a new statement onyber warfare policy. since you have given great thought to these questions, how might you suggest we da the war powers resolution to reflect the reality of modern warfare, one in which many of the factors cited by your edecessor could not have anticipated and reflect some of the points raised by center webb, or the threat of escalation mig be limited and the very real understanding of hostilities would be if engaged in war. that's my main concern of the strained and narrow reading of hostilities we have in front of us today. how would you updated to take account of these modern developments in the war capabilities of our nation? >> thank you, senator, and i appreciate your thoughtful remarks.

the number one, if we are concerned about unmanned uses of weapons that can deliver huge volumes of violence, festive a -- a statute that deals with the introduction armed forces does not deal with that situation. at times the war powers act passed, they were not -- or think about vietnam. they were not thinking about drones or cyber attacks. to change the law to reflect the modern realities of conflict. second, the war powers resolution functions in a way to promote dialogue by a deadline. while it is unclear what triggers the deadline and where the state of affairs is supposed to trigger the deadline is deliberately vague.

it puts the congress and president in a position -- to decide if the urgency of the deadline actually promotes a dialogue -- in a book i wrote a number of years ago, i address that by saying you could have a statute that directly requires dialogue between congress and the executive branch. particularly a group of senior leaders of congress. the bill was discussed for a long time. a very distinguished commission led by jim baker, warren christopher who had been passed away, and lee hamilton proposed another way to consider the question. as much as any of you, i agree

this is not a mathematical calculating aren't -- calculating machine. it requires judgment. therefore, it's important to try to direct -- try to get away from false metrics toward things that reflected judgments made through inter-branch dialogue. i think the process here is putting us to the question, if the legal issue is resolved one way or another, the choice remains what to do about the civilians in libya. did the 1973 congress intend they be left unptected after

60 days or did they not think about this situation? this goes back to the major structural flaw of the war powers resolution has been a requires an automatic termination after 60 days without congress making a specific and judgment as to whether this is a case they like to authorize force or not. you cannot run these kinds of things by autopilot. it has to be done through judgment, belittle judgment of the kind you exercise every day. >> if that particular provision in the act, one that compels an action through the inaction of this said that may seems to have reflected the inclination toward -- one other question i would like to get to is the on the question of expropriating funds or taking funds of the

regime with which we have suspended relations but where we have not yet recognize -- what is the -- where the foreign- policy implications. the council to serve with me identified a provision of the patriot act with which was previously unfamiliathat claims it's illegal for the united states -- what if any tensions d.c. with the war powers resolution and patriot act and what of the challenges we might be raising in the future given the likelihood we are going to proceed to expropriate and reallocate funds that are legally controlled by muammar gaddafi's regime. >> that's an excellent question. the legislation that has been proposed is designed to dress the question precisely because

under the internaonal emergency economic powers act was designed as a freeze, not sees. -- not sieze. you could proceed under which describe for vesting. there is still the question of international law about investing because expropriations, as you know, from the cuban examples, raise questions of international chlenge. i think the best approach is to enact a vesting legislation which i think, instead of putting into a past historical frame, is a specific application of congressional judgment to deal with this situation before you now which calls for some consideration of how to get resources to the tnc and the

people of libya. >> thank you for your testimony and i look forward to working with you on these issues. >> thank you. i have been watching from afar on the tv broadcast and i am intrigued by the creed of explanations we have had here today. i want to give you a quote from then senator obama in december of 2007. he said the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorizing military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. i have heard the discussion of that. is that still his position? >> the key word is military attack. is that from "the boston globe?" >> this was not just one

publication. may have originated there. how many angels can dance on the head of the pen when you're talking about military air attack or is it a hostility -- it seems to me he was clear in this statement. is this still his position? >> as i am understand it, there was a sers of questions posed to various candidates and answered by their campaigns. my own view of that phrase -- that was not involved with the campaign, is that it is an overly ltd. statement of the president's constitutional authorities. i think instead of military attack, if it said make war, that would be a correct statement of law. >> this is all the same thing, isn't it? >> make war has specific meaning under the constitution. >> are we making war on libya? >> we are not.

not for purposes of the constitution. i said that in my testimony. >> is this or is this not the president's position at this time? >> the position of the president with regard to this action is set forth in my testimony. >> can you give me a yes or n? is this or is this not the president's position at this time? >> i did not hear it clearly enough. >> "the president does not have power under the constitutional -- and the constitution to unilaterally opt rise in a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping a national imminent thre to the nation." >> i do not think that is legally correct. >> i'm not asking about legally correct. is this or is this not the president's position today? >> i have not asked, but i would be surprised because i do not believe it to be legally

correct. >> i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about the president of the united states. is this or is this not his position today? >> i do not know. i have not asked him that question. i do believe the same rules applies to presiden of both parties and i believe the general understanding of the constitutional structure would be that is too limited a statement for whoever is president. >> as you know, president obama's press the -- predecessor, for every conflict that occurred under his watch, he came to congress and ask for authorization. you are aware of that, of course. >> president george w. bush came with regard to 9/1 the authorization of military -- authorization of use of military force with the respect to the taliban and al qaeda and he came with regard in iraq.

>> notwithstanding these other explanation than arguments, don't you agree with me that would be a really gooddea to come to congress and ask for that authorization under the circumstances? >> my understanding is the administration has, going back to march 23rd, expressed it wod welcome this support. it has also taken the position from the beginning acting consistently with the war powers resolution. i think you are putting your finger and the important question, which is the debate over a lot can go on forever. but there is an important and urgent question which is what happens to t civilians of libya. that's a decision that can be made by this body, this committee and then by the senate as a whole. >> you can go bond that. you talked about the citizens of libya, but we have a serious situation in syria right now.

the syrians are not even armed and they're being attacked by their government. verses libya, where there is actually armed conflict going on. you would agree with that, correct? >> senator, this is an exciting time at the state department. what can i say? there's only one of these countries with respect to the un security council and nato mission with this level of detail and this kind of design role. the analysis we are describing applies to the libyan situation. >> my point is that it deserves a debate the american people can hear. is that fair enough? >> the more dialogue and debate on these matters of life and death, the better for all of us. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing today. we appreciate you being here. i think i am last.

hopefully there's not too much additional time yowill be required. it was recently reported the u.s. admiral in charge of native statedoperations command a -- and i'm not stating this exactly -- he said the removal of the chain of command is consistent with the justification to protect citizens. do you believe that statement is consistent with the un security council resolution and native troops, if they are actively seeking to topple muammar gaddafi that that is consistent with the resolution? >> the un resolution calls for the protection of civilians in civilian populated areas. native does not target individuals. they have made it clear they are not targeting individuals.

earlier, i think it may have been before you came in, i pointed out there was a report and admiral had made a comment about the real mission being to target khaddafi. -- to target gaddafi. that is not the rules of engagement they are falling. >> to follow that a little further, how would you differentiate between degrading the regime's ability to attack civilians and actively targeting muammar gaddafi himself? is there a line there you can draw or -- >> most of that -- most of it is focused in the operational terms, centered on the destruction of equipment. radar, and-aircraft, which can

be mounted on fixed and mobile devices. the targeting has been directed at that command-and-control. i note in my own testimony that his own forces rules of engagement seem to authorize them to indiscriminately attack civilians and therefore, if they have the apparatus by which they can do that, large numbers of civilians would be killed and we would not be serving our mission, wch is to protect the civilians in the civian- populated areas. with regard to be targeting of leaders, i thi the important point to emphasize from the beginning has been this is a multi-tool operation involving diplomacy, development, asset freezes, and a unanimous

referral of this to the international criminal courts and the arrest warrants were issued yesterday. as was the case with slub on milosevic, hey -- sloboda sloan dan moles vitch mills vitch the transitional national council. what the thinking is of the justice department relative to recognizing the tnc formally.

if we were do that, does this have an impact on our policy, our legal policies with respect to libya? for example, how we would deal with any assets? >> senator, international law focuses on the question of recognition, and recognition tends to follow facts on the ground. as a general rule, we are reluctant to recognize entities that do not control entire countries because then they are responsible for parts of the country that they do not control. we are reluctant to recognize leaders that control parts of the country because then you are absolving them for parts of the country that they do control. recognition is not the onl

tool. there are ways to acknowledge that a particular entity is an illegitimate entity of the people. that will obviously and then go to the question ultimately of the extent to which the various assets can be available to the new libya as opposed to muammar gaddafi's old regime. >> with respect to those frozen assets, -- how are we dealing with those assets and the tnc? are there any restrictions that we have put in place about how they can be used by the tnc either now or should the tnc gain control of the country? >> a proposal to try to address

the question -- meanwhile, at their regular meetingsttended by the secretary in which other countries have made it available to their resources to the tnc bank accounts, etc., so the process of supporting the tnc is a long term process that reires close cooperation among allies. >> the access to the bank accounts that you refer to it -- are those bank accounts that would be considered to be part of the frozen assets? >> well, it is always a complicated situation when bank accounts are held by one regime but they appear to be for the purpose of a broader group of individuals. senator luger faced this issue in the philippines. exactly a sorting out who is entitled to gain access to the

frozen resources is an exercise in which we are actively gaged. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. we are running up against a couple of time conflicts. there is going to be a vote, perhaps several votes, around 12:10. so we are going to excuse you at this point in time to your chagrin and everlasting sorrow, i know. we are going to try to get both of our scholars to be able to get through their opening testimonies and then you can begin if you want to collect your papers and we can try to transition as seamlessly as we can. i want to say to both of our members of panel two -- first of

all, i apologize to the committee for the length of time that the first panel took. this is obviously an important topic and we do not want to give short change to your testimony. what we would like to do is kick your testimony on the record following -- one of you is in philadelphia and one is in nearby, if we could and need to call you back in order to do this perhaps after the break and finish it and leading off with your panel. we wld like to do that unless the senate floor process cooperate in a way that lets people get back here after t vote. we will not know that until we know what happens on the floor. we would lik for you to come to the table now. thank you for coming up today and being a part of this discussion.

it is a very >> the senate foreign relations committee later marked up legislation introduced by senators john kerry and john mccain authorizing u.s. military action for one year, barring ground forces except in rare cases. last week the house voted not to authorize the libyan intervention. this is 1:15.

>> i think he clarified the legal position and the reasoning for some of the administration's approach to this. it may not have satisfied everybody, but i think it was clarified. this is the important thing. i would say this to all my colleagues. i know there are colleagues here who believe that the communication could have been better, that the process could have been handled better. the senator is probably correct that we heard at the last minute about what a particular rationale was with respect to the constitutional grounding. i think we can agree that we are where we are. i would like, if we can, to stay as focused and as disciplined as possible in trying to figure out so what is the best way forward. how do we sort of go from where

we are now? i think there were powerful reasons for the united states to join with others in creating a no-fly zone and forcing colonel gaddafi to keep his most powerful, potent and dangerous weapons out of the fight. if we slice through the fog of this information and weigh that alongside our values and interests, which are always at stake, i think the argument can be made that the rationale for beal there is compelling. i will reserve comments as we go forward with respect to the amendments. but i do really think the question of the day is a fairly fundamental one. do we at this particular moment, when muammar gaddafi is bunkered down in tripoli, when yesterday the international criminal court issued an arrest

warrant for him for crimes against humanity, where there was a nato mission aimed at stopping such atrocities. do we really want to stop that operation? that is what it comes down to. there have been some very good amendments, that we can work through, that can help to refine some of the arguments and some of the limits. i think that is healthy, and i look forward to that. so i personal believe that the passage of this resolution can be an important step and will certainly be heard by the rest of the world. i want to emphasize that to the members of the committee. what we are doing here today is not of small consequence, and i have always said to the members, and i think you know this, that we are strongest as a country, and we advance our interests most effectively when

we can find the common ground. i hope we can find that common ground in the course of our deliberations now. so the joint resolution has three critical elements. first it author ruizes -- authorizes the president to continue the limited use of armed forces in support of the united states national security policy interests. it secondly provides the authority and expires one year after enactment of this resolution. thirdly, it clearly states that congress does not support and will not support sending ground troops into libya. i look forward to the amendments and the debate. senator luger, i think you have some proposals. >> i have a short opening comment prior to that. today the committee will consider programs the most

important question within its jurisdiction, whether to authorize the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is still engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq, and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states' vital interest in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and our over-the-horizon technology is to potent that the use of a military instrument to right wrongs is a temptation for american presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as an assessment of our interests or a debate in congress. given all this debate, pakistan, iran, egypt, syria and elsewhere in the islamic

world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american forces there. it is an expensive diversion that makes it hard tore respond to other contingency. it is our responsibility to determine whether we should be a party to libya's civil war. as a part of this process, we will consider the terms and scope of the joint resolution before us today. i am concerned this resolution would provide broad authorities, permitting significant expansion of the united states military involvement in libya's civil war. the resolution would authorize the president to re-escalate the united states involvement in libya to and potentially beyond the lead role it played at the beginning of the operation when the united states carried out intensive air strikes on a daily basis. the resolution would only limit the president to actions in

support of united states national security policy interests, and to force the united nations -- to enforce the united nations security council resolution. this would accommodate the military action that is currently occurring. the resolution contains no legally binding prohibition on the introduction of american troops in libya. it addresses this issue only through non--binding language only in that congress does not support ground troops. the administration says it has no plans to introduce troops into libya. strong majorities of the house and congress oppose ground forces there. the american people do not want ground troops there. i see no reason why this prohibition should not be binding. it fails to counteract the president's assertion that

current u.s. operations do not amount to hostilities and therefore do not require something under the war powers resolution. the resolution also lacks sufficient provision for congressional oversight of the operations, their costs, their potential impanth on other u.s. national security objectives. i have offered five amendment to address these concerns that have been circulated to all members. they have. second, establish a legally binding prohibition on the deployment of ground forces. third, specify the war powers resolution applies to current u.s. military operations in libya and that continuation of these operations would require

congressional eighthization. fourth, require specific reports on the libya operations on strict deadlines, and express the sense of the conscience that post war reconstruction costs should be borne prirme aerial did not primarily by the -- primarily by the libyan people. i would like to be a company sponsor to the amendment. i welcome the opportunity to make this statement. >> senator, thank you. you have served on this committee longer than i have. i am always pleased to be able to work with you on these issues, and i am grateful to you for the cooperation we get in doing so. i believe there is -- and i think you for the contribution of these amendments. i think they have been very important. i think there is broad consensus on four of your five

amendments, potentially with some second degree amendments. and so what i would like to do is save the amendments on libyan assets if we can to be considered at the end of the business meeting. but if we start with lugar amendment number one, rorg approval of conscience on stabilization costs, i am not aware of any second degree amendment. senator, lugar, if you want to speak to the amendment, please do. >> it would provide such costs should be borne eye primarily by the libyan people and the arab league countries which requested military intervention in libya. the president has emphasized the

>> i will support your amendment. i think it is a good one. is there any further debate on the amendment? if not, all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted you man nussly. your second amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> senator corker. >> it was my understanding that because of the nature of my amendment number 10, at this point it was going to go and then lugar number two because they are related. the outcome of one affects the outcome of the other. both sides had agreed to that

was my understanding. >> senator lugar, if that is all right with you, we don't have any problem with that. >> that's fine. >> i am proposing corker number 10 -- >> what is this? >> we had an interesting hearing today. a number of people on our committee were here to be a part of that hearing. on june 15th something very interesting happened, and that was that the president sent over a letter stating that we were not involved in hostilities in libya. i think people on both sides of the aisle have thought that was not the case, or at least the vast majority of people have

thought, i think in the senate, that when you are involved in bombing military installations, that that fact is hostilities. my concern, which i expressed earlier, is the precedent that this sets. the president has said that he believes that the war powers act is constitutional. but then what he has done is chosen to define hostilities in a way that is very different than it was reported out of congress in 1973. so what this menment seeks to do is to say that the president , within 30 days can either state he believes the war powers act to be uncushion ath -- unconstitutional. me presidents have done that. or he can state that he believes the war powers act is

constitutional and we are in fact involved in hostilities. if we allow this war to go ahead as it is, and allow the president to be able to define what hostilities are, what that does, whether it is a republican president or a democratic president -- and candidly i think democrats worry more about republican presidents from time to time -- what that would do is allow a president in the future by his own definition to decide what hostilities are, and therefore, to not consult with congress on this issue. so all this does is cause the president to state clearly one way or another. we are either involved in hostilities, or he doesn't believe the war powers act to be constitutional. and i believe without this clarification, what has happened -- and i think it has happened in shock to many. what we are doing is setting a dangerous precedent for all presidents regardless of which side of the aisle they are on,

and you would urge support for this amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> senator durbin? >> please go ahe. i will follow you. >> let me try to describe for colleagues why i think senator lugar's amendment, which i will support, addresses this question but without creating a dilemma that frankly the administration simply can't resolve. in the testimony today, many of you were here and heard it. some of you were not able to be here, but the legal advisor, harold koh, said the following. because the war powers resolution represented a broad compromise between competing views on the proper division of constitutional authorities, the question of whether a particular set of facts

constitutes hostilities for the purposes of the resolution has been determined more by interbranch practice than by a narrow parsing of dictionary deaf nations. both branches recognize that different situations may call for different responses. specifically he pointed to how, under president forward -- president ford, when this question came up, lee and hoffman, the folks working then on the issue said the term should not be read to include situations where the nature of the mission is limited, situations that do not involve full military engagements, with which the war powers act was principally concerned. where the exposure of u.s. forces is limited, i.e., sporadic or paramilitary

attacks on our forces. and where the risk is therefore limited, and it goes on. now it is clear that for 40 years there has been a struggle over this question of when do or don't you consider that armed forces are actually introduced, which is the language of the war powers resolution, into hostilities. i would say to my friend that senator lugar's amendment does -- it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization under the war powers resolution. and as such, it is our determination that we are in hostilities per se, because he adopts that it is under the war powers. but under senator corker's amendment, he requires something further. he requires a certification

from the president that, one, the president either deems the war powers resolution to be constitutional and acknowledges that hostilities or occurring, or the president deems to be the war powers resolution to be unconstitutional. the problem is the president has made it clear through his legal advisor and other statements that they don't believe either. you can't pass something that requires the president to certify something he doesn't believe when we are already adequately placing the power of the congress to declare that this fits the war powers act and fits hostilities. our decoration is what matters, not requiring something further from the president. senator durbin? >> thank you, mr. chairman. it bears repeating how we got to the war powers act offer the veto of president nicks.

congress decided the president's opinion of constitution a lot not withstanding, they overroad his -- overrode his veto. there is no question that presidents as commanders in chief don't necessarily want to wait on congress, and they are worried about what might happen if congress has to decide issues of national security. last week in the house of representatives they made a dog's breakfast out of the war powers act and our situation in libya. they refused to authorize the activity and then refused to defund the activity. you can understand why commanders in chief usually ask congress just to get out of the way when it comes to national security when the house reaches a conclusion like that. i would say, with all due respect, mr. corker, the president's opinion on the

constitution a lot of this is irrelevant. we have established it as the law of the land, and we are enforcing it. we are saying this fits under the war powers act. these are hostilities under the war powers act. should the president defy us, i would say this goes to another branch of the government. the judicial branch. we passed the law over the president's veto, and the constitution a lot i don't think is relevant at this point. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i feel very strongly that the war powers act has been triggered and that the president had obligation to come for authorization, and we had obligation to deal with this by resolution. i am going to support senator lugar's amendment because i think that clarifies the issue and makes it clear that the war

powers act was triggered, and the president should respect that. i don't think we can by legislation resolve the conflict between the executive and legislative branch on this. i just don't think we can do. there may be other options that the president believes other than the two that senator corker has listed in his options. i think senator corker, what he is trying to do is make it crystal clear about the war powers, but i don't think we can by legislation resolve this issue. maybe we want to revisit the war powers act. but this resolution dealing with the libyan situation, we make it clear that the war powers act has been triggered, and i think senator lugar's amendment makes it stronger, and i will support it. but i think your amendment takes it in a direction that is not appropriate for us to do. >> i would add -- and i neglected to mention this. but senator lugar's amendment

in paragraph b, page two, specifically states that our actions, and he twines what they are, in fact coons taught hostility -- constitutes hostilities. >> so i have accomplished what i wanted to accomplish. i think that the administration has been cute in their response , and i think it has created a mini firestorm in congress by being cute, one tick too cute in their response about whether we have hostilities ongoing or not. i realize the vote will be against, and especially in light of the fact that senator lugar has clarified this. that is why i wanted to go in advance of him. but i do want to say one more time that i think a precedent

is being set here where a president by himself can decide what hostilities are or aren't. my sense is if we let it stand as it is, we are going to have some other issues to deal with down the road that are going to be very much in conflict. so i will withdraw the amendment. >> well, senator corker, as i said earlier today, i have great respect for your contribution to the committee and your participation here and thoughts on it. i think that history has shown that this question of hostilities is not necessarily one of cuteness. it is one of judgment, and particularly where the particular categories fall the way they do. i would ask simply that this record of this deliberation reflect the testimony of legal

advisor harold koh. i would put that in the record at this point in time so that is clear for people who study these issues. that said, is there any further debate on this amendment? senator coons? >> procedurally, are we at lugar two? >> corker withdrew. >> procedurally, for us trying to follow the flow of the argument, what i took from the dialogue back and forth is that many of us agree that it is important to clarify whether or not the interpretation of hostilities being proffered is one that we accept. the lugar amendment, lugar two, strongly disagrees with that and suggests we are engaged in hostilities, and the war powers act is triggered. i respectfully agree that the best path forward is for us to

assert the act. there are important questions of precedent that have been raised about cyberwar, drones, and remote attacks that are worth our consideration after today's deliberation. >> well, senator, i agree with you completely. i think all of us are going to need to spend some time at some point dealing with this issue on the war powers act and figure out what remote warfare, cyberdrones and whatever are going to trigger. that has been a healthy contribution. with that in mind, the procedure would be first to vote on the corker amendment. >> i didn't hear. i apologize. in that case then the pending amendment is the lugar mend number -- amendment number two.

further debate? >> i intend to support the amendment and state that while i do support it, i continue to have the questions about the constitution a lot of the war powers resolution. >> we will then vote on lugar number two. in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. >> let the record reflect that i voted no on this. >> the will muschamp so reflect, and we now go to lugar number three. >> the purpose of this amendment is to establish a legally binding prohibition on the use of appropriated funds to deploy u.s. ground forces in libya. the kerry-mccain resolution allows for uncertainty on this

point. it contains language that congress does not support the deployment of ground troops, but this language is non--binding, and it would leave open the possibility the president would rely on the authorization taped in the resolution to deploy ground troops. given that vital u.s. interests are not in libya, and we are already in iran and iraq and afghanistan, the ground troops are not indicated. if he wanted to in the future, he would still have the option of coming to congress to seek authorization for such a deployment. such a future authorization would override the prohibition contained in my amendment. senator boxer has asked that she be added as a co-sponsor of this amendment, and i asked that she be so added. >> without objection.

>> senator webb has proposed some modifications to my amendment of which i am supportive. it was expand my amendment to prohibit the troops for post conflict roles such as peacekeeping. and prevent the united states from deploying private contractors on the ground in libya. i appreciate these additions to my amendment, and i ask you to support the amendment and second degree amendment. >> it is my understanding there are two second degree amendment, but before that, senator boxer wants to be heard. >> i thank the senator for the amendment. a few of us went down to the floor and had a good colloquy on senator kerry on this. he was very direct. he said there is nothing in the underlying bill that authorizes the use of ground troops, but

there is nothing that prohibits the use of ground troops. this amendment is very appropriate, and i am glad senator kerry is supporting it. i am supportive of what senator webb is trying to do here, which is not to allow ground troops in any peacekeeping force and some other operations. i want to make sure, if i could , through the chair, ask senator webb if his amendment would preclude any type of funding for others to do the peacekeeping work, or is it just aimed at boots on the ground? >> it would not. if the chair would allow, maybe i should explain what the second degree amendment does. >> go ahead. >> the purpose of this amendment is to provide some clarifications to the original amendment that senator lugar offered. i appreciate him offering it.

it basically states that no funds should be obligated or expanded for deploying yoopts or members of the armed -- units or armed forces on the ground in libya for purposes of engaging in combat or peacekeeping operations following removal of the gaddafi regime. there have been discussions on what it really means saying no boots on the ground. there have been votes to prohibit boots on the question. but there has been no answer to the question of avocado if i -- gaddafi falls, what do we do. this language says no members for the purposes of supporting the stabilization operations, not funds.

what this amendment also does is to say that there shouldn't be contracts for private security contractors to do those sorts of things. but then it lists two important exceptions. one is for the immediate defense of united states officials or for rescuing members of nato forces. and then in an attempt to separate what we are doing now from what is going to happen after the gaddafi regime inevitably does leave, it says if the president determines and certifies to the congress that action is necessary, then he can come to the congress and ask for legislation to be enacted specifically authorizing any further operations. this allows us to clarify what this debate is about and allows the administration to come back to us if they have a different look at things in the future. we can't really predict what is going to happen in the coming months. again, i very much appreciate

senator lugar's co-sponsorship of this second degree amendment. >> there are some issues that are raised by virtue of that, and i will raise them in a moment, but i want other colleagues to have a chance. senator coons. >> senator webb, if he could clarify, your understanding of the impact of your amendment, would it prohibit united states funds being used in multi-lateral peacekeeping? >> it would not prohibit funds. it prohibits funds for units, members or private security contractors to do those functions. >> if i could interrupt here for a second. unfortunately, that is not the way the language would be interpreted the way it is written. i would be happy to try to work with you, but it specifically prohibits funds from being used

for the purposes of supporting stabilization or international peacekeeping operations. that could be interpreted to mean that even our contribution to the united nations could not necessarily be spent with respect to peacekeeping. it is frankly just too broad. now if there is a way to try to narrow that, i would be happy to try to work with you. i understand exactly what you are trying to do, but i also think we ought to keep our eye on the ball here. what we are trying to do is come up with a clear and specific authorization with respect to the armed forces. i think if we start reaching too far here and try and think of every possible scenario post-gaddafi, we might wind up tying ourselves in knots sometimes just trying to reach too far. i do think your effort on

contractors ought to be part of that, and i would be prepared for accept that. i think that makes sense, and it ought to be part of what is potentially boots on the ground and the military operation. but if we go so far as to say no funds can be spent with regard to stabilization, that could be economic development. >> we sat down with someone who spent four years drafting legislation in an earlier life. it says no funds for deploying units or members for those purposes. it doesn't say no funds for the purposes. now if somebody wants to put a further clarification in there -- that is the way that statute would be read. >> would you accept perhaps, as a modifications change the word supporting to participating in?

>> i wouldn't have a problem with that. >> is there an objection to modifying the webb amendment to that effect? >> if there isn't, we would consider it so modified, and we would take them again in the order we need to here. which is second degree is the first. it is the corker second degree? >> webb second degree. >> if webb's is accepted, mine would not be relevant. it was slightly narrower. you had questions as to whether you were going to accept webb before he came into the meeting. now that you are, that makes mine not necessary. >> i did. i was prepared to -- as long as we were able to revise it with respect to that president -- support, and we have so revised it. so i would be prepared to accept it. any further debate? >> i don't want to put a fly in the ointment, but i do have a

question to mr. webb and mr. lugar. in reading this last night, the thought occurred to me about the deployment of the seal team or a special operation that became necessary. is the exception in y'all's opinion -- that is a southern term for both of you. [laughter] is it y'all's opinion that the security of american personnel or the rescue of nato forces could be construed broad enough that you could deploy a seal team for a targeted mission and bring them out, or would they have to come to congress for approval of that? >> it would be my reading of this amendment -- and also there are no terminologies in this amendment that address national command authority. >> so the answer is that restriction wouldn't exist by virtue of this language? >> in my reading of it, it would not. that wasn't the intention. >> it would be the same for you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> can you just clarify the change in language that you are looking for? senator webb's amendment? >> the change of language is in line two, page two of webb amendment -- the fourth word, supporting, would be changed to read participating in. >> senator durbin. >> i am sorry to belabor this, but i was surprised at senator webb's answer. i thought he was precluding the deployment of american troops except in the specific instances of american rescue. his answer was you could send a seal team in under national command thought, which suggests to me that the president could send in more than a seal team under national command

authority. could senator webb clarify that? >> it was not the intention of this amendment to address that part of our national security. >> could i suggest this so that we don't step in any holes we don't mean to step into? that we temporarily set aside this amendment and that we have staff from both senator webb and myself staff get together just to make sure, and any staff that would like to, go in the back room and make sure we are in agreement as to the meaning of the language. then we can come back and deal with senator lugar's amendment. host: scott paul, the executive

director for the alliance for american manufacturing. the manufacturing initiative. what did you make of it? guest: it is a good step. we are playing catch-up on partnerships like that to spur on manufacturing. one of the barriers that manufacturing firms have is bringing new technology to the factory floor. that is a perfectly appropriate role for the federal government. something that a lot of governments do. we used to do it in the 1980's, and before that, we have a long history of it. i think it is a welcome,

necessary step. we need to do more to make our manufacturing sector more competitive, but it is depilate a step in the right direction, will keep good paying manufacturing jobs in the united states. host: the president said, i am calling on all sectors to come together to help our manufacturing develop the cutting edge tools they need to compete with anyone in the world. you say we are playing catch-up. should we focus more on high tech and new innovative technologies, should we focus on dumping more rudimentary at first? guest: the line between high tech and traditional is blurred. when you look at your average steel well, it is -- steel mill, it is completely different. workers are in air-conditioned pulpits, using laser-guided

instruments. manufacturing is far more advanced than it used to be. the president will be showing that today at alcoa. a very traditional metals manufacturer, but they are also high tech. high tech. there is this high tech sector out there, circuit boards, optical electronics. we did not care where the production occurred. as a result, we got left behind on a lot of the latest and greatest invention in robotics. having an approach that involves academic institutions, manufacturers, as well as the federal government, to provide the glue for it, will be beneficial for firms across the manufacturing spectrum, from the small mom-and-pop, to the large multinationals. host: scott paul, the founding

director for the alliance for american manufacturing. you can join the conversation. republicans, 202-624-1115. democrats, 202-624-1111. independents, 202-624-0760. we are on e-mail at journal@c- span.org and on twitter, twitter.com/cspanwj. twitter.com/cspanwj. let us talk about what has happened over the past couple of months. shownacturing jobs have sai some growth. guest: of a lot of manufacturing has done well. we have seen a huge rebound. 250,000 manufacturing jobs created over the last 15 months. manufacturing has created about two-thirds of the gdp growth

advance that we have seen since the recession began. productivity is high. this is actually the biggest winning streak we have seen in manufacturing since the 1990's, with one of the best outlooks we have had in the last 40 years. that said, we have also lost all lot of ground in the last decade and are not where we need to be, in terms of capacity utilization, how busy our factories are, industrial production, and certainly, employment. we lost five and a half million manufacturing jobs. we have gained 250,000 back, but we have a long way to go to get back to a really healthy manufacturing base. host: what do you see as the role of science and education?

many companies are looking to foreigners to get the skills that they need. guest: there is some truth to that. up and down the jobs scale at manufacturing firms, there is a difficulty recruiting young people to get involved on the factory floor, technical jobs, with research and development, and also on the financing and. they have found more lucrative options in wall street or other places. the infrastructure has not been there for young people who want technical training. we have been focused on other professions in services, financing, health care. i think manufacturing has severed a bit as a result of that. i think it is a good thing to trained scientists and engineers. i think it is also a good thing to train technical workers on the factory floor. i think that we would see

benefits from that down the road. again, we are playing catch-up compared to other industrialized countries with respect to that. host: taking a look at some graphics about production. you can see that number tanking down, but it has shown signs of life in recent months. up 158,000 jobs from one year ago. donald, democratic line. st. louis, missouri. caller: good morning. i think the government is responsible for the auto workers, or keeping their job.

other countries, the government helps companies come up with new technology and other things. we are the only country where we are always crying about what the government does for gm, chrysler. the government is doing it for gm, chrysler, and the people. guest: you are exactly right. we have an aversion to any sort of government intervention in the manufacturing sector. it does not mean the government will be running a factory. that is the last thing we want to do. if you look at successful manufacturing countries, they do provide support for both business and labor, in making them more competitive, and they do it in a couple of ways. they provide help for research and development. they provide help in emergencies.

they help with skills and training. there is a lot of collaboration. they also provide a level playing field for the manufacturing sectors. as a result, a country like germany, where wages are $40 an hour, compared to $23 in the u.s., is highly competitive they have more of their manufacturing sector in the gdp. i am not saying we need to be germany, but we can draw from those examples and have a strong manufacturing sector. host: next phone call from virginia. caller: i think there would be a huge market for good, small, quality and appliances. a new toaster one every tw

every two years because the components do not last. guest: it is a good point. what we are seeing -- and this gives me hope -- a made in america premium. manufacturers are finding their goods that are made in america are selling 30% better than the imported version. i do not know if you caught this, or if others did, but on abc news, at the end of february, they spend a family -- they spent some time with a family in dallas, texas. they replaced every item in their home with made in america products, and they were able to replace everything except their television and cell phone. a lot of these were great products at a comparable price. it is just hard to find at the big box stores.

they have this supply philosophy where they want to get this stuff from china. made in america is back, growing, and i think it will be catching on in the months to come. host: let us listen to some comments the president made at carnegie-mellon university in pittsburgh, talking about the government and private-sector coming together. >> if we want a robust, growing economy, we need a robust, growing manufacturing sector. that is why we called the auto sector, if they were willing to adapt, we would stand by them. today, they are profitable, creating jobs, and everything taxpayers ahead of schedule. -- and repaying taxpayers ahead of schedule. that is why we have launched a partnership to retrain workers

with new skills. that is why we have invested in wind turbines, solar panels, and advanced batteries. we have not run out of stuff to make. we just have to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector so that it leads the world, the way it always has, from paper to steal, to new cars, to new products we have not even dreamed up yet. that is how we are going to spark new industry. that is how we are going to grow the middle class and securing our economic leadership. host: our guest is scott paul, executive director for alliance for american manufacturing. carl, democrat's line. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. my main concern, not just the

manufacturing sector, most potential employers refuse to employ somebody with bad credit. the economy is bad. of course, they are going to find difficulty paying their bills. everything is being challenged through the credit bureau. each and every employer that i have gone to since june 2009, i have gone too numerous have gone too numerous interviews -- to numerous

interviews. even the headhunters are requiring a credit check. guest: it is a problem that a lot of americans are having right now. we still have 9.1% unemployment, when you add in people who have given up. when you add that back in, it inches up to 16%. there are a lot of people in your position. we found, in this economy, the longer you go without a job, the harder it is to get back into the job market. it is a shame because there is a lot of wasted human potential, a skill set that we can bring to places, like the factory floor. we need to harness that. that is one of the great things about manufacturing. it is a good job, pays a good wage, and provides more bang for the but for the economy.

it spins off other jobs and there is more cash in the workers and to spend. that is why i am so confident in the manufacturing sector. host: a viewer writres -- guest: absolutely. the u.s. is dependent on other countries for some of our key defense needs. the department of defense, when you go down its supply chain, they do not know the source of where things are coming from. it is a frightening prospect. we build our first manufacturing strategy in this country in 1791. alexander hamilton created this and did a report to congress on manufacturing in the united states. the impetus for it was he did not want us to depend on the french for our naval vessels. so we put in place a set of

policies to grow manufacturing, have an industrial base, and that is a policy we maintained until the end of world war ii. until then, we did not have any rivals, and we were able to coast for a couple of decades, but then germany, japan got competitive. we still did not have a strategy. mexico and china came on line. we still did not have a strategy. now we are more dependent than we should be on others for our national defense needs and other needs as well. host: surely, in abilene, texas. good morning. caller: i do not think anything can be solved in this country, as far as manufacturing is concerned, unless we revisit these trade agreements. we have passive best of the --

massive deficits with all of these countries and now we are considering more. columbia would not be a great place to open up a free-trade agreement because they have nothing to sell except for drugs and coffee. every time we do this, we homogenize the american worker little or -- a little lower. as big multinational companies will go anywhere to get cheaper labor. unless we visited every one of the trade agreements, i think this country is lost. guest: you make a good point. i am for trade. i am for a real treat -- a real version of free trade. that is not what we have. a lot of these trade agreements have let us down. naphtha promised to be a jobs naphtha promised to be a jobs boom, and -- nafta promised to

be a jobs boom, stop the drug problem. in fact, it has created a race to the bottom that even mexico is not winning. they are seeing manufacturing jobs move to china. we need a different model of how we do this. with regard to the pending free- trade agreement, even if they are passed, and even under the rosiest scenarios of job creation, it will be mild, compared to what we need to do against china. we run monthly trade deficits of about $20 billion. since 2001, that has added up to 2.4 million good paying job we have lost we are now deep in debt to china because of this. it is not because china can make things better than we can. it is because they manipulate their currency, they have industrial subsidies, they have in intellectual property protections which are lax, and

we do not stand up and say enough. that is why the obama administration and congress needs to provide a level playing field for our manufacturers, workers. but we also have to reevaluate the way we do these free trade agreements. host: here is some news related to what she was asking about. columbia trade deal loses key support. the white house and republican leaders say they have the votes in each chamber needed to pass trade deals with south korea,

columbia, and panama. guest: free-trade agreements are controversial. they generally have provided democrats more so than republicans. my concern is we are focused on the wrong thing. we saw last year, china's currency legislation passed. it was a great bill that the republican from pennsylvania, tim ryan, along with congressman levin, introduced on the house side. it passed overwhelmingly. one of the few bipartisan acts that we saw towards the end of the congress. i say, bring that bill up. you know it has a lot of republican support. it would do more than all of this free trade agreements combined to help the manufacturing sector in our country, and it would give a level playing field to our workers and businesses who want

to compete with china. hugely beneficial impact on the trade deficit, jobs, gross domestic product, and it does not cost a dime to do. if your listeners are out there, call your congressman and tell them to pass china currency legislation. host: next phone call. hugh. caller: in order to stimulate the economy, michelle bachmann the economy, michelle bachmann says that the government needs to reevaluate the minimum wage. i was wondering what your thoughts are on that? guest: that is a terribly misguided policy. the u.s. will never win, nor should we want to win, a race to the bottom. we will not get our standards down to china, vietnam, or other developing countries, where we are competing in labor-intensive manufacturing. that is not a race we want to

win. we need to invest in our workers. we need to give them better skills. america's work force is one of america's greatest and bandages. all they needed the opportunity to run least that. we can be very competitive in manufacturing. manufacturing wages in germany are $48 per hour. in the u.s., up $32 an hour. and you figure in the benefits and other things like that. manufacturing in germany is very competitive. if they have a balanced trade relations ~. they have a large percentage four of their economy in manufacturing. we do not. -- they have a balanced trade with signchina.

host: keepitmadeinusa is his twitter handle. how long ago did you work with senator dick lugar? >> that was 1987. i am an indiana native. i have great admiration for the senator. if the advantage of this job is that it is not partisan. the message appeals to a broad swap of people. i speak to manufacturing groups. i speak to the labor unions. i do a lot of that. i give them the same message. the response i always get is very positive. host: carl joins us on gulfport, mississippi,

republican line. go-ahead. caller: you talk about making making jobs for industry. a lot of people work outside maintaining a lot of stock that is built and are pushed to the side of the time. they just want to build -- everybody wants to steady build something new instead of maintaining what they have. some of the problem with our country is we have come up with a design like harley davidson and then we sell the design to other countries like deadpan and then they are mass produced, which forces other companies out of business. every time our country gets a handle on bringing the economy back on its feet, we keep pushing the prices of gas up to recoup the money instead of letting it heal itself. guest: you brought up a

great point. there are lot of economists who believe this. i'd think they are completely wrong. a growing body of academics big that they are wrong as well. the article that has won a harvard business review article in the year a year-and- a-half ago was written by two professors there. they looked at the idea of disconnecting innovation from production and how inefficient it was and the problems that caused the u.s. they made the argument that we not only have to invest in research and development and innovation, but we need to make a stuffed in the united states as well and to support that innovation base. you want innovation and production to be close together. it does not make sense to outsource. i hope we will see philosophies

among academics and on wall street saying that we need to bring back innovation and that we need immigration -- innovation and production close to each other. it makes sense to manufacture the ipods in the united states. host: people would pay less for -- then another person says walmart possibly would make it better. guest: i am not where i say you have to buy this or that or the other. i think there are a lot of incentive to american-made products. quality is big. you may purchase an item at wal- mart for $2 which breaks in six

months. the american version is $8 somewhere else and it lasts five years. it would make sense to buy the american product because it's a long-term investment. long-term investment. we have a lot of short- termism in this country demonstrated by consumers and by wall street. but i do think even a big box stores like wal-mart understand this made in america premium. it is worth something. people want to be able to buy local products. they want to build to buy american-made products and if they at least want to have the choice and opportunity to do that. they get sent out a lot unfortunately. i want to give consumers a choice and let them decide. i don't think there's a store is right now. i'd think the big box stores are determining the supply chains. host: now, cindy and from the erie, pennsylvania, on the democrat line. northwestern pennsylvania. caller: manufacturing has taken a downturn in this economy.

in eerie we have always been very strong in manufacturing. we face all the talent is that he spoke about with a lot of jobs being shipped overseas -- we face all of the challenges. with the health care costs adversely affecting american manufacturing, when are the manufacturer is going to help themselves by discussing single payer? guest: that's a good question. i will say not to hold your breath for a lot of fortune 500 companies to talk about a single payer health care system. even though when you look around the world you see a lot of countries we compete with having national health care systems and they have a very help the manufacturing sector as well. i don't know that there is a precise correlation, but i do

repairs a way to bring down lacrosse's for manufacturers. we're one of the only countries where manufacturers have to bear their own health care costs for their employees. they are competing not only against foreign competition, but they are competing against firms in the u.s. who may not have health care benefits as generous as they do. it makes some sense to look past a system where the costs are more broadly shared. by the that one of the things we have to address and one of the things we saw in the automobile industry is that health care costs or bankrupting the companies. we do still need to make a lot of progress on that. host: huntington, new york state. canny on the republican line. -- kenny. caller: anyway. a lot of people old like myself are under-employed with a part-

time job. time job. i know somebody who recently had a job and got laid off for a time and then go back on unemployment. so it is like when we go to the store we have to really watch what we buy. but mostly going to purchase with what i have a time, so you have to budget yourself. host: sounds like you are most likely going to produce what is inexpensive instead of having the luxury of worrying where something was made or how long it might last. caller: that's very true. caller: that's very true. that is very true, because thatng that i have a stjob

i work 29 hours per week, i'm not really making a lot of money. host: someone on twitter has the same experience. guest: that's right. again, for some items its true where there is a cost to american-made products. the dual find a lot of products at competitive prices, but they are not widely available. that is an impediment. other economies that weathered the recession a lot better than the united states have a working-share programs where you are able to avoid layoffs in manufacturing by cutting the hours. the government helped to supplement wages a little, but it kept people working and kept money flowing into the economy. as a result, in terms of

output, gdp, and employment, countries that did this such as germany and sweden there a lot better than the u.s. did. and when people are not working in manufacturing and 5.5 million people lost their jobs in manufacturing, that is wages that are not circulating elsewhere in the economy. an economist estimates that we lost 286 billion dollars in wages in manufacturing just because of the layoffs over the last decade. think of the goods that all that money circulating in the economy would do. that is why it is all important to grow the sector. host: arizona, steve on the independent line. caller: good morning. the problem with this administration and government to have right now is they are lacking common sense. the problem is we have fair trade, i mean to say free-trade.

what we need is a fair trade. here and taking it. another thing is we are looking at oil. i saw something on c-span where they were talking to a gentleman about putting cesar chavez -- putting chavez on the terror list. we have enough oil to be independent. we need a corporate tax. we need to get the regulations. the epa is killing us -- we need to get the regulations off. guest: that is valid. it is a lot of arguments we hear from manufacturers. let me talk about the trade component. this is really important. this is what gets the least amount of attention in washington.

we have an enormous trade deficit with china. it was $275 billion last year. that money allows china to buy our debt. they want to do that because that is how they manipulate their currency. we are the country that is going to end up on the short end of the stick. we have tools been used to stop this. president obama stated very clearly in the 2008 campaign that if china camped in manipulating its currency, that he would use our markets as leverage -- if china stepped on manipulating its currency. he has not done that. that is incredibly disappointed me. it is a direct promise that he made to manufacturers and manufacturing workers. by the same token, this republican congress has done nothing for manufacturing. they have had the opportunity for six months to bring up the sign a currency bill which passed overwhelmingly last year. auto perversion passed in the senate with 67 votes in 2005.

if this thing got to the floor of the house, it would pass overwhelmingly. -- a tougher version passed in the senate with 67 votes in 2005. call your congress people. i was wondering why we cannot go back. i know we had more regulations around the second world war and prior. and why we could not get international regulations to even the playing field so there's a global minimum wage and the same thing with our environmental so they can move corporations all the way around the globe so does not benefit them. guest: that is a really interesting point, tanya. we have agreement that allows

for the free flow of investment, the free flow of capital, the free flow of goods, not the free flow of labor and not kind of leveling regulation. it creates labor arbor truitrag, where manufacturing goes in search of a lowest wages. that has been detrimental to a country like the united states. this was discussed during the climate legislation. if we are going to have our manufacturers meet a standard for carbon, unless a chinese firm is meeting that same standard, we could apply to an off-setting tariff to level the cost of that good coming into the united states. that would be the only way to really avoid a massive amount of manufacturing jobs lost in the united states.

but we do need to think about,, as we're doing these industrial and trade agreements, how to avoid labor arbitrage, how to harmonize in our mental standards instead of degrade them so that we can create a high-road manufacturing possibility for everyone. it is a problem that has not been solved elp. host: republican, chicago, illinois. caller: i have to be assured comments. first one being is i think there's a real misconception about people who have lost their jobs in this country. it seems to be badly misunderstood everybody that lost their jobs or blue-collar workers. i can speak for myself and others that we have advanced degrees and are out of work. it is not a matter of not having job skills. we have them. there are no jobs. second, we are always told the

american people need to compete with countries like china and india, that we need to be more advanced. if they are so advanced than we are, why do they need manufacturing jobs? host: trudy, what kind of work are in? caller: administrative. i've been out of work since 2009. a lot of people with advanced degrees are out of work. host: thanks for sharing your story. guest: i completely agree. i speak to a lot of people around the country that are in a situation like you are, but they worked in the public sector, they worked in the service sector, or they have worked in the skilled trades or construction. they have a great set of skills, but there are no jobs available. we are in a situation like that where we need to figure out a way to create jobs in this

country. the talks in washington on the debt ceiling and the deficit, too focused on austerity and not focused enough on what we can do to create jobs in this country. there's this thing that is called the beltway delta said the back loop that makes this sound blind to concerns of people like you who have a great skill saps who would be eager to work but there are no responsibilities -- have a great skill set. writessomeone on twitter righ -- that brings up the idea that a lot of people make money from the work that happens overseas. those talking the talk about the bringing jobs alone may actually

be earning money from what's happening overseas. guest: it happens probably more than people pink, we're either there's the stockholder or a business a public official was involved with that did precisely what you are talking about. it happens probably more than you think. former officials write about a lot of the economic policies in a way that is harmful to the united states. they don't reveal who their clients are right now. oftentimes their clients are companies that have sent jobs offshore. i don't think there's enough attention paid to it and i do think that it's

. .

>> it is not. del they have the same problem as we have? >> that is the risk. but if you have separated out and they do not have and there's not the confusion with the safety net, then their capital centers, the market will demand more. the market will pay more attention. then it becomes a greater risk to those creditors that are outside.

right now the assumption is because you're tight to the safety net, the impact on the primary financial institution will be your main concern. so you bailout over here. the same thing with a money market. that is why i want to limit their ability. that is what is behind that. i am not saying crises go away. i am not saying risk goes away. i am saying it gets better allocated. then we can handle the crisis that will come. without having an employment rate. i am not just thinking about the $800 billion. we are going to lose a fair amount. it bothers me that speculators were able to go in knowing the institution -- we would not wipe out the stockholder and make a ton of money off the taxpayer. that bothers me. i think we can do better than

that. yes. >> i hear what you're saying about the size limit on banks but the nature of the business and might force them to downsize. there was a trend in the 1970's and 1980's that banks were having a hard time getting a good price on a loan. wal-mart and target. if the banking system is reduced in size, you need that in the real economy, too. are we back to that problem of the 1970's that the banks do not make money lending. that is why they wanted the expanded powers.

>> i have heard that argument. i am not convinced of the argument. you have this desire to get the non-banks to get into the banking business because they thought they could build their return on equity. i think there was a consortium for industrial companies. i do not see if that is what follows. if you have a strong capital and the right size and you can do consortiums, you can find any loan. that is how we did it for decades. i did not see the evidence that suggested they were being disadvantaged. part of the problem is, i have

said this publicly, if you are too big to fail and if you have access to an unlimited safety net, you are a gse. a gse should have a lower return on equity. you can still make loans. you can make sounder loans. will the corporation go somewhere else? yes, if you allow money markets and other kinds of activities that are high risk. the -- if the perception is there will be bailed out, you have the problem. >> 20% of credit-card lending, those are banking activities. that is okay? so long as anybody is doing their job. the regulators, investors. that is okay? but combining it with speculative purposes. >> it is when you give the

speculative activity the safety net. if a bank can make $100 million off a trade, and guess what? they can lose $100 million. even if they say they cannot. there is no such thing as a perfect hedge. >> he wants to be 25% of credit- card lending. that is a good american business. >> i do not know about "good." [laughter] there are things that banks do well. i think the market is theirs to define. i do not want them using the safety net to build their reserves that they then trade on to make their earnings. >> now we should be getting toward that. >> it is already being done.

we will see. thanks. >> i am a reporter with the huffington post. when you talk to policy makers about the market concentration, you talk -- point to the top four. they say it is not like the uk or switzerland. it is not that concentrated. i am curious to know why the current level in the u.s. is dangerous? what is the counter to that argument? >> not as bad is not my standard. [laughter] the u.s. economy has been the most innovative, has had credit available. you had a distribution of financial restitutions that were similar to a-truck companies.

you could meet the needs and that worked. now we are concentrated to where small businesses have to have the some way to deal with this large bay. that is becoming their only choice. that is the mechanism in europe. it is not it as innovative. because europe has done a, we should give up? i do not think so. when you get institutions that large, it is a fact of life. i have talked to firms of been told by some of the largest institutions words like, why should we make this loan to you? convince me. when it is locally owned, there is a mutual gain. the community needs it. we ought to play to our strength

rather than see it go away. it is not as bad as europe. that is not a good reason. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> their proposal to cut medicare costs and reduce the debt. in less than a half-hour, tim pawlenty on foreign policy. then president obama's comments about manufacturing jobs. >> on "washington journal," peter will take your questions about libya and the war powers act and the situation in afghanistan. he will talk about the economy and trade with byron dorgan. we will be joined by regina

benjamin. every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. several live events to tell you about. the senate commerce committee will look at the data security and privacy. members will hear from representatives of agencies as well as business and consumer groups on the collection of security and personal information. that is on c-span at 10:00 eastern. then on c-span 3, a hearing on the impact of supreme court rulings on corporate behavior. witnesses are scheduled to include betty dukes, the lead plaintiff filed by employees of all my. the court recently decided the employees did not have enough to pursue a national class- action against wal-mart.

>> every saturday, i hear oral arguments on c-span radio. including sexual orientation and general -- gender and race discrimination. this saturday, tune into c-span radio at 90.1 fm in washington, d.c. and online at c- spanradio.org. >> senators joe lieberman unveiled at their proposal to reduce medicare spending and cut the debt. this is about 20 minutes.

>> there are a couple of things that we agree on that bring us here together. we both love our country. we can see it heading over a fiscal cliff unless there are people like us to come together to get the books back in balance. we both love our children and grandchildren. we do not want to be back country to them in such a mess. so that they will not have the same opportunities we had. that is why tom and i are making this proposal that will cut our national debt and preserve medicare as a

government program for current and future seniors. there's not much disagreement about the basic facts of the crisis. our national debt is over 14 trillion dollars and a growing by more than $one trillion every year. the biggest but not the only drivers of the debt are entitlements including medicare. if we do not deal with those entitlements, we are never going to balance our budget. almost 50 million americans depend on medicare now. about 20 million more people will go on medicare during the next 10 years. mostly because of retiring baby boomers. each medicare beneficiary will, on the average, take almost three times more out in benefits than they contribute

in payroll, taxes, and premiums. the number varies based on income and family structure but that is basically what it is. about three times more out than you put in. that is why we say the status quo was unsustainable. we mean that if we do nothing, medicare will go broke and take our government down with it. medicare part a will be bankrupt by no later than 2024 according to the congressional budget office. and as soon as 2016 according to some experts. the other parts for prescription drug will continue to drain increasingly large and unsustainable amounts from our treasury.

it will add to our debt. these facts lead, to unavoidable conclusions. we cannot balance our budget without dealing with mandatory spending programs like medicare. we cannot save medicare as we know it. we can only save medicare for the change it. that is what the reforms are about. senator coburn and i proposing today. it will save over $600 billion in medicare costs over the next decade. it will extend the solvency for american seniors by about 30 years, maybe more. it will reduce the the 75 year unfunded liability by about 10 trillion dollars. our plan contains some strong medicine. that is what it will take to keep medicare a life. we believe our planet ministers

the medicine in a fair way. it asks just about everyone and to give something to help preserve medicare. it asks wealthier americans to give more than those who have less. for the first time we will offer to protect seniors from paying more than $7,500 out of their pockets for health care in any one year because of a serious medical crisis or long-term illness. here are other details of what we propose. we are going to require hiring americans to pay more for their share of medicare part a, b, and d. we'll ask wealthy americans to pay 100% of premium costs. we do not believe tax dollars should be used to pay premiums for those who can afford to pay on their on.

we will place the current complicated requirements with a unified deductible of $550 and limit camp -- coverage to encourage wiser use of health- care services. we will increase the eligibility age for medicare over a 12 year period to 67 to reflect real life expectancy which has increased from less than 72 just about 78 years now. as the age increases, so, too, will the access to the exchange's. we will increase the premium to services andrs' prescription drugs.

premiums from better fair share is now cover only 25%. the rest is paid by the taxpayers. even though when president johnson signed medicare into law he made clear that the intention was the government would pay half the cost and the beneficiaries would pay the other half. we will provide a three year sgr designed to bring stability to the medicare provider system. the sgr is in need of a permanent fix. three years should be enough to come up with one. fast going to include the act introduced by senator coburn and others to root out waste and fraud. we know that each part of our proposal will make some group of people unhappy.

we will provide an easy target for attacks by those who understandably want to preserve the status quo. but the status quo only leads to the collapse of medicare and fiscal disaster for our country. we're past the point when we can save medicare and cut the debt while keeping all of the interest groups satisfied and all of our constituents happy. if there ever was a time in history for elected officials to stop thinking about the next election and start thinking about the next generation, it is now. i am pleased to have worked with tom coburn of this. he has a long record of thinking about the next generation and not the next election. he has tremendous expertise in the area of government financing.

after i voted against the ryan plan, i said to myself, i have done that. the alternative now was not to do nothing. because medicare will go bankrupt. i set out to try to figure out how we could change medicare to preserve it as a government system. tom called me up and said i appreciate what you're doing. i want to work together on something. i am proud we came up with this program which i hope creates a bipartisan beachhead around which the gridlock and the breakdowns about the debt ceiling can occur. senator coburn. >> let me say what a pleasure it

has been to work with joe on this. you do not put up a smoke alarm when the fire is raging. you put it in before it the first vestiges of the inferno. the real question in front of us is that people are not -- it does not matter who the administration is. five years from now medicare will not be the same. we cannot borrow enough money. we will not have the capability. the time to fix medicare is now. the time to put it on a footing that will save 10 trillion dollars and reduce the unfunded liabilities and increase life expectancy is now. i will not go into the details of what we have done. i believe what we have to do is act. the longer we wait, the more painful it is going to be for

the people who are dependent on these programs. rather than come down to a time where we make drastic cuts for american citizens, the time now is to preserve that and do it in a way that will cause better utilization with the same or better outcomes and guarantee they have access to health care. we will take your questions. >> you talked about wanting americans to share your pain. why not require pharmaceutical companies negotiate for drug prices. > ? >> that is a contentious issue. a lot of people think the government can buy cheaper. i do not believe that. it goes to a broader question.

right now we're losing half of our medical devices. we're going to lose our pharmacologic industry. to say they cannot have a profit when they are competing, it is one of the rare instances where the estimates were wrong. totally wrong. nobody contributed to the liability for part d. we want to move in a bipartisan way. is that an issue that divides democrats republicans? yes. why do something that does not progress. there is no foundation to those projections. why would we add that to make a harder to get a solution for medicare? >> let me just say, tom summed it up well.

i thought the government ought to be able to negotiate drug prices with the drug companies as we do in other programs. but people want to put that on the table as part of this and have a discussion. that is what the process is about. >> this plan has a lot of things that people will find painful. raising the retirement age, higher premiums. how'd you get democrats to sign onto a plan like this when republicans have not been willing to come to the table? >> if you had asked me five years ago if i would support a plan like this, i would've said i cannot imagine doing that. as i studied the numbers, it seems the alternative to this plan is not to continue to go

along with the status quo. that leads to the collapse of the entire medicare program and suffering by the people who depend on it. now it is almost 50 million americans in the next decade or so. what i would say about some of the parts that are strong medicine, what is on the other side of it is a program that is going to get very sick if we do not take this medicine. tom and i had very good discussions. what he cannot say there are tax increases, they are the did increase the tax on americans to make over -- this has some pretty progressive parts to them.

we do it within the medicare system. that is a fair way to go. >> you lay out the difference that they will be paying for out of pocket costs. wallabies have to change constantly with how the economy is swinging? >> they will have to change with inflation. that will be a detail when we write the legislation. we will have all sorts of questions like this. what is the option? the option is not to do nothing. how do we find a way forward that preserves medicare in a way we can get it through congress? in the long term, what is going to be the largest cost? medicare. it is the biggest.

if you do not go after the biggest first and try to make reforms, nobody's going to like this. we understand that. but nobody wants the present medicare to vanish. think about it. fund goesthe trust belly up. what is going to happen? do you think we will have water to douse the fire? how much more painful willoughby then if we do not make some of the smaller adjustments now? you will never control the cost of health care until you reconnect some of the purchase of that health care with the individual. it does not work. everybody thinks something else is paying for their health care. that is everywhere.

that is one of the reason we do not have the cost. one ad of $3 does not help anybody. there is not a market for it. we are putting a bit of market forces and their so everybody gets to share in trying to solve the problem. the only ones that will not will be the [unintelligible] >> it is probably pretty expensive. you will not have that much left over to make long-term finances. >> it is about $275 billion. that grows every year. the numbers are small for the first three years compared to that total number. $40 billion for the first three years.

>> you voted to repeal, haven't you? how do you reconcile that? >> we have the age progression. if repealed, we have exceptions for that. if the affordable care act continues, the requirement will go up. we can put them in an exchange. >> so where would those folks get insurance? >> we do not change the age. it does not change. >> can you outline, there was a 1% cap? . is that gone? >> yes. that would have been an increase on income tax on people making

over $250,000. we saw we could agree on finding other ways to ask wealthy people to give more to preserve medicare. we have done that by requiring them to pay 100% of the premium cost for the doctors and prescription drugs. we have a much higher maximum out of pocket on part a for wealthier americans. because the 2.9% medicare tax covers all income, it is a progressive tax. the bill made a more progressive by adding another 0.9%. that was part of the process of negotiating. >> how do you make -- is that

the vehicle forward? are you considering doing it outside of discussions? trying to seek leverage that way. >> we will send copies of this to the white house and the bipartisan leadership. and to all the members of the senate. tom said we should get a couple of senators to join us. i find that a lot of our colleagues, i hate to use the word depressed. but there downtrodden. they are downcast about the failure of the process as we head toward the debt ceiling. perhaps we offer little hope that a couple of us can get together. i hope there are others who will

want to do something similar. maybe we have offered some ideas that the vice president or the president will want to consider as part of an agreement. >> will there be a overhauls to medicare? >> as i said, the mandatory spending is the biggest driver of our debt. already unbelievably high. tore not going to get back balancing our budget unless we deal with entitlements. it is a question of land. the sooner the better. if we do not do this, when we finally have to, it is going to be impossibly painful for

individual enrollees and for our country. the sooner you take the strong medicine, the sooner you will get healthy. if not, the results are not so good. but here i am going over to the doctors area. >> medicare has to be fixed. we have to change it. you can say it is going to stay the same but it is not going to stay the same. even if congress does nothing. we're not going to be able to borrow the money to afford it. people do not realize there is a bet wall coming. it is going to hit next july. the world liquidity is nine trillion dollars. if we do not have our house in order, every american is going to suffer. we need to be about affixing

that. this is a component to fixing that. we need to start doing what is right for the country and not for what is right of any party. it will not matter who is in power. we will be told what we're going to do for you wanted to find any of the things we have. it is critical that we come together and give up some things. you will see where i would like to see us go. we think that walking and talking together, telling the truth about what it is, you have to fix medicare. now was the time to do it. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> now available, a congressional directory. a guide to the 112 congress. inside, a new and returning senate members with contact information including committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court, and governors. order online at c-span.org. tim pawlenty criticized the foreign policies of president obama and republican party leaders yesterday in a speech to the council on foreign relations. he is introduced by richard. this is about an hour. foreign policies of president obama. >> advance in the cause of

thoughtful and discussion and debate. i am thankful for your hospitality and your presence here this morning. i want to speak plainly about a number of opportunities and dangers we face today in the middle east. we have a situation where the revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and more prosperous arab world. from morocco to the arabian gulf, the escape from the dead hand of oppression is now a real possibility. now is not the time to retreat from freedoms rise. yet, at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-leaning. just as the people of egypt, tunisia, libya, syria, and

elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical islam see a chance to rise political turmoil into power. the united states has a vital stake in the future of this region. we have been presented with a challenge as great as any we face in recent decades. and we must get it right. the question is -- are we up to the challenge? my answer is of course we are. if we're clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. our nation has done this in the past. at the end of world war ii, in the last decade of the cold war, in the most recent war on terror and we can do it again. but president obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy

in response to these events. he has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests. our clear commitment to our principles and parts of the republican party now seem to be trying to outbid the democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. this is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. the stakes are too high. and the opportunity is simply too great. no one in this administration predicted the events of the arab spring. but the freedom deficit in the arab world was no secret. for 60 years, western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the middle east. that could not last. the days of comfortable private deals with the dictators were coming to an end in the age of

twitter, youtube, and facebook. and history teaches that there is no such thing as stable oppression. president obama ignored that lesson of history. instead of promoting democracy, whose fruit we see now ripening across the region, he adopted a murky policy. he called it engagement. engagement meant that, in 2009, when the iranian ayatollah still an election and the people of the country rose up in protest, president obama held his tongue. his silence validated the mullets, despite blood on their hands and nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels. while protesters were killed and tortured, secretary clinton said the administration was "waiting to see the outcome of the internal iranian processes. she and the president waited long enough to see the green revolution, the green movement

crushed. engagement also meant that, in his first year in office, president obama cut democracy funding for the egyptian society by 74%. as one american democracy organization noted, this was perceived as signaling a lack of support. they perceive correctly. it was a lack of support. in engagement also meant that, when crisis erupted in cairo this year as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in liberty square, secretary clinton declared "the egyptian government is stable. two weeks later, mubarak was gone. when secretary clinton visited cairo after the move barak fall, activist groups refused to meet with her. who can blame them? the forces we now need to succeed in egypt, the pro-

democracy secular political party is, these are the very people president obama cut off and secretary clinton dismissed. the obama engagement policy in syria who led the administration to call the sheer allis not a reformer, even as his regime was shooting protesters dead in the street. president obama announced his plan to give them "alternative vision of himself. does anyone outside of a therapist's office have any idea what that means? this is what passes for moral clarity in the obama administration. by contrast, i called for his departure on march 29. a call for it again today. we should recall our master from damascus and i call for that again today. the leader of the united states

should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where america stands. as president, i will not. we need a president who folia understands that american never leads from behind. we cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in the least tern history. we need decisive, clear right leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interest. >> the government of the middle east fallen to four broad categories and each requires a different strategic approach.

the first consists of three countries in various stages of transition toward democracy. before myrlie fake republics in egypt, tunisia, and libya. iraq is also in this category. for these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy in the region. elections have produced anti- democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. we must do more than monitor polling places. we must redirect foreign aid away from efforts. we must direct those efforts toward building the allies. governed by free people according to the rule of law. we must insist that the international partners get of the sidelines and do the same.

we should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions face had by libya, tunisia, and especially egypt. whereas libya is rich in oil and indonesia is small, among the regions of the emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity of the biggest danger for american interests. too many egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineer in the last decade. we act out of friendship when we tell egyptians and every new democracy that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free trade. not subsidies in the foreign aid. if we want these countries to

succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth. in libya, the best of america can provide this to stop the bleeding from behind and commit to the strength of removing gadhafi. beyond libya, america should always promotion of universal principles. we should press new friends to end discrimination against women, established independent courts, and the press. and we must insist on religious freedoms for all.

the second category of faith in the arab monarchies. some are engaging tell in what looks like a genuine reform. this should earn at our praise and our assistance. they must forge a partnership with their own people leading a step-by-step toward more democratic societies. the to understand these changes. and thereby deepen their own legitimacy if they choose this route. they deserve our help. others are resisting reform. president obama spoke about brain in his recent speech, he neglected to other two important words. saudi arabia. u.s. and saudi relations are at

all-time low. they're going downhill long before the uprisings began. they saw the american administration yearning to engage iran at the time that they correctly saw ahead as a mortal enemy. we need to tell them what we think which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. you will develop it by demonstrating that we share the great concern about iran. and we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from iranian aggression. at the same time, we need to be frank about what they must do in their own country. above all, they need the reform and open society. their treatment of questions,

other minorities, and of women is indefensible and must change. we of the reform will come to saudi arabia sooner and more smoothly if the royal family to accept and designed in. it will come later if they resist. the vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms. but not as a substitute for lasting reform. the third category consists of states that are directly hostile to america. they include iran and syria. as already vastly undermine the appeal. and the killing have significantly weakened it. the success of peaceful

protests has shown the world of terror is not only evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. peaceful protests may soon bring down the regime in syria. the 2009 protests inspire them to seek freedom. similarly, the protests of this year and the fault of the regime can inspire them once again. we have an interest in seeing an end to his regime and. the obama administration has not only frustrated syrians fighting for freedom, it has demonstrated a strategic blindness. the government of iran and syria are enemies of the united states. they're not reformers and never

will be. to weaken or replace one who is to weaken or replace the other. the fall of the mafia and damascus would weaken the headquarters there. and it would weaken the iranian regime itself. take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic shanahan to bring the reign of terror to end. the more forceful sanctions. thus the need to work live turkey in the era of nations to further isolate the regime and we need to encourage opponents by making our own position very clear right now.

when he goes, how they will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. syria is their only ally. if we deal the way, it will hasten the fall. that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. but as the opportunity offered by the brave men and women of the arab spring. the march of freedom in the middle east cut across the diversity of religious and political groups. it is born of a particular unity. it is a united front from stolen elections and stolen liberty. secret police, corruption, and the state sanctioned violence. this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and to speak with

clarity. more sanctions, more and better broadcasting into iran, more assistance to access the internet and satellite tv. more efforts -- very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to the nuclear program. in 2008, barack obama said that he would always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and israel. this year, he said that we remain committed to preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

even our closest allies are confused. for which legal authority already exists, we should enact and enforce a new pending legislation the strength in some sanctions, particularly against the revolutionary guards that control much of the economy. in the middle of all of this is israel. israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for. and what it has accomplished. and is unique in the threat of annihilation. it has long been a bastion of democracy in our region of tyranny and violence. it is by far the closest ally in that part of the world.

despite nemours, a tax of various forms, israel offers all of its citizens, including 1.5 million arabs of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to vote as well as access to independent courts. and all other democratic rights. nowhere has president obama's lack of judgment and then more stunning than in his dealings with israel. it breaks my heart that the president of this country treats israel, our great friend has a problem, rather than as an ally. the president seems to genuinely believe that the palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem of the middle east. he said in cairo in 2009 and again this year. president obama could not be

more wrong. the uprisings are not about israelis and palestinians. they are about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments israel built in jerusalem. today, the president doesn't really have a policy toward the peace process. he has an attitude. let's be frank about what bad attitude is. he thinks israel is the problem and he thinks the answer is always more pressure on israel. i reject that anti-israel attitude. i rejected because israel is a close and reliable democratic allies. i know the people of israel wants peace.

israeli-palestinian peace is further away now that the way that barack obama came to office. it doesn't have to be permanent. we must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region receives clearly that america stands strongly with israel. i would take a new approach. why would never undermine the negotiating position or pressure to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself. second, i would not pressure israel to negotiate with a palestinian government that includes hamas. in short, they need to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step

toward global legitimacy. i would insure assistance to the palestinians with the teaching of hatred and palestinian huss firms continues. that must end of. i would recommend cultivating end of power in modern forces in the palestinian society. when they have leaders that are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law and understands that the war has given them to lives of the goodness, of violence, and poverty, peace will come. released is changing before our very eyes. the government has not kept up. it abandoned of the promotion of democracy just as they were about to seize its.

just as their own people rose against them. in downplayed our principles and distance us from key allies. these policies have failed. the administration has abandoned the danaher and of the price of the american leadership in the region. in a region that has looked to us for security and progress, and the wonders where we are and what we are of two. the next president must do better. today, in our own republican party, some of back and conclude our projection of strain in defense of freedom was a product of different times in different challenges. while times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not. in the 1980's, we were up

against a violent totalitarian ideology been done subjugating the people in the principles of the west. while others sought to coexist, president reagan instead sought victory. so must we, today. america is exceptional and we have a moral clarity to lead the world. it is not wrong for republicans to question the conduct of president obama's leadership in libya. it is not wrong for republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in afghanistan. my belief is that the general's voice should carry the most weight. what is wrong as for the republican party to shrink from the challenges of american leadership in the world. history repeatedly warns us

that in the long run, weakest and foreign policy cost us and our children much more than we will ever say in the budget -- saved in the budget line item. america has one political party devoted to decline and withdrawal. it doesn't need a second one. our enemies respect and respond to strength. sometimes strength means military intervention. sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. that always means moral clarity in word and deed. that is the legacy of republican foreign policy at its best in our next republican president must carry the banner around the world. of equality and opportunity for all citizens, it remains a dream all citizens, it remains a dream for people in the