defeat al qaeda. and he came back here, and you guys, who had already been working so hard on this issue, redoubled your efforts. and that was true all across the intelligence community. my second visit a year later came under more come better circumstances. we gathered to pay tribute to seven patriots who gave their lives for this fight. as has already been mentioned, their stars now grace this memorial wall. and through our grief and our tears we resolved that their sacrifice would be our summons to carry on our work, to complete this mission, to win this war. said i've returned just to say thank you. on behalf of all americans and people around the world, you

carried on, you stayed focused on your mission, you honored the memory of your fallen comrades, and in locating osama bin laden, you made it possible for us to achieve the most significant victory yet in our war to defeat al qaeda. i just met with some of the outstanding leaders and teams from across the community who worked so long and so hard to make that raid a success, and i'm pleased today that we're joined by representatives from all of our intelligence agencies and the folks who are watching this live back at all of those agencies, because this truly was a team effort. that's not always the case in washington. [laughter] but all of you work together every single day. this is one of the few times when all these leaders and organizations have the occasion to appear together publicly,

and so i thank all of you for coming, because i think it's so important for the american people to see all of you here today. part of the challenge of intelligence work is, by necessity, your work has to remain secret. i know that carries a heavy burden. you're often the first ones to get the blame when things go wrong, and you're always the last ones to get the credit when things go right. so when things do go right -- and they do more often than the world will ever know -- we ought to celebrate your success. that's why i came here. i wanted every single one of you to know, whether you work at the c.i.a. or across the community, at every step of our effort to take out bin laden, the work you did and the quality of the intelligence that you provided made the

critical difference to me, to our team on those helicopters, to our nation. after i directed that getting bin laden be the priority, you hunkered down even more, building on years of painstaking work, pulling together in some cases the slenderest of intelligence streams, running those threads to ground until you found that courier and you tracked him to that compound. and when i was briefed last summer, you had built the strongest intelligence case against -- in terms of where bin laden was since tora bora. in the month that followed, including all those meetings in the situation room, we did what sound intelligence demands -- we pushed for more collection, we pushed for more evidence, we questioned our assumptions.

you strengthened your analysis. you didn't bite your tongue and try to spin the ball, but you gave it to me straight each and every time. and we did something really remarkable in washington -- we kept it a secret. [laughter] [applause] that's how it should be. of course, when the time came to actually make the decision, we didn't know for sure that bin laden was there. the evidence was circumstantial. and the risks, especially to the lives of our special operations forces were huge. i knew that the consequences of failure could be enormous. but i made the decision that i did because i had absolute confidence in the skill of our

military personnel, and i had confidence in you. i put my bet on you. now the whole world knows that that faith in you was justified . so just as impressive as what you did was how you did it. there was a tribute to your perseverance, your relentless focus and determination over many years. for the fight against al qaeda did not begin on 9/11. among you are veterans who have been pursuing these murderers for many years, even before they attacked our embassies in africa and in yemen. among you are young men and women for whom 9/11 was a call to service. this fight has defined your generation. and on this wall are stars honoring all your colleagues and friends, more than a dozen, who have given their lives in the fight against al qaeda and its violent allies.

as the years wore on, others began to think that this terrorist might never be brought to justice. but you never quit, you never gave up. you pulled together across this agency and across the community. no one piece of information and no one agency made this possible. you did it together. the c.i.a., national security agency, national reconnaissance office, the national geospacial intelligence agency, everyone at odni and the national counterterrorism center. folks across the government, civilian and military, so many of you here today. and that's exactly how our intelligence community is supposed to work, using every capability, human, technical, collecting, analyzing, sharing, integrating intelligence, and then acting on it. that's what made this one of the greatest intelligences in american history, and that's why intelligence professionals are going to study and be inspired by your achievement for generations to come.

now, make no mistake -- this is not over. because we not only took out the symbol and operational leader of al qaeda, we walked off with his files, the largest treasure trove of intelligence ever seized from a terrorist leader. many of you now are working around the clock. you didn't have much time to celebrate. we've got to analyze, evaluate and exploit this mountain of intelligence. so today every terrorist in the al qaeda network should be watching their backs, because we're going to review every video, we are going to examine every photo, we are going to read every one of those millions of pages, we are going to pursue every lead. we are going to go wherever it takes us. we're going to finish the job. we are going to defeat al qaeda. even as we stay focused on this mission, we need you to stay nimble and flexible to meet the full range of threats to our

security, from plots against our homeland to nations seeking weps, to national threats such as cyber criminals and narco traffickers. so i'm going to keep relying on you, for your intelligence, the analysis that comes across my desk every single day. and 300-plus americans are counting on you to stay a step ahead of our adversaries and to keep our country safe. i have never been more proud or more confident in you than i am today. not just because of this extraordinary success, but because it reminds us of who we are as a people and as a nation. you reminded us that when we americans set our minds to something, when we are focus and when we are working

together and we're not worried about who's getting the credit, and when we stay true to our values, even if it takes years, there is nothing we cannot do. that's why i still believe in what i said in my first visit here two years ago -- your greatest days are still to come. and if any of you doubt what this means, i wish i could have taken some of you on the trip i made to new york city, where we laid a wreath at ground zero and i had a chance to meet firefighters who had lost an entire shift, police officers who had lost their comrades, a young woman, 14 years old, who had written to me because her last memory of her father was talking to him on the phone while her mother wept beside

her right before they watched the tower go down. and she and other members of families of 9/11 victims talked about what this meant. it meant that their suffering had not been forgotten and that the american community stands with them. that we stand with each other. so most of you will never get headlines for the work that you do. you won't get ticker-tape parades, but as you go about your work with incredible diligence and dedication every single day, i hope all of you understand how important it is, how grateful i am, and that you have the thanks of a grateful

nation. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] [cheers and applause]

[applause]

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

>> over the past two weeks at fort campbell in kentucky, at new york's engine 54, yesterday at the state department and finally here today at the c.i.a., the president has thanked those involved in the mission to find and kill osama bin laden. wrapping up his comments this morning, after a 90-minute meeting with the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu at the white house. netanyahu saying his country cannot go back to borders that existed in 1967 as part of a peace deal with the palestinians. the remarks coming during that meeting, after the meeting with president obama. the president calling that meeting today extremely useful. after that meeting the two leaders spoke to reporters for about 15 minutes. >> let me first of all welcome once again prime minister netanyahu, who, i think, has

now been here seven times during the course of my presidency. and i want to indicate that the frequency of these meetings is an indication of the extraordinary bond between our two countries, as is the opportunity for the prime minister to address congress during his visit here. i know that's an honor that's reserved for those who have always shown themselves to be a great friend of the united states and is indicative of the friendship between our countries. we just completed a prolonged and extremely useful conversation, touching on a wide range of issues. we discussed, first of all, the changes that are sweeping the region and what has been happening in places like egypt, syria, and how they affect the interest and security of the united states and israel, as well as the opportunity for

prosperity, growth and development in the arab world. we agreed that there is a moment of opportunity that can be seized as a consequence of the arab spring, but also acknowledge that there's significant perils as well and it's going to be important for the united states and israel to consult closely as we see developments unfold. i outlined for the prime minister some of the issues that i discussed in my speech yesterday how important it was going to be for the united states to support political reform, support human rights, support freedom of speech, religious tolerance and economic development, particularly in egypt, as the largest arab country, as well as tunisia, the country that first started this revolutionary movement that's

taking place throughout the middle east and north africa. we also discussed the situation in syria, which is obviously of acute concern to israel, given its shared border, and i gave more details to the prime minister about the significant steps that we are taking to try to pressure syria and the assad regime to reform, including the sanctions that we placed directly on president assad. we continued to share our deep concerns about iran, not only the threat that it poses to israel, but also, the threat that it poses to the region and the world if it were to develop a nuclear weapon. we updated our strategy to continue to apply pressure, both through sanctions and our other diplomatic work, and i reiterated my belief that it is

unacceptable for iran to possess a nuclear weapon. we also discussed the hypocrisy of iran suggesting that it somehow supports democratization in the middle east when in fact they first showed the repressive nature of that regime when they responded to the peaceful protest that took place inside iran almost two years ago. finally, we discussed the issue of a prospective peace between israelis and palestinians. and i reiterated that we discussed in-depth the principles that i laid out yesterday, the belief that our ultimate goal has to be a secure israeli state, a jewish state, living side by side in peace and security, with a

contiguous functioning and effective palestinian state. obviously there are some differences between us, in the precise formulations and language, and that's going to happen in-between friends. but what we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows israel to defend itself against threats and that israel's security will remain paramount in u.s. evaluations of any prospective peace deal. i said that yesterday in the speech, and i continue to believe it, and i think it is possible for us to shape a deal that allows israel to secure itself, not to be vulnerable,

but also allows it to resolve what has obviously been a renching issue for both -- wrenching issue for both peoples for decades now. i also pointed out in the speech yesterday that it is very difficult for israel to be expected to negotiate in a serious way with a party that refuses to acknowledge its right to exist, and so for that reason, i think the palestinians are going to have to answer some very difficult questions about this agreement that's been made between fatah and hamas. hamas has been and is an organization that has resorted to terror, that has refused to acknowledge israel's rights to exist. it is not a partner for a

significant, realistic peace process. so, as i said yesterday during the speech, the palestinians are going to have to explain how they can credibly engage in serious peace negotiations in the absence of observing the core principles that have been put forth previously. overall i thought this was an extremely constructive discussion, and coming out of this discussion i, once again, can re-affirm that the extraordinarily close relationship between the united states and israel is sound and will continue, and that together hopefully we are going to be able to work to usher in a new period of peace and pros period of time in a --

prosperity of time in a region that will be going through transformations in the coming weeks, months and years. so, mr. prime minister, welcome. >> thank you, mr. president, thank you very much. thank you. mr. president, first, i want to thank you and the first lady for the gracious hospitality that you've shown me, my wife and our entire delegation. we have an enduring bond of friendship between our two countries. and i appreciate the opportunity to have this meeting with you after your important speech yesterday. we share your hope and your vision for the spread of democracy in the middle east. i appreciate the fact that you reaffirmed once again now and in our conversation and in actual deed the commitment to israel's security. we value your efforts to advance the peace process.

this is something that we want to have accomplished. israel wants peace. i want peace. what we all want is a peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure. and i think that we both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of middle eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakable facts. i think for there to be peace the palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. the first is that while israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are

indefensible. because they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. remember that before 1967, israel was all of nine miles wide, half the width of the washington beltway. and these were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack of israel was so attractive. we can't go back to those indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the jordan. i discussed this with the president. i think that we understand that israel has certain security requirements that will have to come into play in any deal that we make. the second is -- echoes something the president just said, and that is that israel cannot negotiate with a

palestinian government that is backed by hamas. hamas, as the president said, is a terrorist organization committed to israel's destruction. it's fired thousands of rockets on our cities, on our children. it's recently fired an anti-tank rocket at a yellow school bus, killing a 16-year-old boy. israel obviously cannot be asked to negotiate with the government that is backed by a palestinian version of al qaeda. the president has a simple choice. he has to decide if he negotiates or keeps his pact with moscow or makes peace with israel. -- hamas or makes peace with israel.

the third reality is that palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a palestinian state, but not within the borders of israel. the arab attack in 1948 on israel resulted in two refugee problems. israel absorbed the jewish refugees, but the vast arab world refused to absorb the palestinian refugees. it is not going to happen everybody knows that it is not going to happen. i think it is tell to -- time to tell the palestinians, it is not going to happen.

the palestinian red bg problem has to be is resolved -- the palestinian refugee problem has to be resolved. it is not going be resolved within the jewish state. the president and i discussed all these issues, and i think we may have differences here and there, but i think there is an overall direction that we wish to work together to pursue a genuine peace between israel and its palestinian neighbors. mr. president, you are the leader of the great people, the american people, and i am the leader of a much smaller people. it is a great people, too. it is the ancient nation of israel, and the have been around for almost 4000 years.

we have experienced suffering and struggling like no other people. the murder of millions. to say that even at the valley of death, we never lost hope. we never lost our dream of reestablishing a sovereign state and a teacher homeland for the land of israel. it calls on my shoulders -- it falls on my shoulders to work with you to fashion a piece -- peace that will not jeopardize the survival. i take this responsibility with pride, but with great humility.

we do not have a lot of margin for error. because history will not give the jewish people another chance. in the coming days and weeks and months, i intend to work with you to seek a peace that will address our security concerns, seek a genuine recognition that we wish from our palestinian neighbors. it will give a better future for israel and for the entire region. i thank you for the opportunity to do it. thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> that will air again this evening at 8:00 this evening. we have a lot of politics weekend. herman cain makes his announcement that he is going to run for president and the republican party. that is coming up at noon at tomorrow on c-span. the former utah governor will be in new hampshire at a meet and greet their act four-o'clocks 30. -- at 4:30. >> follow-up "washington journal" on twitter. you can also tweet your

questions to our guest. start your twitter account today. the c-span network, provides coverage of politics, public debt affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. it is available to you on television, on-line, and on social immediate networking site. find our content any time. d.c.'s ban it video library. -- find are content any time through our c-span video library. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> the aids institute and the u.s. institute of peace released a new report today on the future of pakistan would recommendations on improving the government and the security situation. this is just under two hours.

>> good morning and welcome to the united states institute of peace. we are happy that you are among the first to enjoy the conference facilities and our new headquarters here. this looks like one more closed room, but it has a lot more capabilities. i and the deputy provost of decade -- at the academy of international conflict management. usip was established by congress in 1984 as an independent national institutes dedicating

to manage international conflicts around the world. the subject of our panel today, pakistan is certainly the place we are thinking about preventing and managing violent conflict, is on everybody's mind. like the asian society, hosting the event, we are in non-profit and non-partisan institution. we've worked in the field, the classroom, and research, conferences, publications, have many partners and the asia society is one of them. i will not mention all the things that we have worked with, but we did a great grant project. we have an ongoing series of events at the asia society headquarters in new york on korea and other very important issues when it comes to international conflict. the asia society helped us out of one of the first courses we

did in our new academy, with expertise on china, and other dairy import part of the world. no country -- another very important part of the world. we are very pleased to offer this venue here in washington for the asia society to launch its reports on pakistan, a vision for building a better future. usip adviser, who will be in charge of the panel discussion, was part of a study group that put this together. we think it is a very good report and we think it will be a very interesting panel and will look forward to your active participation under the ground rules that we will set forth. i would like to turn this over to my colleague and counterpart from the asia society, who will give you the second welcome of the day.

the vice-president for global policy programs of the asia society, thank you. >> thank you, and good morning, everyone. thank you, michael, for that introduction. we are thrilled to be part of one of the inaugural events here at this fabulous new building. we hold our partnership with usip with high esteem. let me begin by thanking the members of the study group to put this report together. several of them are here for our discussion, in addition to our project director, our special guest traveled all the way from pakistan to join us today. i would also like to extend our

collective gratitude to the late richard holbrooke, who served at the chairman of asia society for seven years. we dedicate this report and his memory. the asia society established this study group to assess the political, economic, and social development and challenges faced by pakistan today. the goal is to provide recommendations on a way forward, how the country can begin to pave a path toward the stability in the coming decade. this report, represents a comprehensive package of recommendations aimed at promoting sustainable, constitutional democracy, credible bill of law, it is significant expansion and improvement in social development, especially

education, and a peaceful resolution of the conflict within india -- with india. we said a very ambitious goal for ourselves. before i will turn it over, i would like to take note of a few unique aspects of this initiative. it sets it apart from other recent efforts. it is the first report of its kind in recent years to include a significant number of leading experts from both pakistan and the united states, 31 representatives in all. representing a range of sectors. members include former diplomats, military leaders, the talented officials, and -- intelligence officials, but also an economist, a scientist, and experts in the field of help, education, the governance.

rather than viewing pakistan exclusively through a security lens, we focused on the security challenges, but also the economic challenges. we think this is important to get a fuller picture of the wheat board. finally, rather than dwelling on what is wrong with pakistan, it is easy to be cynical about it, rather than resorting to temporary fixes, the group really focused on generating pragmatic recommendations aimed at improving the country with a very long-term vision. this past wednesday, we held eight new york city of launch event at the headquarters in new york. that event is on our website if you would like to view its act asiasociety.org.

there other resources available there, too. you can also follow us on facebook. we even created -- joined the conversation. you all have is by all in front of view. in the interest of time, let me say that he is one of the leading experts on pakistan and u.s.-pakistan relations. he is a professor at columbia university south asia institute. he previously served as a government official in the administration's of prime minister and the president. please join me in welcoming him. thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

welcome once again. we are very pleased to be coasting this event with the asia society. i want to -- coat posting this event. i want to talk about a few ground rules. before anything, make sure your cell phones are turned off or on silent. make sure you remember to turn them on when you leave the room. since the art on television, -- speak as closely into the microphone as possible. we will begin with an overview of the report. after that, i will make sure we

had ample time for inquisitions from the floor. projections, predictions, all sorts of things. some of them i am part of myself. this is the most comprehensive and holistic product that i seen so far. it has the right sort of mix of people. it did have the right mix of people, which we do not see

often. congratulations. >> thank you very much. thank you during much, -- thank you very much,usip and asia society. i want to be again by thanking the asia society for the freedom to work on this project that they gave me. and support from all the members. you will see their names on the last. some of them are leading names. former diplomats, this is a very

different viewpoint. i want to begin by bringing the issue by saying that in south asia, the first thing that comes your mind is correct. this is a new form of credit. -- cricket. you need a lot of hard hitting to match -- it is very unpredictable. it takes a lot of energy. just google 20/20. on the very first page, --

pakistan will be a superpower. by 2020, pakistan will be erased from the map of the world. the person you wrote that report a short that it was and is. -- and is. -- in capital letters. it old wine in new bottles. this is a set of positions and proposals to which we got to feed back from 30 people. it was very different

viewpoints. i was concerned with how the former army chief would react to that. there was some very strong criticisms, and i would like to mention some of those. those were of significant value. please look at the whole concept again. look at the optimism of again. both of them are my mentors and both are established and respected scholars. that helped us to challenge each of those. we decided to focus on several issues. ranging from military issues and democracy to education. then we focused on energy and construction. the next point for pakistan the's relationship with india.

it is not that we pick these things randomly. the kind of formula that we decided to devise -- civilian control, a democratic controlled should expand this is not rocket science. but how will it be done? we're talking about a country where democracy is not new. i need not remind this audience, but it was created as a democracy. at the end of the day, the people of pakistan pushed the military. in one case, the dog was very

kind. -- god was very kind. they pushed the dictators out. despite the 30 or 40 literacy rate, people have a very clear understanding that there is a democracy at work. the central issue is democratic controlled town expand if there is governance. it comes from education, basic resources. there is no difference from that.

all for the political leadership, and they always had a team ready to go. what is our energy demand? a becomes an to governance. we have this one section on education, there was an excellent report recently pakistan established an education task force. there was a lot of competition going on for that. some very brilliant pakistanis released a brilliant report. after the reports came out, this was state-controlled, everyone

appreciated it. five or six days ago, i was mentioning that report to someone, and i realized that -- i tried many ways, it is not there. it seems that the group has disbanded. they cannot say that isi is not involved in that, or the military. the government's issue is in the will of the political leadership. that can make a difference. raising the budget from 1.5% to 4%, and the very least. this is very simple, very clear. the military budget should be

open for discussion in the parliament. why are we building more long- range missiles rather than freezing the number of students? there should be a debate, it is a very important fragment. i would like to ask -- there were a little bit of problems here and there. by and large, it is working. why it is media not openly challenging? it is a very basic format that is at issue. a country that uses aid every other year, why are they choosing that offsite aid not

for building roads, but for others? the government of pakistan -- the political leadership has -- we have tried to give that agenda. education, energy, health care, i can should give the amount of money that is something that is manageable. we're proposing strongly that for that to happen, reform development, expansion of democratic governance, for that to happen, two things are very critical. both pakistan and india have realized that they have tried every trick in the book.

there is no way out but for pakistan and india to strengthen the peace process. this is not need, not out of the box. -- this is not unique, not out of the box. that has to be strengthened. without that, they will be in huge trouble. without that, the democracy of pakistan might not be able to get written. in that sector, we have a section on internal security. many of the urban centers.

in the bombing of the school assembly -- the national anthem is no longer being played. this is very, very serious trade this new military leadership is trying to -- there are some signs that is happening. the central thing that needs to be done -- and this is something that i have talked about at least twice before the last couple of months? -- reform of law enforcement. there is a report to, which i was involved in, which is a part of this effort. the number of organizations, intelligence organizations, law enforcement organizations, the significant number of energy,

there is an effort and pakistan going on. i am announcing this because u.s. support and u.s. aid to pakistan should not be in areas where it makes the other side that it and comfortable. support will only worked -- 66 outside support will work only if there is local capacity. i will leave that example. the point i'm making is that if there is consensus and capacity growth, it will take 20 years. it is not enough leveled off could admit or political gains to work with such things.

police reforms in pakistan, restructuring, law enforcement. recently, in a couple of cases, related to al qaeda leaders, who were being pursued by pakistan, and in the final moments, this is, we can handle this assets better. they held him in custody. when this person was returned, and had to take into court, maybe he gave some information out to a military type of investigation. but when the person was taken to

court, there was not enough evidence. there were no more witnesses available. to cut this short, law- enforcement is critical. without that, counterterrorism cannot work out. i would like to close -- just a glimpse of some of these suggestions, ideas. we wanted a comprehensive approach. looking current -- sometimes we go so the into one issue. that is how things develop. without an alternate idea, that becomes meaningless. the other ideas work, we are not sure. but we want to start. it is not a lost cause. do not give up on pakistan.

a list -- a legendary poet to -- that is a message in itself. his most famous poem. we shall see. certainly, we shall seee.

beneath her feet will have the earth shiver, shake, and beat. heads of rulers will be struck. this might be the direction of pakistan. in the current circumstances, it's may go in the direction. but as well we are saying, the time for reform is now. otherwise, it might be too late. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. you have taken steve's critique to heart. let me introduce our next speaker. he was the editor and chief albee leading pakistani english

weekly. he also runs a publication house. much, much more. for me, i started my riding -- writing and drug for about six years. -- and wrote for about six years. >> ladies and gentlemen, i am pleased to be here today. thank you very much for inviting me. pakistan-u.s. trouble, some of us had anticipated this. one reason only. the relationship has been since

9/11 ambiguous. from both sides. but ambiguity is now coming to haunt this relationship. i'm sure we will have time to discuss the relationship ended question and answer session. i've been told to just confine my remarks to certain dimensions of this report. i will talk very briefly on two issues. the question of civil military relations on the question of india-pakistan relations. in many ways, these are the necessary conditions for any reform to take place in pakistan. therefore, these are the issues. civil-military relations, there is a list of all the things that need to be done to restore this balance. that, of course is easier said

than done. the question is not what needs to be done, but how to do it. that is an issue that house grappled the minds of all of our politicians and analysts to date. and every government to date has been hostage to the military. there is some good news. in an ironic sort of way, it is the recent osama bin laden incident that has triggered this debate and pakistan. frankly, it is an unprecedented intervention right now that is taking place. until now, the national security doctrine has formulated -- has never been the subject of any debate or discussion inside parliament or amongst be a mainstream political parties or amongst sections of the media.

it has been taken for granted. it is that correct obsession and there is such a threat and therefore we need to regain a strong military presence in the country. that is now being debated. it is ironic we should have been asking about the u.s.-pakistan relations, and why the osama bin laden incident happened, what led to it, we are instead asking about where the money is going. if the military could not stop helicopters from coming in. what has been happening to all the money that has been earmarked for the military year after year after year? if the military cannot even locate two helicopters or is completely unaware of the existence of osama bin laden and

his backyard. this is making the military very uncomfortable. the question everyone is asking in pakistan is not whether the military was complicity, but whether the military is up to the job. in that sense, the chickens are coming home to roost. it is not just the questions of is the military up to the job? the media is not talking about the defense budget. the media is saying, tell us how much money we have been giving you over the years and where it is going. the media is saying, we want accountability. the media has always talked about the accountability of the politicians, that has been a pet peeve, our obsession, corruption

among civilians. for once, the boat is on the other foot. it is now the military that is being the topic of derision, scorn, and criticism. there is better news. the leader of the opposition, who was a creation of the military, has suddenly woken up and realized that to the civil- military relationship has to be changed completely. he has said publicly that our obsession with india must end. and yet is not our enemy. this is our president, and is significant.

the people's party has always said it, we have always said it. it did not matter. when the people's party said it, -- it was a security risk. he is the son of the soil, the same soil that has -- they cannot call in an indian agent. we want accountability of the military. he said, i am not asking for the resignation of the president and prime minister. i want accountability, an institution by an independent inquiry. this military does not want that. this military has done everything to stall what is required.

we only had a review. they're under the pressure of the media. then it went to parliament. we still have to see where we go. that is good news. the civil-military is now under discussion. the military's budget are now the focus of attention. the other area on which i would like to make a brief remark is -- of course, it is not enough to say that india is no longer the enemy and not to be branded

as an indian agent. what is the status of india- pakistan relations? i remember going on a trip but the former prime minister, just with the diplomacy -- this was a solemn occasion. the indian said, we will talk about the pipeline. what about other issues? pakistan was not ready to talk trade. today, the situation is that pakistan is ready to talk trade. the foreign secretary's, the

secretaries of various departments, interior, commerce, parliament office, everyone is on their way to india to talk. this is a very good development. it has the support of the opposition, the government was always in favor, and the army is not opposing it anymore. it was about to achieve something. that was not a solution as in the u.n. resolutions, far from it. there were many concessions that pakistan had made. women should have gotten into trouble -- went we should have gotten in trouble, that process came to a halt.

this is tricky, so let me get out of this trouble. of course, that did not happen. what did happen? i remember saying to my indian friends, do not be there -- do not delay the process. this is why it happened, in order to delay it. for three years, that process has stalled. there is no more obstacles from the pakistan side. the obstacles were all from india. first did not, then do this, then do that. i is mets the indian prime minister on two occasions.

domestic politics stopped him from doing so. the preconditions are off the table. three years down the line, we have lost a lot of time. my great fear is that the preconditions are off the table, u.s.-pakistan relations, this is the preeminent dialogue that determines everything else in that region in many ways. it is also the dialogue that has an impact on civil-military relations and pakistan. my theory is backed just as -- there might be another, and then what will happen? what is irresponsible remarks, as we saw recently from the

indian army chief, if the americans can do it, so can be. of course the americans can do. the appropriate was response was given not to the americans. we just created another problem. intelligence had told parliament that if india were to undertake such adventure, regardless of whether we knew that they were doing it or found out later, we had already earmarked and done rehearsals and exercises in the way in which he would hit back. of course, parliament gave him a thunderous applause. those are the issues right now. there is good news and there is badness. thank you. [applause] -- and there is bad news. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. eloquent and to the point. christopher, our next speaker is the associate professor at and the department of political science at wellesley college. he is also -- he has written extensively. >> thank you. i want to begin by thanking suzanne and robert and all the other folks at the asia society web undertaken this important work. the purpose of this report is to take a comprehensive look at the problem facing pakistan. i would like to make pre points.

-- three. . the united states relationship with pakistan has predominately been a relationship with pakistan's military and intelligence agencies. u.s. government support has strengthened institutions and coercion and pakistan and weakened institutions that promote the rules of law. top western civilian leaders continued to meet with top military commanders and pakistan in one-on-one meetings without the involvement of officials in pakistan's military -- defense. the supreme court justice insisted that security agencies act in accordance with the constitutional pakistan some years ago by producing -- for that, he was dismissed from office. it was convenient for the united states government.

the u.s. government was concerned with pressing the war on terror in pakistan. than in promoting the rule of law. it was not u.s. pressure that returned the justice to this chair. it was a movement in pakistan that led to the justices reinstatement. we have heard recently that more than 70% of the 20 billion u.s. dollars that have been given to pakistan's and september 11 have gone to the military. we have heard this morning that it is unclear what the military has done with that. it is also unclear what has happened to the other 30%. that $6 billion over the last 10 years. i would like to put that figure into perspective. it sounds like a lot of money, but the pakistan-american

community can should be an estimated $1 billion annually in cash. another $4 billion annually in labor. to philanthropic activities. the second point is that the people of pakistan should not be punished for the failings of their government. the military and intelligence agencies of pakistan have repeatedly undermined and over from civilian government and pakistan. the people of pakistan have repeatedly rose up in defense of the democratic ranks. what we have witnessed recently in egypt has already happened three times in pakistan. in the late 1960's, the late 7 tos, and from two dozen 2009 in the lawyers movement. there is no country on the planet whose population has been mortis favorable view of the united states government and

pakistan. the major source of anti- americanism, which i believe it is anti u.s. government, it is the popular perception that the u.s. government supports military governments. the direct boards and the taliban today. the u.s. government punishes the civilian government when interest have been satisfied. the clearest example and most damaging instance is this. this occurred in 1990. president george herbert walker bush allow sanctions against pakistan for its nuclear weapons program, but only after the soviet army was out of afghanistan. as long as the soviet army was in afghanistan, they prevented those sanctions authorized by

congress from going into effect. the military component of the sanctions in 1990 were lifted in 1995. it was only after 9/11 that the non-military component of the sentence -- of the sanctions were lifted. u.s. policy has involved carrots for the military and sticks for the people of pakistan. continuing a bit on the second point, it is already in a precarious state. the government of pakistan is likely to cut government expenditure when the budget is announced next week so it can meet imf targets for government

deficit reduction. it will not make it any easier to increase funding for help and dedication -- for health and education. a tax surcharge is imposed on those already paying taxes. the discussion, the mere discussion of terminating u.s. aid to pakistan has had a very negative effect on this economy. earlier today, the state bank of pakistan decided not to pause its raise in the discount rate. it is devastating for the tens of millions of pakistanis who manage to scrape by on the equivalent of $2 per day. even the talk of cutting u.s.

aid to pakistan is having a damaging effect. the third and final point, a component of the report that need some greater attention, but is vital to pakistan's future, the role of women in creating a peaceful pakistan. participation in public life is highly constrained by the neglect of their reproductive rights. on average, women have almost four children. at these rates, pakistan will have a population of poor under 50 million people by 2015. -- 450 million people by 20150. they would like to have, on average, two children. the whole secret to economic development is raising the national savings rate from 2% to 4%. i believe that the key to

development is reducing that fertility rates. i am not saying this because the resources would be severely taxed. although that is true. they already suffer a water scarcity crisis, an energy crisis, 3 million people and to the job market every year in pakistan and there are not 3 million new jobs for them. the reason for saying that pakistan fertility rate needs to be lower, at increasing women's opportunity for participation in public life. the government attention to public health is very poor in pakistan. it was not until two dozen 6 that the government allowed the word condom to be shown on television in pakistan. president obama mentioned that the commitment of the u.s. government -- pakistan should

be a focus of that commitment. 18,000 women die every year giving birth. that is far more than the number of -- who have died at the hands of militants. the everyday security of women gets very little public attention. in pakistan, there are eight soldiers for every one doctor. it is no secret that the key is education for girls. the report's recommendation that public expenditures from education be raised to 4%. it is crucial, as it is a proposal for an accountable system of teacher recruitment. thank you. >> thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. very interesting remarks. let me throw out a couple of questions. after that, we will open it up. humans and -- you mentioned civil-military relations. i think that is a popular view. if you go for an opinion poll in 2008. it is not to say that people do not want democracy. people want performance more than a system that is functioning the average man or

woman on the street. my question to you is something that i have grappled with for a long time. does civilian supremacy in pakistan come when the military decides to go back to the barracks? did the civilians perform well enough with the credibility of the government kids to the point where the people pushed to say this is the system that we want? there is an argument for both sides. you mentioned this issue of india and pakistan. if you are saying that the problems and conditions are being pushed from the indian side. there is the argument -- but is this going to be a process, is

it going to be held hostage? if that does not work, there will always be problems? is there a way that pakistan can move internally? is it necessary and sufficient, or can we still move on? you raise the point of fertility rates. i want to take it to a slightly -- here is a country that has multiple problems. the only problem is but i do not know any country in the world that can do all this. let alone a country that has all sorts of problems. it is not just about education, there is a lot attached to this.

is there a way that pakistan can prioritize this report? in some ways, you are overwhelming this stage by saying, this is the laundry list, and good luck. how does one go about this? >> thank you very much. i want to make a correction, and that comes from a twitter message. there was the website that i mentioned. it was off for a moment, but it is back up. i checked it, and that is good news. they say is because of a server problem, which i doubt. [laughter] the good news is that it is up, it is back, and it is not disbanded. so i must correct my words. that was great. about the question, i think it

is a central question about democracy. my point of view is, and i think it is also reflected from the views of other people that have mentioned that the report, democracy takes time. it is a step-by-step process. 1998, there was the pakistan people's party picked up largely discredited. a military dictator by coming in made those, even discredited, leaders of discredited parties, to some extent, made the relevant again. if the process continues -- this is one argument. prospective of performance, military gets 11 or 12 years that a stretch. the firsts part, and two years, people start asking questions. you're absolutely right, it is because the expectation of the people. we voted. we want change.

but the role of the pakistani intelligence agencies, especially isi, in 1990, it is well this document in the played a central role in the making and unmaking of the government. the military can decide to go back on its own. they're pushed up of government. i do not want to repeat the slogans there were on the street. but there were regular abuses. even one of his children was using that use against him, not knowing what it meant. it was heard everywhere. musharraf, the loyalist movement pushed him out. pakistani political leadership,

is seems they have learned lessons. it is like you said. sherif played that game in the 1990's. whenever he got a chance to go back in the government would support of the military, he might. i have a feeling he might again need some support from the military. but he has taken a very large stain, which was unexpected and unprecedented. let's talk briefly about this political government. yes, there's a credibility issue. the look of the things they have done. constitutional amendments, bringing all the parties together, the national finance corporation talking to the rebels. going to correct sheet. ensuring that this remains in place and a starting a few other projects. this is happening when pashtun -- [unintelligible] the military is not ready to go back.

the united states, when it comes to the military leaders, and i am thankful but i was reminded about the military and stakes were the people of pakistan, and that this course has been changed and past couple years. but despite -- was making the case that whenever there's a military leader, the u.s. is almost soft in interacting with those leaders. whenever and their friends come into government, demands also skyrocket. at times, making demands, which are well-intentioned, which are the right policy, but makes it impossible for that political leader to remain in office and get elected next time. despite these challenges, if the government is surviving, that is a big thing. this is how it will change.

it's again you're right, what is the feeling on the street? people will say, we need stability. and maybe we want another messiah, because that is another issue of their identity. in the minds to it, when you start reading in the fifth grade books, from central asia to south asia, but also the leaders and heads of state, it is in your mind set that every leader was also a general. so when you see a general, you feel, according to this book that you read the most of those things will change in a step-by- step process. i think that is happening. >> you know, one reason why i talked of the two issues, the india and pakistan problem and a possible military, it is because they are linked. and governance is linked to that. budgets are linked to that. everything is linked to that.

political stability is linked to that. to answer your question, yes, i think the peace process has to come to a culmination. is a necessary condition. it is not a sufficient condition. sufficiency requires good governance and stability in pakistan. having said that, you talk about the military going up and down. yes, the military's popularity was up and down in 1971. the military's popularity was up whenever a military dictators seized power. it was down whenever we got the dictator out. the same thing happen with musharraf. he was very popular when he took part. and seemingly unpopular when he lost part. it -- interesting thing is that apart, there are other times when you can gauge the

popularity of the military. and recently, until this particular incident, the general and military enjoy a high degree of expected confidence. polls of shown consistently that the people of pakistan trusted and believed in the military more than any other institution, by far, including the judiciary. we now have a different situation from what we have seen in the past. this is not a moment when the .ilitary's stock was high the military stock is down, and it is out of car. this is the first time you have two indicators. my feeling is that this is a very significant moment for pakistan and that the military will have a hard time living

this down. partly because, for the first time, the media has come in to ask very important questions, which had never happened before. this is the same media who, in 2009, was actually saluting the general for having helped to restore this. because without his intervention, they might not have been restored. today they're asking very hard questions, not just of the military's roll in this whole affair but also about the -- [unintelligible] i think these are significant moments. for the first time, the opposition and of the media and of the people of pakistan are asking the right questions. this will take a lot to turn his back. i do not think it will be turned back. because i think of this inquiry report comes through, there will be more discussion. if it does not, there will be continuing discussion. and it is not entirely

inconceivable that new facts may be revealed related to that particular episode, which would continue to put pressure on the military relationship. even the type of race in which she has the military, he may be under pressure to do things to that. so i think, to answer your question, this is a different moment. whether or not we, the politicians and the media and the government is up to it, whether the parliament can seize this moment and institutionalize it, it may be too early to say. but i think there will never have been a better moment than this. >> chris? >> thank you. thank you for that two-part question. i think i would like to take the second part first, and that is about religious sensitivities in pakistan. he mentioned fertility. it is not merely about --

doesn't it undermine in thames to lower fertility in pakistan? again, i want to note that survey research indicates that women presently would prefer to have half as many children as they do. i want to reiterate that my point is that the instrumental. that if your people mean fewer mouth to feed and less stress on natural resources, less stress on the labor market. bryant him -- mine is a principal point that this is what pakistani women themselves indicate that they want and that this would allow them greater opportunity to participate in the public sphere. it was not your question exactly, but i would like to take up this notion of religious sensitivities. there is nothing in the coldiron -- in the koran or no

action by the prophet mohammad that in the kids women should have as many children as they can or the family should not use family planning techniques. in fact, the prophet mohammed himself recommended if the family plan technique of his state to his companions and others. this has been noted in other countries. in iran and indonesia, for example. they have been very successful in promoting a family-planning campaign, showing that the suna and koran indicate that what is longer suggest for families is a healthy family, not a large family. a healthy family can be promoted by proper birth spacing and by use of contraception. the second point you made was about the feel of this report,

perhaps looking a bit like a laundry list, and i took your question to mean, is this not a laundry list? [laughter] i think not. i think that it is what could be referred to as a macro policy. jackman covering, at the -- jack montgomery at the harvard school wrote about macro policy for many years. unfortunately, he passed away, i think, before hassan started your fellowship there. i see this comprehensive perspective on pakistani's future as being highly integrated. i think all the components, civilian, suppress the, the rules of law, focused on health, education, energy, internal security, on peace with india, on trade with india. all of these point to the same thing, which is a human centered security policy.

>> i will send a laundry list will be part of my own failure. i will open it up. of course, we do not have to stick only the issues discussed. if there is anything else on pakistan and the future, we will discuss this. i want to ask steve, since he was part of this comedy want to say something? >> no. >> we have microphones on the side. i please would like to request people to go to the microphone. if you could just come to the microphone one by one and ask questions as close as you can. please introduce yourself, of course. >> thank you. i am an independent scholar peter i am delighted to see so many friends who might come in for putting up a comprehensive report. it is a subject where i spent much of my career and economic issues. it is not a report by u.s.-

pakistan relations. indeed, that may be one of the strengths, because there are lots of those these days. but there is an implicit recommendation to the united states to support the kind of goals that are in the report. and in that spirit, i want to take issue with a couple of the things that chris said edgar to bring this back to the issue of civil military rillettes -- relations. my reading of history is, in fact, that the united states ended part of the civilian sanctions in the late 1990's. the military sanctions were, in fact, not ended until after 9/11, and pakistan did not even get back the money that it had paid toward the f-16 until 1998. if you want to read a long story that, it is in my book. [laughter] >> which is available now work,

right? [laughter] > second point, chris' description of the u.s.- pakistani historical relations is how i would describe the narrative. there is a quite different u.s. narrative. the burden of which is we had three marriages and two divorces. each of the divorce is came about because pakistan, for whatever reasons, was unwilling to live with the markers that the u.s. laid down. in 1965, it was using u.s. weapons in a war with india. in 1990, it was the nuclear program. but there is a gap between the two countries' strategic objectives. i do not think the u.s. needs to apologize for following its geopolitical interests, but of course that has consequences. where this comes back to my question about civil military relations is i think that in

order to deal with the u.s. side of this, because it is inevitably going to have been impact on it, although i am a proponent of keeping economic assistance stable. i think you have to start addressing both governance questions and military accountability questions. i was moved by your optimism that this is going to be the moment when, for the first time, there is an investigation of the pakistan army fell year, but i am afraid i was not convinced by it. and i wonder how you envisage pakistan and the army, going from sherif calling for an investigation, to actually doing one that is reasonably candid and releasing it? >> let me take another question

from this side, and then we can come back. >> i am with usaid. question along the same lines. looking at the report on the sheriff's civil military relations, i was a very encouraged by that. the question i have is looking forward to how this should affect u.s. policy in. there's a reference in here in the report to the u.s. and important allies, better prioritizing relationships with democratic leadership. is that all, or is there more? this is particular to u.s. assistance. military, civilian, what does that mean? also promote the emmy for u.s. priorities in terms of support

for military going after the taliban and al qaeda? >> brief answers, please. >> military accountability. i said this was a very important unprecedented moment. i also said that in the event of this inquiry does not yield anything. i do not expected to yield anything, but it will remain a nagging issue in the media and the opposition. i think that is a very good. a great start. considering we have not had a start ever. i do not think the media and pakistan wants to know why the military failed. the military does not want to actually explain why it failed. but the issue is that we have a right to ask these questions. we have the right to the pressure on them, and this is the first time this is happening. there really uncomfortable. that is good enough for me. second, you talked about usaid. i think the gentleman on this side said something by u.s. policy.

i will tell you something else that is happening there in connection to the u.s.-pakistan thing. that is worth looking at seriously. again, the same media and of the same opposition that is demanding accountability of the military is also saying, we do not really need this relationship with the united states. they're saying we do not need this u.s. aid. i will tell you what, they're saying, what is their argument? today, there was an article by former governor by the state bank, a former senior vice president of an american institution, who today has written an article in the media saying that we do not need u.s. aid and we should not go for u.s. aid. why is it that this issue has come up? it is for two reasons. one is because congress was making a big noise, and of the american media has also raised this issue of, where is our money going?

we're giving you so much money, and what are you doing about it? here is the answer. in 10 years, maybe $20 billion is coming to pakistan. as chris said, maybe $15 billion has gone to the military. maybe $1 billion has been skimmed off by politicians. the other four, most of it is for military support. it has not really gone into expenditures. now the thing is, people in pakistan are saying, where's this usa? we do not see it anywhere. we do not see it in the form of hospitals, dams, of rising affluence. poverty is increasing in pakistan. so where is this usa going?

why are our ruling elites have done this usa? at the beginning of the day and ended the day, it goes to the military. and this is what the military has to show for itself? and politicians, civilians, the people of pakistan are getting nothing out of it. then they say, what is this a big deal about $1.5 billion that everybody in america is talking about? this year, $300 million has been disbursed. even in the coalition support funds the for the first time, the u.s. is challenging the pakistani army's. three years ago, the challenge was maybe 2% or 3% rejections. it is gone up to 45% now. at the end of the day, where is this u.s. aid? that is what the opposition and of the media is saying we do not want this usa. perhaps as little injection that week it is to improve the

military. and the politicians are not taking the hard decisions and need to be taken to put the economy right, to tax themselves, to have reform, and to do all the things that need to do to bail the country out. perhaps this is what we need. and if you do not get that usa, at the military can lump it. and the politicians will have to take the hard decisions you are not taking today. that is what we need. we need to stand up on our own feet so we can negotiate to the united states on the basis, not of independency, but on the basis of our interests. people over here in the u.s. are talking about -- [unintelligible] the repeat myself, we have seen part of that stick from 1989 to 2001. we were the most sanctioned country in the world. so things went from bad to

worse, all right. and our military went off to get second-hand technology from china and elsewhere. ok, maybe that was just as well. maybe they continue for longer, they might have come to us and said to put our house in order. because u.s. aid, when it comes in, it gives our ruling crouse's -- classes not taking responsibility for doing the things they need to do. salida about what is happening to our money and of the taxpayers' money. the debate in pakistan as we do not need it. we do not want it. it's still the u.s. we do not want it. the media is calling for an end for our dependence on the united states. regardless of for the fact that the military is hurting, and the opposition leader moammar sharif has come out openly and said we do not want it. a >> limited two other questions.

then i will come back to the panel. >> you have mentioned two indicators -- joseph and the middle east institute. you have mentioned two indicators that gave you a heart here, particularly as recent developments unfolded. but isn't there a third indicator, which i think would really suggest that maybe some people are coming to their senses? in i am thinking here about reference to something which i know is in the report but has not been brought up this morning, and that is the existence of the fact that pakistan has an insurgency on its hands. it has extremist groups whose agenda is a radically different kind of pakistani state. ,o isn't it going to require

indeed, even progress in those other two areas, that pakistan, the public, the elites and the public, take a far more realistic view of the threat that is facing them? instead of recognizing or experiencing the result of the insurgency without being willing to place the blame for it were a should be, because, as we know, they have constantly redirected that toward the united states. so i am asking really, is that not a third indicator, which is, i think, going to be critical, particularly the other two were to fall into place? >> [inaudible] wanted to ask the question.

they talked about a couple reasons for anti-americanism in pakistan. you're one of the few well- informed journalists in the media today. how much of their world as the media play in shaping public perception as far as posturing of conspiracy theories of the u.s.? there will say u.s. policy -- does the play that much of a role or is it the meted the close it off? >> i would like to start by addressing the first questions. thank you for the clarifications. the history of the sanctions, as you know better than i, is a bit more complicated that neither of us have time for just now. i mentioned the lifting in at

295 and the lifting again in 2001. i did not mention the new protests in 1998 and the sanctions that followed that. and i would recommend for everybody is interested in thinking more about this, ambassadorship after -- ambassador schaffer's book. i look forward to using the book in my course next year. it is really great to know that you're going to have a good book for your cars a month in advance. the deeper issue, i think, is but the conditionality of the relations between the united states and pakistan. i do not think that a relationship based on conditionality is the basis for a solid relationships. so i do not think it is surprising that, as najam mentioned, much of the population in pakistan is not

publicly in favor of declining all u.s. aid. or like to note here that even the carry lugar berman act as conditionality is that the united states has to provide access to a q kong, for example. even in initiative, which is meant to build goodwill. there were conditionality is about pakistan maintaining civilian government and so forth and about access to khan. my sense is that it is the conditionality is themselves, which give the impression. it is not a question of whether pakistan has returned with the u.s. has paid for. it is about how the u.s. pays for it and if there are those sanction mechanisms, then one obviously feels that that is not

a solid relationship. >> i talked about my sources of optimism. let me tell you more to make you unhappy. [laughter] the thing is that there is no consensus in the organs of the state government or opposition or media on the issue talked- about which needs to be resolved. this is the incredible thing. the debate in pakistan is about the violation of sovereignty by the united states. it is not about the violation of sovereignty by al qaeda and everything else.

there is the anti-americanism in pakistan to negotiate with the united states. now, as i said, the chickens are coming home to roost. where will they go? i do not know. the security apparatus that was talked about is to deal with internal security. today in washington, you have a friend of mine -- i do not know how many of you have met him. he is in washington today. he was the head of naphtha, an organization that was created to deal with this issue of terrorism. he had his office the budget

were not come through because there was no money to give them even $2 million. this was supposed to be our equivalent of your national intelligence, the when you set up after 9/11. the isi said the prime minister should head this stuff. the interior minister said the interior ministry should have this stuff. so the ordinance was never passed because of this conflict. and he resigned from office three months ago. so to talk about any internal security or internal action

against terrorism, i do not see that happening in the short term. i certainly do not see that happening. number one. number two, something else is happening. again, in relation to the war on terror. this is the bad news, too. the media and opposition are now saying to the government that must order the pakistani air force to shoot the drums of of the sky and they're saying if you are fearing an american response to a joint controller with the drones, pakistan should stop nato from moving there. this is part of the resolution that was pushed through by moammar sharif. so you know, the thing is that on the one hand, the media and omar sharif are talking about

civilian institutions and about peace with india and control of the military. on the other hand, they're pandering to public opinion. by saying we do not need u.s. aid. we need to stop the drums. and this despite the fact that the pakistani military has gone on record, albeit in a very low- key manner to say that the drones are useful. this despite the fact that wikileaks revealed that the pakistani government is on board the drawn policy and that the drones are useful. it is a very difficult complex time.

>> there is a program which means, in between us. i hope someone is translating it. it is one of the most popular tv programs there. also, recommended, other than the books -- [unintelligible] it has been called south asia hand. there's a question from this side about what this means for usa. one of the conditions is that at least 50% of the money for counter-terrorism should go to police. give them 25% of the money

interested, it is a matter of resources. even the frontier corporation is part of the ministry of interior which gets money from the civilian budget. it always went to military, even that money, at least part of it, can be focused toward police and law enforcement. >> the money is all over the place. when of the reasons why the army wants to run counterinsurgency policy, even inside counter- terrorism, and internally, it is because the army is a complex network.

>> can you hear me? i will just speak loud. i am from the woodrow wilson center. i'd like to congratulate you all for participating in this report. i think it is a very, very timely, and i look forward to reading it. sounds like it is a real contribution. i have two points and a question. the second point, i would like to associate myself with the pacing of this relation. it seems to me that the problem today is what it has always been. sometimes our interests coincide, and sometimes they do not. that does not make for a very steady relationship of course, today is much more important. the risks are greater. the underlying problem has not

changed. but my question is, they are seeking advice really from the panel. the wilson center is in the process of doing a study on u.s. aid to pakistan. i am one of the participants. we have come up with some givens that are pretty obvious, and you have alluded to some of them. namely that we have got to do a better job of explaining the mechanics of aid. you know, what is the difference between appropriated money and obligated money and all of that? so you do not have the spectacle that you have had. the finance minister saying we have $345 million worth of aid only. and on the american side, saying that is wrong, we're giving you $900 million. well, we should be on the same sheet of music. that is something on our side that should be done to clarify and make a major effort to

explain what it is and what it is not and when it is going to come out and when it is not going to come out. also, it seems to me, and this is my personal view, that we need a sharper focus. even though the five priority areas, energy, education, health -- forget the others, it seems to me that it is all over the lot. it would be a hell of a lot better if we only did one or two things or we can make a difference. it could be just education largest health, the like that. but that is not my question. it turns out that while there are a lot of faults on our side, one of the changes that holbrooke institute it was that 50% of the aid is going to the government of pakistan, with ministries of the government of pakistan. and quite apart from the administrative problems that devolution causes, and that is just one of those things, our

people are having all sorts of complaints that there's a lack of capacity, which surprises me, frankly, after all these years. there is corruption. and most serious of all perhaps is one we put money, let's say, for education. we allocate $5 million. what pakistan does is cut to $5 million from the education budget. well, how do you deal with that. one ideal we have had. it has been discussed, and this is what i would like your reaction to. instead of just printing money. we should do sort of a cash on delivery arrangement where if the building, say it is a school building, pakistan builds it, and then we pay. or you do a partnership where there is 50/54 whatever is. but pakistan puts up the 51st, and then we follow through.

i would like your comment on that, reaction to that. >> [inaudible] >> i think there is an error to buy in this town that pakistan needs democracy, needs governance. that will come with development and the schools. and of the way you get that is a foreign aid. i think, frankly, that position is -- [inaudible] no country has really developed on the basis of foreign aid. i think there could be danger for pakistan 10 years from now. the last the question, what happened to all the aid? [inaudible]

-- generates 8% of gdp. there's no amount of foreign aid. second, the delivery of a foreign aid today is so different. there're all kinds of bells and whistles, mandates, and conditions. there are serious questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. we're not making a case for more aid or for specificity for the u.s.-pakistan aid relationship. look at the changes, the agents of change within pakistan. they are in a transition.

an islamic university was being established. [unintelligible] their people in pakistan who are standing up. standing up to the extremists or others -- [inaudible] i also recommend a book by one of the members of the study group. it was published a few years ago. how much money the pakistani ask support for north america and europe? there was recently an article by a pakistani politician with moammar sharif pose a political party. he says, and i am sure his facts

are credible, the total amount of money comes in from north america and europe is $8 billion per year. four times more than usaid and a three times more than the aid. maybe providing them with more direction at times, pakistan just needs some skills and not money. that kind of support is what we are also suggesting. >> this whole issue of usaid, i am glad you're doing the study, and i am convinces some of the frustrations and reservations that officials express our probably justified. i have a different way of looking at this whole u.s. aid business. i want to ask this question, what is the objective of the u.s. aid? is it short term, trying to turn anti-american as a back? or as a nation-building?

i think, you know, even the legislation is not clear about this over here. there are many different objectives. seven or eight different objectives, even in the legislation. they vary from short-term to medium-term to long-term. which is why you have $5 million in a library budget and $2 million in a school project and so many million -- there are 40 different projects in the pipeline. not one has taken off in any significant way, partly because of the things you're talking about. there was a paper that the general gave president obama when he was here, and i am sure many people here have seen it. the general says to me that one of his recommendations was that instead of all these projects, maybe the u.s. should have come in with one or two big projects and no more than 10 or 15

american aid officials and their and a small secretariat, big project. that might have been better. i think on reflection, i tend to agree with that. which is what i was talking about. either build a hospital for the poor in every city of pakistan and make it self-sustaining and sustainable, so that will turn back.ti-american mechanisism we need money for big dams. do something that is substantial. this business is leading to this question of visas and how much money we're getting in the money is not coming and so on. yet people on both sides wringing their hands in despair.

they're doing the same thing over here. and the military and of the pakistani government do not know whether they're coming or going. maybe all this u.s. aid will make us rethink about the short- term goals and the long-term goals and about which has more priority for you. >> my view on the ambassador's question is, specifically, he said that the woodrow wilson team is thinking about a cash on delivery mechanism or a 50/50 mechanism. my thoughts there are that the cash on delivery mechanism would put the focus on infrastructure, rather than maine and to that infrastructure. and that would be a downside -- rather than maintenance of that infrastructure. that would be a downside. building schools is not so important as the training and hiring and retaining teachers. i think the cash on delivery mechanism might put the focus on infrastructure, rather than teaching and the curriculum.

with the 50/50 suggestion, it does not solve the fund transfer issue that you mentioned earlier. my thoughts here are that large signature projects, big projects, are more attractive to corrupt people, and it would be better to identify those who are proven effective philanthropists. somebody who has a helicopter, thanks to the u.s. government. so that would be my suggestion, have a mechanism where one identifies those who have already been working without large funds from the united states or other foreign sources. >> thank you. let me take the last three questions together. >> my question follows up on

previous comments. i am in international health consultant. my first comment would be that it is interesting to note that almost all of the suggestions and comments in the report appeared to be pretty much the same as the ones that we identified and asked for solutions to in the 1990's. so where have we gone? and secondly, that this discussion seems to be entirely oriented around the u.s.- pakistan relations, whereas i think the most critical fact, a particularly in the social sector development programs, is the gradual discouragement of the international community and the increasing cynicism of the international community about -- and i am speaking of the world

bank, the imf, the whole range of them, on the results that pakistan has been able to achieve. and in many ways, the blockage that has been done by a good deal of the pakistan bureaucracy, civil service, on the implementation of many of the programs. >> thank you. in the interest of time -- >> ok, that is enough. >> [inaudible] my question is about the military communicating. we have seen even swith musharraf and many attacks.

is it still that we can say that the military does not want to clean the house from this argument? [inaudible] isn't true that the region does not allow them to take action? [inaudible] why is the military not able to take any actions? >> can we keep it at this? >> if the military is not united

itself, how do you think about ending that? >> i am from the private sector. i agree that this is an important component of improving relations with india. what are the barriers to improving trade? and unofficial trade is far greater than at the official trade. i am not quite clear as to why that is not happening, increased trade. >> you have two chapters in your report on destruction, and neither of those mentioned the -- [inaudible] >> i am sorry that i am hiring everybody. but they have to be on a plane in new york. >> i will try to be brief. i think of mr. dexter had the

time to ask a question, it might have been something about whether we should take the emphasis off of government-to- government relations. i do not know. i am guessing. i am hoping, because that is what i also recommended with regard to the common earlier about how the decision with usaid and some other aid agencies in the united states is to work with the government. the thought there is to increase their credibility and the capacity of the pakistani government, but the other side of that is that it also increases the perception in pakistan that the united states is supporting corruption. i would recommend, again, more attention to supporting non- governmental organizations directly. >> barriers to trade with india, it is positive all the way for both sides. the barrier to trade with india is the pakistan army and of the

national security doctrine of pakistan. the position is that trade would lead to linkages into the creation of western interests from both sides for peace, and that is not acceptable or was not acceptable until recently, until necessity forces you to open something or the other. the national security doctrine of pakistan does not allow for peace with india and the linkages between india and pakistan. the indians -- my problem with that is a have been sent to the indians, you do not have to do this policy. if pakistan does not want to give visas to pakistani businessmen to go to india, you do not have to. unfortunately, indian bureaucracy and indian security services are problem on the other side as well. it is not easy to shut them away. the second thing is that, on the

question of the military's in tension and a capability or capacity to tackle terrorism, there will be briefing for parliament sooner or later about the budget. the gist of the briefing will be we need 100% increase in our budget, because we completely lack capacity to do anything. that briefing is ready. i have seen it. their view is we need more money, more this, more that to be about to do this. we have our hands full with india's military capacity building on one side and the taliban creatine devotees for us. we just do not have the capacity to open up another front. so that is not going to happen. >> just to conclude, thank you very much for reminding us about those two sections. it is very critical.

there is damaged infrastructure in significant ways. you'd be surprised to see if it is normal in the media. it is normal in the main discourse of what happened. because the urban areas or not as much affected as the rural areas. we have made a case for strengthening some of the institutions which are there which can tackle these upheavals. there's not much time to talk about the treaty. there was one mention of that but not as much as it should have been. i would like to take the question about whether there is a way to do this with the military? there is a way for the pakistan army to tackle this. they're trying to micromanage things. but there was one model which i think will work. there some divisions within the military, as well, but that has

been the case historically. from our experience, military failed to see this. it was partly because some junior ranking officer was responsible for looking at the interest in that region and a look at the other way. and the whole world could see the head of the opposition group. he has a radio station recognizing -- it is not helping. change happens. when it was shown on pakistani television, when a small pakistani journalist asked the question. he said, what you think about human rights and democracy? his answer which shocked everyone, it changed public opinion.

then the media showed a girl being raped. the change in public opinion forced the military to act. it gave more coverage to political leadership to act. i think that had also worked. that could be a way forward. and to end with this as a concluding comment, we could have said danger reading part of this. the publisher, the manager of the project, did a great job. he showed me three colors. red, danger. green had a religious connotation of sorts with pakistan. and then the blue. i n hindu mythology, louis the color of peace. that is the message.

thank you. >> let me once again commend -- i think the main point here was actually in bringing up this positive aspect of a can be done and still can be done. for somebody like me, and hassan, always a moment of optimism is welcome. so thank you for that. a few other things, the civil military relations issue. this is a moment for pakistan. we will have to see how it plays out. there are things which have not happen before, and that is to be acknowledged. we have not touched enough about this, but i think it is because we're talking about the u.s. and sitting in a u.s. audience. this question which keeps on coming back as to what the u.s. can or cannot and should and should not do. i remember, there's a discussion of the u.s. aid and what happens if the support goes.

in 2007, we were involved in a one-on-one debate, and this very question on what the u.s. can or cannot do, and i think they're two opinions in pakistan which are reflected here. one side says that the u.s. can help bring the civil military, you know, rebalancing and bring in other issues on where pakistan needs correction. the other view, which i have been saying for a while, is that it has to be pakistan. the best the u.s. can do is not hindered. perhaps the changes have to come from within. i think it is an open question. again, that remains. in the u.s. change civil military relations? i seriously doubt it. there's a lot of discussion. perhaps there is need for more discussion about pakistan in

pakistan. then we may see some positive change. let me just remind that you this report is available. there are also copies, i believe, outside, if any you want to pick it up. and finally, i can't leave you without an infomercial. our next pakistan event is on the 26th, next week, on india-pakistan relations. and as much as has been talked about here, it's a critical issue. and one of the speakers is the former chairman of the counterterrorism authority. thank you once again. please join me. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> here's a look at our primetime schedule. starting at 8:00, president obama holds a oval office meeting with benjamin netanyahu. and then more about the middle east policy with a discussion on president obama's speech where he called for a return to the 1967 borders as a start to negotiations with the palestinians. after that, remarks from president richard trumpka on organized labor and politics. >> this weekend on "american history tv," from lectures in history, cleveland state professor regina williams on the music of duke is ellington. on "american artifacts" a look at the smithsonian efforts to preserve the jefferson bible.

and the 50th anniversary celebration of the freedom ride, when 13 men and women, black and white, boarded two buses bound for new orleans. their goal to integrate southern bus stops. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> some white house coverage for you this weekend, starting with herm crane cain announcing his run for the presidency tomorrow. also on c-span radio and c-span.org, we'll follow that with phone calls and reaction. if you miss any of it, it will be on the video library at c-span.org. >> history, as you know, is much more than just politics and soldiers, social issues. it's also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry and ideas.

>> samuel morris, john singer sergeant, thomas eddison, henry adams. sunday on "q&a," the americans who made the greater journey to 19th century paris. at 8:00 on c-span. >> and now to a discussion on immigration policy and u.s. security issues along the southern border. this forum hosted by the kato institute here in -- the cato institute here in washington runs a little more than an hour. >> hi, everybody. thanks for coming. we're going to get started in a

minute. well, thank you all so much for coming. i'm with the cato institute. and today we'll be talking about newspapers answering the critics of comprehensive immigration reform. there are copies up front. we can get people extra copies if you need them. our first speaker -- i'll give you a little back ground and then hand the pome podium over. stuart is a scholar at the cato institute and executive director at the national foundation for american politics. he previously served as executive associate commissioner and counselor to the commissioner at the immigration and naturalization service. he also served capitol hill on the subcommittee. in a prior role at cato, director of immigration studies, he wrote on military contributions of immigrants as well as the role of immigrants and high technology. frank is the founder and executive director of "america's

voice" which he began in 2008 in an effort to focus on communications and media, a renewed effort for comprehensive immigration reform. prior to heading america's voice, frank served as executive director of the national immigration forums, one of the nation's leading immigration organizations for 17 years. his work on immigration reform legislation with the late senator kennedy is featured in a 12-part hbo documentary. he's also appeared on a host of networks and is a regular contributor on "the huffington post." with that, i return the podium over to stuart. >> great. thank you very much. thank you to the cato institute for publishing the paper. i'm just going to briefly go through some of the highlights of the paper and talk about some of the implications as we move forward in this congress.

thentially, the point of paper was to see where it might be possible to bridge some of the division on immigration and the country by looking at five of the main arguments used against having some type of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. so i'm going to get right into what some of those arguments are, and what some of the responses are. first, that immigration reform will harm taxpayers. the argument is essentially that by letting in people or allowing to stay here people who maybe have less skills, that that will be a big drain on taxpayers. but, again, what we need to look at here is to compare the status quo to what a change in policy would be, not some type of idea world as if we were starting from scratch. what we have now is roughly

10 million to 11 million people in the country illegally. what past research has shown, particularly the 1986 amnesty, is that when people were legalized, they had pretty sharp increases in their salaries. by making them legal made it easier for them to seek out another opportunity, which made them less likely to be exploited. it also gives them more incentive to increase their skills, increasing the ability to earn more money. and to the extent that people are getting paid off the books or under the table, it's more likely that they would get paid in a way that their contributions would get in the tax system. so simply put, if you put it all together, people who are now in

illegal status, if they start having higher wages, more mobility, and were more likely paid in the formal economy, are more likely -- are much more likely to see increases in tax revenue than we would to see decreases in tax revenue. the other part of that is by having -- to legalize people in the country, you also need to look at what are we going to do to prevent more people coming in illegally? and one of the main proposals has always been, and cato institute argued this strongly, is having a way for people to come in legally, particularly in lower-end jobs. if there's one thing you remember from this talk, it's hopefully this. when people say they come in

line to work, there is no line. there is no line to come in and work at lower-skilled jobs. the only possibility for someone who's in another country to come in and work at lower skilled jobs in the united states in a legal fashion is for short-term, seasonal work. either in agriculture or, say in resorts. they come for summers, work for a few months, and go back. for people who are looking for dire economic situations and employers want to hire them in the united states, there is essentially no legal way for them to do that under our system. the best they could hope for is if they had a relative here who sponsored them, maybe in five, six, 10 years, depending on their category, they might be able to come into the country legally. but for all practical purposes, there is not really a line for people to get into. there's been some past cato

research on this question. i won't go into all the economic analysis of it, but essentially the previous research showed where if you had a system where people were able to come in legally, through legal visas, verse a real estate gem that we have today or even a tighter regime of tighter border enforcement, the netflix wealth benefit -- net wealth benefit for u.s. households would be about a $260 billion difference each year. so when you combine it with that it's going to be easier and more likely for people to have higher wages, tax payments, combined with the idea that you have people who come in legally verse a regime of retired enforcement, a greater wealth benefit for the united states and families, you see that the argument that harming taxpayers is not a realistic argument in this case.

related to this, and this touches on both taxes and serves in some case a moral argument, is the new legalized immigrants will burden the welfare argument. excuse me, will burden the welfare roles. this is essentially the second argument that's addressed in the paper. again, we don't really see that this is the problem that people think it is. it is very, very difficult when you come into the country legally, except we make some exception for refugees. generally -- before 1996, we saw the statistic show there was quite a bit of a decrease in welfare use after 1996. very large drops. and even today when you're look at for u.s. citizens, for the

main cash program, afdc or -- for u.s. citizens, it's essentially, you know, about 1% for individuals that use afdc or -- kind of the cash welfare program. it's less than 1%. food stamps. look at very similar, about 7.7% for native and about 6.2% for non-citizens, and 3.9% for naturalized citizens. and this comes from the house, house ways and means committee. now, it is possible that some states have more generous policies, although the data on migration does not show that immigrants are more likely to be flowing from those states. and it's more possible for a family with an immigrant head of

household to have a nato-born child who would be eligible for so that would complete the picture that it is possible for other people to get benefits. you know, through the u.s.-born child. but on the other hand, we have to remember a couple of other things. the u.s.-native born child, it's hard to have a calculation that's fair if you only count the cost of the child, u.s.-native born child when the child is young but not count their tax contributions when they grow up and start being contributors. i don't know about you. but i think most of us were drains on our parents when we were young. and i think it's the case in general that when you do a calculation that only looks at kids as costs and not as contributors to society when they're adults, that's misleading as well. and that doesn't get into the issue that the way our social

security system is structured that new workers are hugely important to helping to fund our social security system. the third argument that's also made is that another amnesty will be get more amnesties. in other words, by having -- by allowing people to gain legal status, that that will just encourage an endless flow of illegal immigration. most people looked at the 1986 act where we did provide amnesty. and then what happened? we eventually -- illegal immigration came back. relatively quickly. there's two issues with that. first of all, research look at this issue, basically did not see that you could see difference and sort of illegal entry.

but really the main i shall is that the failure wasn't that offered amnesty. the reason illegal immigration increased is because there was no legal way put in place for to come in and work at particularly the lower skilled jobs. so what you ended up doing with the put in harsher enforcement penalties and started some of the increases in enforcement personnel. but you didn't allow the more market oriented, intelligent way, of dealing with illegal entry, which was to have ways for people to come in and work legally. question is what would constitute an amnesty. generally an amnesty would be that you don't have any obligations. but there are ways to structure legislation in which you would put obligations on people. the legislation, for example, is

the agricultural workers requires a certain amount of continued work in a quasi temporary status for a number of years. fines would have to be paid. when there's things as tax amnesty and other things, generally speaking, you do not necessarily have fines. people may want to say that no matter what they aren't going to accept the fact that someone was once in legal status, should be allowed -- once an illegal status should be allowed to legal status. but, again, that's not -- that's not necessarily the way we've worked in the united states. that there's been no way for people to ever have some type of correction of their situation if there is a way to do it. particularly within the legal framework that would legally benefit the country,

particularly a system where you allow more people as part of a compromise to allow more people to come in and work legally which would have a loot of benefits in terms of decreasing illegal immigration and also helping with security. because you'd be able to focus more on natural threats at the border. now, another argument that's made is that legalizing or more will undermine the us culture and the english language. the basic response to that is that we really don't see that when you look at the children of immigrants that they're not learning english. by the third generation, you're looking at 97% of hispanic immigrants report the ability to speak well or pretty well when there's been surveys done, it's overwhelming, well over 90%, say it's much more important to

learn english than to be retaining your spanish language. in fact, other research by other that showed that one of the potential problems is happening with how strong of an americanizing influence our culture has is that by the third generation kids who would actually benefit from being able to retain their native language actually end up losing it and are not able to speak it. and it would be beneficial giving that they would be able to retain that language given the global nature of our economy. the final argument is sort of the typical, i think, for more than 100 years argument that if you let more people in, that's going to mean more unemployment for native-born people. we basically just haven't seen that. there's been studies done at the state level that shows that there's no correlation between

increased immigration at the state level and unemployment rates. overall, same thing at the federal level. we just don't see it. the reason is there's not a fixed number of jobs. so someone's a new entry to the labor force, whether it's an imgrant or, say, a high school or college graduate, they're going to become employed. they're going to spend money. from their salary. that's going to help percolate through the economy. that's going to create other jobs. there's also entrepreneurships where immigrants were very likely to create new businesses. and that creates other jobs as well. and you're also filling in niches in the economy which is very likely to increase our productivity, which is something that giovanni perry and others

that you found, found increases in productivity from immigration. so, again, we don't see that by letting more people in legally or by having some political compromise for people who are already here that that would be an increase in unemployment. so i'm going to wrap up here with a short civics quiz as we have some of the leading experts on government sitting in the audience here. i'll ask a quick multiple choice question for people. if a government program is ineffective and unsuccessful, what normally happens to that program? is the answer, a, funding is decreased for that program? is the answer, b, the program is eliminated? or is the answer, c, funding for that program is increased

dramatically? what do we think? c! do we think c is the answer? well, you are right. because that is essentially what has happened with our immigration program, as i would call it, or enforcement program. starting in 1980, there were 2,900 border patrol agents. by 1994, there were 4,000 border patrol agents. by 2000, there are 9,000 border patrol agents. does anyone know what the figure is today? 20,000 border patrol agents. funding on immigration enforcement, you know, across programs, has essentially doubled just since 2004. what we see is that the current policy is not -- has not been effective. and what we see, again, as the answer c shows, is that the

answer has not been to try something different, which is to have a legal valve for people to come in and work legally. the answer has been to just keep spending more and more money, essentially, on the same thing. i hope some of the facts presented in the paper help us continue on a path where we can think about no longer having a policy where we simply just keep spending more money on the same policies that really have not worked. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, stuart. my name is dennis frank sharry with a group called america's voice. stuart has done a very capable and admirable job of laying out the facts of this debate. he has been one of the top thinkers and researchers and policymakers on this

controversial and complex area for many years. i have to say, it's really nice to be back working with the cato institute. it's great to see dan griswaled who leads this effort and has done some brilliant write and research on this. back in the day comprehensive moreration reform was much of a bipartisan effort. there was a time in 2006, when the so-called mccain-kennedy bill got 23 republican senators to vote for it. just to give you a slight contrast in december of last year when a much smaller measure called the dream act was presented, only three republican senators voted for it. so there's been a real shift. i sometimes wonder -- i now am much more firmly planted on the left. for those of you who are trying to place me, let me come clean. but i sometimes think that i didn't leave bipartisan, it left

me. like to get back to a place where we're trying to figure out -- ultimately i think the populous on the left are not a majority and that there is a sensible, centurist, compromised approach that could solve the problem and end illegal immigration. there's such a different fundamental diagnosis of the problem. many of us who support comprehensive immigration reform see immigrants as decent people who are trying to make better lives for their families and add growth to america. and other who's see immigrants, particularly those who enter or remain in the united states illegally as bad people. so right from the start, is it basically good people subjected to a bad system or is it basically bad people subjected

to sacred law? i'm big on the rule of law. don't get me wrong. i'm so big on the rule of law that our founding fathers created legislatures to change laws when they are no longer working. and that's what those of us who support comprehensive immigration reform want to happen. that congress will fulfill its constitutional responsibility to modernize our immigration system so that it works better in our national self-interest. so we have a very different diagnosis. one says what we need to do is build more fences, put more government resources into enforcement. and the idea is for the 11 million -- let's say 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the united states, the solution, the only solution, can be that they go home. they either get picked up and deported, or they pick up and self-deport. the name that they've given to this strategy is called

attrition through enforcement. it's what, for example, lamar smith, head of the house judiciary committee, says he's for. and we will see a big debate in this congress over something called mandatory everify, which is a very technical term for, firing as many unauthorized workers as possible in hopes that they pick up and go home. so we're going to see more of the enforcement-only strategy being debated in this congress. there's others of us who view it differently. ok? i may be of the left. but i'm a free market democrat. i believe in free markets. i've seen a labor migration from south of the border to the united states for the last 100 years. and it's picked up with intensity. i'm a realist about these things. you see, 100 years ago or more in the united states, there was a migration from the rural south to the industrializing north. right? that was one of the great labor migrations of the last couple hundred years. the same phenomenon has been happening in the last 25 years.

picked up. and now with the recession it slowed down. but it will pick up again when growth picks up. and then you have people from the rural south of the border coming to the new immigrant states in the south and in the west in particular as well as the traditional gateway cities looking for better opportunity. let me give you an example. mecklenburg county, where charlotte, north carolina, is, during the boom times when their unemployment rate was 3%, nine out of 10 new workers coming into north carolina were mexican. you know how many came legally? very few. do you know how many of them could have come legally if they wanted to? very few. because as stuart points out, there was no line to get into. but there were jobs a plenty in charlotte during the construction boom. and while the chamber of commerce materials on the charlotte boom didn't include this dirty little secret, the fact is that everyone in town knew what was happening. that's called supply and demand. the only sucking sound we've

heard in the last 25 years has been bringing workers to jobs in the united states because they were available and they were going vacant. now, obviously that's changed with the great recession. but this is a temporary bump in what is a 100-year story of people moving to opportunity. and the question is for us is not how do we stop a process which leads, as stuart points out, to more workers, more consumers, bigger tax base, higher wages. how do we regulate that? this is where my democratic instincts kick in. how do you regulate it in a way that it's controlled, orderly, and that, yes, you tape off the rough edges of it? i'm not for open borders. i'm for controlled, orderly immigration that serves the national interest. here's the choice policymakers the fact, given the reality, given the fact that we have 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the united states, given the fact that 70% of them in families and 66% of them have been here for more than a

decade. not a bunch of folks who showed up last week hanging out on street corners, although there are those folks. this is mostly a rooted family-based, hard-working community. now what? now what? well, it's the goal that we -- if the goal that we can all agree on is to end immigration, then what's the best solution? the attrition through enforcement, folks say if we just ramp up enforcement as we have for the last 20 years, another 10, 20 years, we will rid ourselves of most of these people. they will pick up and go home if we don't pick up and deport them. others of us say, well, we have a different approach. why don't we use enforcement at the border, use enforcement against illegal hiring, and open up wider legal channels for workers who want to come here on a temporary or a permanent bas basis, and deal realistically and humanely with non-criminal,

unauthorized immigrants who are rooted in american society? that's what comprehensive immigration reform is. it's not a either/or. it's both and. it's enforcement and legal channels so that we create a legal system, we end the black market in migration that serves only the smugglers and the bad actor employers and the folks who break the law, and bring it under a regulatory regime that, in fact, makes sure that there's a line to get into, that people come with the same labor rights as any other worker that decent employers are not being undercut by unscrupulous sub contractors being and we add to the tax base. a legal system that grows the fairer andt's creates greater growth so when people say you guys are open borders and don't want controls, wait a minute. do you think the other guys who think we're going to drive 11 million hard-working people, most who have been here longer than a decade, with families, you think that's realistic?

you think that will end immigration or just drive people further underground? you hear about the arizona law? very controversial. opponents say a lot of people left arizona. you know where they went? utah. they went to new england. they've gone to colorado, which is why, by the way, utah had a very different take on what to do. they said we have 110,000 unauthorized immigrants here working hard. maybe we should figure out a way to have them come into the system, pay a fine, not a free pass, pass a background check, pay their taxes, but they can work here equally because they're contributors. it's a very different approach. that's what ear up against. a highly charged issue, that you know. but i think inevitably comprehensive immigration reform will become the law of the land at some time. i wanted it to happen in 2006 and 2007 when george w. bush

spent whatever political capital he had left on his last great fight. and i still think he's a hero for doing it, even though he's not my kind of president. but he had the guts to do it. so, you know, it's going to take what it takes. but i'm pretty convinced that the forces that are driving this phenomenon are going to lead to reform. demographic, economic, and political forces are going to lead to reform. we have an aging society. and unlike in europe, because immigrants want to come here, we have a population that is sustained. in china, in italy, in germany, they're having debates. we don't want immigrants. our young couples aren't having babies. what do we do? well in china, they want to have babies. they're just told not to. so demographically, immigration is a lifeblood to america and one of our competitive assets going forward.

economically, i know that people love to think about the static pie. but as stuart points out so brilliantly, the fact is, we live in a dynamic economy. there's a reason why, to put it in blunt terms, we attract indian high-tech workers and mexican low-skilled workers. it's because they complement rather than substitute for american workers. in fact, they add to the dynamism and creativity and the american society. think of all the people in my generation two -- a married couple, both with post graduate degrees, who have an army of immigrants making their two-income lifestyle possible. that is perhaps a human example of the complementary that we see in so many ways. and then finally politically. i used to get criticized on the

left a lot for being supportive of a policy that might make john mccain the next president and would make george bush a hero from latinos for a generation. i wish i was still getting criticized on the left for being willing to do it, because right now it's just the other way. the republican party, i think, is committing slow-motion political suicide by alienating the fastest growing group of new voters. latinos are what we often talk about, latinos, asians, south asians, caribbean, and africans, and folks in the middle east. the republican party under george w. bush was fabulously competitive with those ethnic communities and immigrant communities. and now it's not. now it's not. not that the democrats have earned the vote by any stretch. don't get me started on that. but republicans keep pushing them away. it makes the democrats' job very easy. i just think that eventually the republican party will come back to its free market

principles, will realize that immigration properly regulated serves our interests economically, and that politically it's smarter to reach out and compete for folks than to try to make those people know that you don't want them and you want to send their loved ones home. at least that's my hope. if you're with me on this, let's try to make it happen in a matter of years, not decades. thank you. [applause] >> well, great thank you both so much. we have time for some questions from the audience if anyone has any questions. >> mr. sharry, you mentioned indian high-tech workers. would you approve or reform -- anyone who has a mast others degree in the united states who has never done anything illegally would get an automatic green card? >> yes. >> i do, too.

in the field as a clinician and on the streets with many legal and illegal immigrants, not only latinos, you know, people from other countries. and you keep hearing that we can't find the people in this country to do the low-level jobs that you talk about, yet we want bill gates out there speaking we can't have enough educated people in this country, come work for him. i think you have to look at the cultural issues involved. they work on the farm and they go back. so there is a cultural issue in this country for the black community to do the work that you say the low-level work won't do because it's a buzz word for slavery. i've learned in the group that

i've worked with as a clinician. so my question is -- and i have mixed feelings about this. i know in my apartment building where i live, they do get welfare a lot of them. they have their kids, they work hard, they're not legal. their kids are getting. and they are the food stamps, the medicaid, you name it. that is part of the equation. so what would you think -- i think that the law, regulation, to call itu want needs to be shortened so that if bill gates says i can't find to work for me, he gets them over here with a green card. there's a lower level of folks who come here. and then we send them back. they're hard-working. you know, maybe 5% are crimes. what would you do to make -- like you mentioned utah or other states. the divided congress, to jump on board and start thinking outside

the box to make some of this happen? >> well, i think one of the things that we didn't get into before, neither frank nor i -- we both talked about how illegal policy has not been effective and how we have seen the numbers of illegal immigrants increase dramatically from about four million more than a decade ago to over 10 million or even 11 million. even though we saw somewhat of a drop during the recent recession, i think those recent numbers basically show they stabilized. and really what's happened is when we've increased the border patrol and other assets, it hasn't been totally effective. i think that would be misleading. i think there has been an effect. but really what it's done is raised the cost entry. and by raising the cost entry, what's happened is once people make it across the border, they make a calculation about whether -- do i want to go back and forth like we used -- like

they used to years before or people will used to do years before, worked for a while and then earned some money and go back home. or once i'm here, am i going to stay here? and try to -- because i'm more likely to get caught or there's over 300 deaths a year, trying to cross into the united states. and so what we really did with our policies, inadvertently, of course, is create what used to be much more of a temporary or circular flow and make it much more permanent group of people. and that's why you saw the numbers go from four million, say, up over 10 million. so some of the things you're talking about, i think a number of these people, or these future people, would be much more interested in a legal way to come in, work for a period of time, and then go back. there wouldn't be any benefits attached, you know to this kind of temporary work. i think you'd want to have some portion of them, you'd want to have some way, some portion to

get a permanent status. that would actually keep illegal immigration down as well. you know, people who work out very well for an employer, having a chance to sponsor them in some way. but i think a lot of the issues that people see would go away if you were allowed this sorted of circular flow to go into effect. now, getting congress to do that, i think generally speaking it's been felt that you needed some sort of left-right compromise where the democrats were much more interested in dealing with the people already here. and at least some republicans in the past particularly have been more interested in what do we do about preventing future illegal immigration by having some sort of temporary, you know, visa regime. that's where things, kind of the debate hasn't progressed passed that.

>> [question inaudible] >> that's an interesting question. utah has passed this. there would be a way potentially for the obama administration to allow some of what utah is doing. they could do kind of a wide scale, deferred action, for example in which they basically say we're not going to prosecute people or pursue people who have gone through a certain process. but it certainly would be controversial. >> what do you think? [question inaudible] remember, talking about people who come to study then go back. i'm talking about low-skilled workers. >> there's no question. in fact, stuart has done some of the groundbreaking research on what's now largely discredited program but what he's lifted up is that it worked to have a legal and orderly flow of this country. and what happened is that when it ended, there was no line to get into. and the workers kept coming. because there was still a demand for their labor.

and so the origins of modern, you know -- in our generation, illegal immigration came really with the end of a functioning program that allowed what academics sometimes call sew sojourners. what's interesting is some of them become settlers. they're just different people at different stages. some people make their next egg, start a business back home, perfect. others maybe marry, maybe have a kid, whatever, and they start to settle. but it seems to me we could fashion a policy to accommodate both of those eventualities and do so in a way that would be regulated but at the same time would save the agricultural industry in this country. look, we're going to have a debate about this mandatory e-verify in this congress. it's going to be pushed by republicans. it's literally going to threaten the perishable crop in this country. they re-hire all the time. everyone knows -- i mean, some estimates say 60%. the best estimates i've seen are

90% of the work force in the perishable crop industry are unauthorized workers. so you're talking about you see it in washington, in california. but it's all over. fact is, is that mandatory e-verify for new hires is going to, a -- as said, it's going tod up with us importing food and exporting jobs. and not just the jobs that are filled currently by unauthorized workers but by the three to four jobs that are related in the agricultural industry, usually filled by native-born workers. or legal immigrant workers. so we're talking about whole regions of the country being threatened by a house republican initiative based on the ideology that we can somehow force these people out of the country because anything less than that is going to be called -- branded the a-word. i just think that's very unfortunate. i hope that this debate that's

coming up will lift up the agricultural industry. my friends in the united farmworker union, they started a project -- sorry i'm filibustering here, but i'm so worked up about this. they start a program, started from some of their members. they were so tired of hearing these immigrants are taking our jobs. so a couple of farmworker union members said in spanish, at one of their meetings why don't we invite any american who wants to come take our job to come take it, and we'll train them. and they started a campaign called take our jobs. they had thousands and thousands of inquiries of people -- the website, they promoted it. steven colbert promoted it. they got wide play. all the people who contacted them, seven native-born workers are now doing those jobs. this is tough work. and it's skilled work. and i'm not saying that americans can't do it. they mostly don't want to do

that. it's as much a status thing as a pay thing. pay is $12 to $16 an hour. the living conditions are tough. but my point is, is that we just have to get realistic about the reality. now, we can say, fine, we'll just drive agriculture out of business and out of the country. but i don't know that that's really such a smart -- that is in our economic self-interest or in our security interest. >> thank you. sorry. >> i know there used to be -- i know there was a member of congress that used to go and work a different job in his district on a regular basis. maybe that program could be expanded to agriculture for members of congress to pitch in and help out. >> it wouldn't last today. >> perfect. yes, sir. >> thanks for the presentation. so it sounds like there's a solid base of research and economics showing that immigration is a break even or a marginal benefit i think there's

been with a long series of studies showing the economic benefits and immigration. but it seems like -- my own view is the major block is cultural. it's people's concerns regardless of if it's economically beneficial or not. there's a concern among the american public, which is reflected in the republican party and among some democrats. there's major concern about people from another place crossing in, uncontrolled, and way thatcommunities in people don't feel comfortable with. so i'm just wondering what you thought about that, and that's how you would address that if you're pushing for immigration reform. >> i think that's true, that there is obviously for a very long period of time there's always been these cultural issue. but i do think -- i think more recently i think one of the big dividing lines has been legal versus illegal. and i think the fact -- i don't think people would have the same -- and i don't think they do have the same hostility to

sort of having a system where people who come illegally and work and fill jobs versus now what they see as people coming in illegally, breaking the law. and that's where i think a lot of the hostilities are created. i don't think it's purely that they don't like the look of people. i really think that there's a much -- i've seen some polling data where they've asked, for do you think about illegal immigration? it's a two-to-one negative. and if they ask what about the impact of legal immigrants on the state -- this is in california. it was two or three-to-one positive. so i think the illegal-legal line is really what's happened more recently. maybe as much as. and maybe there's a cultural element that's tied into that. >> i used to think that. but i'm starting to worry about how much culture is influencing

and driving this debate. i'm not talking about, you know, the people who write those awful comments at the end of newspaper articles. you know, the racist screeds that you sometimes read. i think it's much more of a discomfort, a fear. i've been working in this area a long time. when i think about, you know, an eruption over immigration in the early 1990's. and it was kind of at a graphic tipping point. it was just before the graphic tipping point. now that it's passed that demographic tipping point, when you ask in polls, a field poll in california asks, are you in favor of giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship? it's 90%. it's like it's over. but it doesn't surprise me that in arizona where they are getting close to that demographic tipping point, they had an eruption over the last few years, and it's not at all surprising to me that in the new immigrant states of the south,

that they're starting to have their eruption. and i don't want to be that critical of it. i more want to try to understand it. that there's kind of an unconscious, perhaps, but real fear that something's being lost. and this is where suit is right, the evidence is overwhelming. you don't have kids growing up in america in immigrant households, even if their parents don't speak a word of english or never got past the sixth grade saying anything but, oh, god, i'm so embarrassed by my children. want to lose their spanish, for example. and if they keep it, they're lucky because they can talk to their mom and dad. but outside with their friends and with their siblings they speak english. and they are so americanized so quickly. how could you not be in this country? so the reality is not one of cultural separatism, demands for bilingualism, this sort of

ethnic separatist movements of any kind. quite the contrary. assimilation is alive and well. but i think the fear is something that is real. i'm not sure how we address that. the good news is that polling shows that when immigrants first move into an area, the negativity goes up. and over time it goes way down, which suggests that familiarity breeds community rather than contempt. so i actually think that the fact that immigration is now a 50-state phenomenon rather than, say, a 10-city phenomenon as it was a generation ago, suggests that we may go through some very tough times, but that this cultural unease, like so many times in our history, will give way to kind of a sense of community that is not always easy but is often dynamic. >> kind of along the same lines, from what i've looked into, it

seems to me that the problems with the descend cents of illegal immigrants have the exact opposite problem, that the immigrants themselves face. namely that even though their language -- you know, they have great english and all of these kinds of things, there's a lot of problems with high dropout rates and high crime rate among the descend cents of illegal immigrants not among the immigrants themselves. i feel like this is an area that needs to be investigated more. it's somewhat difficult to investigate. but what exactly are their desend yentds doing and how would immigration reform impact the way they grow and live? i don't know if you have any comments specifically on how you think immigration reform to change or adjust to that situation. guess i would just say briefly to the extent that parents are more able to fully participate in society and earn higher wages, that's going to

benefit the kids. >> there's been a significant number of crime study that show that the crime rates are not higher among the immigrants or their kids. there is a socioeconomic lag factor with some groups of immigrants. say latino immigrants in particular. and the question is whether that will -- you know, like italians at the turn of the last century gets involved in, say, three generations rather than one as it often is for some other groups. or not. the evidence -- you know, gregory rodriguez who has looked at this very carefully show that through inner marriage, homeownership, citizenship, english language acquisition, etc., that the indices of assimilation over two to three generations are very promising and very good. but there is that socioeconomic lag that i think raises

questions. you know, are people going to it or not? we're optimistic based on the evidence. but there's a fair number of folks that are still in that first and 1.5 generation. we'll have to see how they turn out. >> my question for mr. sharry. you talked about utah and the model that was used. i wanted to know if that was implemented on a broad scale, what would you recommend to curb unscrupulous businesses from trying to take advantage of undocumented workers? for example, what happened in texas. it's been well documented that a lot of times there are abuse that goes on. some people aren't even paid. >> yeah. well, it's kind of two questions. let me answer your second one first. most employers are decent in america. but there are bottom feeders who undercut them and take advantage of workers. they deliberately seek out immigrants without papers so they can take advantage of. off the books. they don't pay their taxes.

and they undercut their decent competitors. think of two contractors bidding for a piece of work. one pays taxes and decent wage and even benefits. and the other doesn't. and they can underbid the other contractor in a way that's terribly unfair. so we're all for going after bad actor employers. and in the context of reform, we think not only do you want to go after bad actor employers, but you want to reduce illegal hiring through employment verification. but if you do that, which is what, quite frankly, the debate will be about in this congress, if do you this mandatory e-verify, these people don't go home. they go underground. and it makes all the situations worse. less taxes, more unfair competition, more people standing on street corners. more unscrupulous sub contractors, lower wages. and i just think it makes a bad situation worse.

so, yes, going after bad employers, mandate employment verification in the context of comprehensive reform, and make sure the work force is legal and that there's legal channels for people coming in the future. that's the fix that will put immigration on illegal footing. utah, we've been very positive about it. honestly, if congress is going to continue to be paralyzed, i just might say, you know, i agree with president obama on this. we don't want 50-state patch work of different policies. on the other hand, if we have the status quo or worse for the next 20 years, i might change my mind on that. now, you'd need probably authorizing legislation. you know, kind of the welfare reform model of states do have the authority. that happening, quite frankly. and i think any attempt by states is probably going to get gummed up in the courts, whether it's enforcement or the legal channel oriented. but i love that utah had the

guts. a ruby red state to say we're going to do something different. we're going to help with enforcement, help with legal channels in the future, keep families together, and value our workers here without papers. it's a state version of what we want on the federal version. and i think it was a real -- at very least, it is a very strong message to both parties that your inaction to washington is going to lead to more of this unless you get off your, you know. >> one thing that would address what you're talking about in terms of exploitation is it's not -- it's not in this paper but i have a book on immigration where there's a part talking about one of the solutions is to have a u.s.-mexico, like, bilateral agreement where essentially in exchange for mexico giving help on enforcement at the border, u.s. would set up a system of work permits, setting a annual total. and those work permits would be

fully portable. so if someone had a work permit that allowed them to work pretty much in any type of job, they would have pretty similar labor rights that the rest of us have. and that's really one of the best guardians of not being exploited. and if you don't like where you're working, you can work somewhere else. >> i'm from the state of arizona. but i go to school in utah. so i have perspective from both places. you talked about going forward, especially national immigration reform. but from a lot of people i've spoken to in arizona, they recigarette even those who supported immigration reform what they have done. what do you think arizona should do now as a state rather than wait for the national status quo? >> i'll let you take that. >> happy to tell arizona what to do since i've been telling it where to go for the last two years. no. you know, i thought it was very

interesting this year that the hardliners in the state led by the head of the state senator, a man named russell pierce, came up with a new package of really tough, anti-immigration laws. and what happened is that the business community stood up and said, are you crazy? 60c.e.o.'s in the state wrote to republican legislator and said, haven't we done enough to hurt our state? please cease and desist. and they did. it was a remarkable turn about. because the economic impact to arizona has been quite severe. the loss of tourism and convention dollars has been estimated as much as $140 million over the past year. i think arizona was helped. i know it was uncontroversial and unpopular. helped by the judicial decisions stopping most of it from going into effect. i think had it gone into effect, the impact on arizona's reputation would have been

worse. i do think at some point it would be wonderful if arizona would repeal its law. but i don't expect that to happen. i think the courts will continue to stop most of the arizona law from going into effect. i think it will stop other states who are looking at copycats. they do it like georgia has. i sure wish that this furment at the state level would somehow members of congress to get in the game. in utah, for example, where you go to school, they have two senators, mike lee and orrin hatch. orrin hatch used to be one our heros on immigration. he was the co-author of the dream act. and he voted against it last year. why? he's scared about the fact that he's got a tough primary season coming up. and he saw what happened to his colleague, bob bennette. the mormon church, l.d.s., is now advocating quite strongly for senator lee, a new senator, for senator lee, a new senator, to get in