experience. i would encourage looking at that website. many of our agents have eight or nine years of work experience. we also hired directly out of college, and a few people directly out of high school to re. host: david schlendorf, thank you for being here. the f.b.i. series continues tomorrow with cyber security, and then friday, crime labs and forensics. when last story before we go. a senior official tells the associated press the president barack obama will give them major speech on jobs in early september, on bail and his ideas for speeding up job growth and helping the struggling poor and middle class. that is the ap reporting that, as we end today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> president obama takes his bus motorcade into illinois today as he wraps up a three-state tour. the president will hold to its town hall meetings today in illinois. there will be live on c-span.org this afternoon. the president will begin his vacation on thursday. several live events to tell you about today. john pistole will talk about

aviation security. mitigating security risks. here on c-span, live coverage about whether the congressional reduction committee can it succeed. 6:00 p.m., non-violent political movements. johns hopkins school discusses why the movements are popping up in some countries and not in others. that is live at 6:00 p.m. kelvin sewell takes on the tough question, "why do we kill"? a book launch party for armstrong williams. how unlikely allies got together

to change the school system. steven brill talks on "after words." you can watch nearly all of our 9000 programs online. >> nicholas so kersey -- nicolas sarkozy and angela merkel met yesterday to discuss the debt crisis. they discussed a series of proposals. this is 50 minutes. >> during the past two days to

present a number of proposals, a number of joint proposals, ambitious proposals. i must say that we have considerable comment analysis and vision among french and germans. we would like to express our determination to defend the euro, to assume the special responsibilities in europe that we have in france and in germany, and in all these issues to have a common view and to make joint proposals. in the current situation, there are objective reasons and there are also a number of reasons or

rumors which have been feeling considerable speculation. we're determined to fight against such rumor and speculation. we both share this determination and we are determined to restore the whole of the eurozone to its growth past. so we have decided on a number of joint proposals which will be the object of our letter which will be sent tomorrow morning to the president. the first of these proposals consists of setting up in the eurozone a real government, economic government. this economic government will be made up of heads of government and heads of state and it will meet twice a year and it will

elect a president who will remain in the job for two and a half years. we propose that this president should be -- we want the 17 member states of the eurozone, we want them to adopt before the summer of 2012, the golden rule, which consist of incorporating into their national constitution of the 17 member states, the rule whereby the annual finance act must be subject to the objective of restoring fiscal balance.

regarding france, this rule has been passed by the lower chamber of parliament and the upper chamber. we now need a majority in parliament. the prime minister will be getting in touch with all of the parties in the french in the face of their responsibilities so that they know what they have to do in order to achieve fiscal balance. a number of personalities have already made it known that they favor the adoption of this rule. if a consensus is its chief. then i will call for a meeting of the french congress, both

houses of the french congress in the autumn. if it is not achieved, the french people will vote on the outcome in 2012. the battle will be those who want to restore fiscal balance and those who do not. france and germany, the ministers of finance of germany and france will be filing with the european of the artist a joint proposal in september for a tax on financial transactions. this will be a priority for us. finally, we have decided on a number of other measures, most specifically franco-german measures. we must set an example of

convergence with a view to the 50th anniversary of -- we have asked financed and economy ministers to have proposals that will be submitted to us at the beginning of 2012 at a meeting of ministers so that from 2013 onward, the 50th anniversary of the treaty, we will be able to have a joint corporation tax based on the same basis for german companies and french companies. we have decided that at the beginning of each half of a german and french minister of the economy, they will exchange their views, with a view to assuming to adopting the same

adoption's when we dropped the finance act and we will basically agree on the economic assumptions for our annual finance acts. this -- we will march together in defense of the acquired benefits of european growth and to implement across the eurozone measures that will strengthen the competitiveness of our economy. france and germany are assuming our responsibilities in a situation which is very complex and difficult. >> ladies and gentlemen, we announced that in august, we will submit a number of proposals regarding the

strengthening and corporation within the euro area. these proposals will be the object of -- as president sarkozy has just mentioned. we have a financial crisis which by now has become to some degree a crisis of debt. we cannot alter our competitiveness. france and germany have committed to strengthen the euro, which is our common currency. to reach that goal, we need to integrate our financial and economic policies. france and germany certainly have every resolve to rise to

that challenge. that's the context in which today's meeting has taken place. we want to enhance the confidence of the markets through our actions. the current crisis developed and built up over several years. therefore we cannot solve it just by waving a magic wand over night. but we are convinced that through our corp., we can restore confidence and we're opening up today a new stage of the corporation within the euro area. we share the same growth and stability packs together with the european parliament's, will see to it that the stability packs are acted on. we believe the member states of

the euro area must commit to a greater extent and make sure that the fundamental values of these packs are respected. that means fiscal balance and also means a dramatic reduction of the debt ratios. the tune of 1/20th of the debt. france and germany have decided to include that goal in our respective constitutions. this is what president sarkozy has referred to as the golden rule. we hope to bear witness to the fact that our actions do not

depend on day-to-day events but our focus on achieving our common goal. we campaigned for that rule to be adopted throughout the eurozone and we encourage our parliaments to take commitments to this so that when parliaments present their annual budgets, they can take into account all the voices that can be voiced regarding the drafting of their budgets. thirdly, we also wants to enhance the competitiveness of our economies, and we want to nurture growth. we would like the structural

funds to help nurture their growth as of 2013. those member states that display some weaknesses or vulnerabilities should be supported to a greater extent by the commission. we believe the commission should be granted additional powers so that they are in a better position to support competitiveness and growth. we understand greece and portugal have not yet spend some of the amount having placed at their disposal, and we encourage the commission -- encourage them to make full use -- we suggest that the president share the european structures which will neemeet twice yearly.

we will discuss all the issues at hand. we cannot solve all the problems overnight, but we are convinced that the action we are undertaking will be decisive for the future of europe. france and germany will stand as examples. we also touched upon the introduction of taxation of financial transactions. such a tax is very much needed, and we believe that such a tax

will also enable greater coordination between germany and france. we are soon to celebrate the 50th anniversary of a treaty. this will provide a further chance to deepen and to harmonize the tax policies. that is an ambitious challenge to rise to. within the context of our respective budgets, we have also program to a number of meetings between the french and german financial and economic ministers so that we can't make sure that our -- that we act together. i cannot subscribe to what

president sarkozy has just said about the golden rule. ambitious goals as does our pensions policy. i believe we must be ambitious if we want to restore confidence in the euro. the euro is the basis of our growth and i would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on that. >> thank you. any questions? we will take some questions. >> i'm with german television. chancellor, before this meeting, you mentioned the fact that euro bonds would not be placed on today's meeting agenda. some members of your government have been discussing these

eurobonds together today in berlin. do you believe eurobonds could contribute to the strengthening of the euro? >> first of all, let me say that we are blessed to live in democracies and of course it is important for all matters to be discussed. we cannot silence any given topic. the real question is whether or not we should -- what we need to do to overcome the crisis. we all wish to have one that will solve the crisis overnight. we all hope for one single to solve all oure

problems. we need to make use of moneys to restore confidence. i don't think the eurobonds would serve that process. we'll discuss that matter and we will try to be convincing. it is important and fair that all 17 member states of the bureau area take further commitment and courage of their own parliaments to make stronger commitment to listen to the commission cost recommendations -- to the commission's recommendations. france and germany are setting the example. >> we have the same position regarding the eurozone bonds. we may explain our positions

differently. they would consist of underright the debts of all euro member states. that would mean that we would be guaranteeing all of the debt without any control over the expenditure and would never contributes to creating that debt. they could be on the agenda when day. this is not at the start of an integration. each member state is free to increase its debt bank independently and then ask the others, the larger european economies, to guarantee that come what will we say to our people? some people could say, you could forbid states that are too

indebted, but we do not have the democratic power to do that. my feeling is that people who favor eurozone bonds are the same as those who propose a single currency without foreseeing the harmonization of competitiveness and the creation of the economic governance. eurozone bonds could possibly beat the result of an integration process, but not the pri requisite of integration. -- but not the prerequisite of integration. but not the strongest economic powers in europe who run the risk of losing control. it would be much more productive to have a european government and establish a competitive package and

harmonize our economies and to increase growth. growth is the key to everything. the incorporation of the golden rule of fiscal balance in the constitutions, to reduce debt and to restore trust and confidence. our understanding -- this is a practical and objective response. it is out of the question for germany and france to underwrite and limited debt of other european countries. have i been clear enough? >> mr. president, do we understand that you are excluding the expansion of the european financial stability facilities? some people want to expand the financial stability. >> there are a lot of advisers

and specialists and experts arguing their views. i would like to remind you that we have created a fund worth 500 billion euros. this is a considerable amount which has not been used to its fall. some people say -- it does not been used to its full. some people say we should triple. if we do that, the people would say, why don't you quadruple its proven we want to manage this facility seriously and reasonably. we're dealing with considerable amounts of money. i do not see in the name of what that we should encourage global speculation as soon as

we said another ceiling, the following week the new ceiling would be seen as inadequate. the european financial stability facility is sufficiently large. the greater flexibility regarding the recapitalization of banks for greater market intervention and our commitment to doing what is necessary to defend the euro in agreement with all european institutions, it seems to me this message should be understood and heard by everybody. we do not exclude anything. we are not renouncing anything. the monetary fund whose establishment we want and we expressed a few weeks ago, it will be the right instrument with approval of the european central bank to face the thames

to speculate against our currency and to destabilize our currency. >> i believe that our message should be the following. we are still acting on tips different dimensions. we're displaying solidarity as we defend the euro. on the other hand, we're encouraging member states to be responsible individually. italy has launched new austerity measures and new savings measures. very early on, we are -- we -- we are about to suggest that that fund -- so

they can better assess the various euro states. we have taken a long-term commitment to insure -- to make sure that all the countries theet their commitments over long term. our action must be a long term action and that is precisely what we have undertaken all the action that president sarkozy has just outlined. >> mr. meyer from the "financial times." >> one question for chancellor merkel and president sarkozy.

growth is key to everything, as president sarkozy has just said. then what do you make given the context -- the current context of the information that we have received regarding the economic situation of france and germany for the second half of 2011 pohick are we to fear a new recession? and if so, will that intel further the franco-german or european measures if the stronger countries are hit by a slump in growth.

>> well, generally speaking, i would say that the situation in germany -- we have reached levels by now as a prior to the crisis. of course there are fluctuations. every possibility for growth in europe must be nurtured. by enhancing our competitiveness, by enhancing our potential for growth on a regular basis. that goes without saying. we must become more independent of the quarterly fluctuations. we must put ourselves in a

position to harness the global growth. we must say -- i am not too growth even though the trend is not on favorable. we will always be hit by punctual events, but we must take into account the long term trend, and i believe that 2011 has been a good year for germany. we have been creating jobs. however, we cannot be satisfied with that, and we must continue in nurturing that growth. >> many developed countries which already had high debts before the economic crisis, this economic crisis was of unprecedented gravity.

to cope with this crisis and to support growth, to fill the gaps in tax revenues due to the crisis, some countries had to increase their debt. we ended up this year with a crisis. and this debt crisis has created instability, and everybody knows that instability is good for growth. we have to restore confidence by implementing programs that will make debt sustainable, reduce deficits, reduce indebtedness, and i am confident that by our economic prospects for the eurozone and for the world as a whole. as regard to france, in the first half of 2011, growth has

increased by 1.4%. the prime minister and the minister of the economy and the minister of the budget will be announcing a number of decisions which will make it possible to measure, to see france's determination to rise to our commitments and challenges of this deficit reduction. i would like to add how important it has been for france to reform its retirement pension system and to reduce its public expenditure, as well as the number of public jobs, public sector jobs. this policy will be continued. that's how we will restore confidence. that is out we will restore stability across the world. that is out we will cool backed to go back on the path to job

creation. >> do you want sanctions to be taken against states that do not incorporate the golden rule in their constitution or or do not comply? if so, what kind of sanctions? >> we are submitting today a number of proposals to bolster confidence in the ural area. why are we talking about a golden rule, and why do we suggest such a golden rule should be incorporated in the constitutions? because in our respective countries, we have the structures and the institutions that will be able to monitor implementation of such a golden rule.

we have the necessary institutions to do so. assess and monitor. we'll have that rule by the end of 2012. this will show how we have a strong commitments -- we are showing great courage today as we announced this. we're also aware of the fact that all countries in europe are aware of their own responsibilities. now, however, had everyone been more responsible in their past, perhaps we could have avoided some of the difficulties we are faced with today. perhaps the european commission

does not have progress in terms of sanctions -- does not have prerogatives in terms of sanctions. we suggest that sanctions remain at a national level. that is what happened recently in germany. the lender had to correct their budgets. >> i would like to answer the previous question as well. the economies of the 17 member states have two problems. we need to invest more with training and research and in our universities. to reduce our indebtedness, we must have a stronger growth. there is a second problem. deficits. this is true in a number of countries -- france has a budget

-- has had a budget deficit for 35 years. this is not a left-right issue. a problem -- do we want to break with the past, do we want to break with our bad habits or not? the golden rule that we are rooting will mean that all financial law will pass to be part of a five-year plan aimed at restoring fiscal equilibrium. who can be against such a rule? as regards the euro area, if we want to restore stability, if you want the euro area to move forward, we need to enhance competitiveness and harmonize our deficit and debt the

reduction efforts. all the member states, if our proposal is adopted, they would have to apply -- they would have to comply with this rule. the euro has allowed us to make a lot of economic progress. we're stronger together than on our own. a dozen only represent right. it also represents rules and regulations and fiscal discipline. living together implies solidarity. compliance with the rules are respecting the rules. if the rule was adopted by the 17 member states, it would not been a mere option. if there remained an option, why would some countries comply with the rule were as others would

not comply with it? if those who of not complied with the rule turned to those who have not complied and ask them to pay for the cost of not complying with the rule, that would be unacceptable. our italian and spanish friends are making great efforts. the governments of italy and spain have made very useful -- the credibility of the eurozone. >> i have a question for chancellor mercker and president sarkozy. -- for chancellor merkel hun. . a schedule -- what kind of time frame would you consider reasonable for a return to the color room -- for a return to

equilibrium? are we to expect german corporations to be faced with tax hikes in the future? >> i believe that german corporations should not fear any deterioration of their situation. our finance ministers will see to that. we have to act on their own proposals and practice what we preach. we have a unified market. therefore, we need to make sure as we act on a number of joint values. we have been discussing the use of harmonized indicators, and i think that is the road we need

to walk down now. rushing us. are the markets are telling us that we need a degree of harmonization. there is nothing easy to achieve, but we are setting down that path of harmonization as demanded by the year p europe p and we believe that our course of action allows us to improve the situation of our companies. in terms of calendar, we will propose that the fiscal balance will apply as early as 2012. >> i agree with chancellor merkel.

france and germany are two countries whose destinies and whose geographical positions have put them side by side. they are the tubes leading economies in europe. you're the largest supplier and our largest customer. our countries have been reconciled. people -- we have been brought together and my predecessors created the eurocurrency. chancellor merkel and myself would like to continue the rapprochement between france and germany. these countries are large and we need to convert -- we cannot accept the status quo.

from our point of view, a stable area, economic area of franco- german area would reduce the disparities, the gaps and disparities that are damaging on both sides of the borders. we want to create a european model that is based on our joint values. we are focusing on corporate income tax. it is not easy. we cannot foresee the result of this. we have saet an ambitious of time line. we also are converging in terms of research, science, and we have to focus together on these areas as well. it is our duty to focus on the convergence and harmonization in

all these different areas. >> i have a question for the chancellor and the president. is a possible for germany to have a joint minister of the economy, a common economics minister? >> it is not in the press release we have drafted. i think we should take things step by step in the right order. a joint analysis, conversions of views with respecting the identities of each country. the french and the germans are different. together, we're stronger. i have always said that for us, the french people, if we were to

seek inspiration, it should be in a system that wins rather than in a system that loses. when i've visited germany, the enormous respect the french have for the success of our german friends. the work ethic and the history we have often been enemies. it is our responsibility to work in favor of rapprochement. we have nothing to fear with this rapprochement. this is very important. this is valid for all the markets across the world. france and germany are speaking the same language, have a joint vision, have a common vision of the future is one of the best contributions we can make to europe as a whole.

>> when we start working from different identities, i.e., french and german identities, it can be enriching to blend those together into a new identity. we are pitted against each other in the first and second world wars and we came to the conclusion that we should make sure that such incidents never happen again. we now have common values, common institutions within the european union. we represent 500 million citizens. we need to make sure we defend our common interest in the world around us.

i think it is extremely interesting that the french president and myself engaged in discussions. we can make use of ideas and values in the north or south or in the east and the west. we have this wealth of ideas and of values that we can use to build our own, a joint vision of what europe should be in the context of globalization. we have no guarantees as to the future. nobody can present that we will be forever in the path of economic growth and prosperity, but i would say since the 19th century, we have generally known secure periods of growth.

growth can be achieved in isolation. we need to unite if we want to reach our goals. we have one further question in the room. >> mr. president, chancellor, you recommend a financial policy that will be binding for all. the lisbon treat maintains national sovereignty over economic and financial policy. can the lisbon treat stand as it is, or should a reformed lisbon treaty be considered? the lisbonh

treaty was finally signed, everyone was exhausted and nobody would want to see it reformed. but i think we should always be skeptical when any given community or anyone says that nothing will ever be changed. that is also why i would recommend that we create new structures rather than reform the old. i think the european financial -- it stands as one such example. i would not recommend a modification of the lisbon treaty. but neither can i. rollout that nothing in that treaty will be changed -- but neither can i rule out that nothing in that

treaty will be changed in the future. i cannot say the lisbon treaty will be the last treaty that we sign. i do not suggest a reform of the lisbon tree. >> however, -- i do not suggest a reform of the lisbon treaty. we have had to deal with the economy, and that's what we're doing. notwe're criticized for reform the institutions. the lisbon treaty was signed by 27 member states. the complexity of the compromises and decisions that have to be required by the european community is extraordinary. perhaps europe is the most wonderful creation ever

invented at the service of peace by mankind. i am sure there will be a future institutional reforms. we need to find the right mix so that the 27 member states will understand each other, their interests are sometimes diverse. for the moment, we're talking about the 17 member states of the euro area. we're heading for greater economic integration of the 17 member states of the euro area. i am convinced regarding europe, the debate for the past, up close, those who supported the confederation and those who supported the federation, it was a meaningful debate.

there are some useful candidates who are knocking on the door from countries that are perfectly european. we're having more and more for a confederation. who can question the fact that within the euro area where we have a single currency, it is and obvious obligation for the eurozone member states to move towards greater economic integration. i would like to add to the institutions whose reform we have proposed in the european area that are not covered by the lisbon treaty -- this allows us to make small amendments than those that they dance by the treaty. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. we shall see you at the next summit meeting.

>> several live events to tell you about today. 1:30, john pistole will talk about aviation security. the airline pilots association is meeting in washington this week. here on c-span, we will bring you live coverage as analysts discover whether the reduction committee can succeed. the brookings institution is hosting a panel. 6:00 p.m., a look at non-violent political movements. why the movements are popping up in some countries and not in others. >> for politics and public officials, american history, it is the c-span networks. all available to you on television, radio, and online.

search, watch, and share with c- span's video library. bringing our resources to local communities and showing events from around the country. it is washington your way. provided as a public service. administrator craig fugate made some comments in arlington, virginia. he was there to talk about the committee approach to disaster response. this is about an hour. >> i'm going to be brief.

craig fugate heads the fema organization. he brought to the job a wealth of experience, having served eight years as a director of emergency management. during his tenure, there was the first statewide emergency management program in the nation to receive full accreditation from the emergency management accreditation program. so kudos to mr. fugate. brings the boats on the ground experience -- he brings the the ground experience. he was a lieutenant in a county fire rescue team. he has served in a wealth of rescue positions. i think you'll find him quite

interesting. [applause] >> good afternoon. we're live and being taped. i was asked to talk about a whole community. this is something that fema is talking about and people ask, what do they mean about a whole community? what is involved? it is not mysterious. i think what happened was my staff got tired of using my talking points so they started calling it a whole community. i referred to as emergency management. when we respond to disasters, who are we serving? who is the team?

there are some observations i began making when i was looking at my job in florida, particularly after hurricane andrew. i was with the county at the time. i'm always living in the aftermath of katrina. "you handled a few tornadoes. supporting response to some disasters. you still haven't done a katrina. we are not sure you guys have fixed anything." we've lived under the shadow of hurricane andrew. how to deal with the challenges when you have a state that is prone to hurricanes. one thing we thought we learned after hurricane andrew was that there was no initial report. when someone can tell you that

it seems we dodged a bullet, run. i have heard this twice. i've heard we dodged a bullet from hurricane andrew. they were not getting any 911 calls. 120th street south, there were no calls coming in. the reason you're not getting any calls for help is because the power lines were gone. they had been erased. in hurricane katrina, the initial reports was that i looks like we dodged a wabullet. we thought we learned that the key to know how bad something is

is to going into a quick assessment. you need to get teams in there. we came up with the new acronym. we got a bunch of experts they could go when into a quick snapshot of how a community had been impacted. we would get experts from utilities, health, transportation, and we will put them on national guard helicopters to get them in quickly. we will get them on the ground. it will send back up to the state so they can act on it. the only thing i found that was rapid about this was the amount of time it took us to say we were going to do with. it lost all guesses of being rapid. everybody wanted to have somebody on the team. we get 18 subject matter experts. you have to fly in. but the time they landed and ask

them about their systems, it was about 72 hours. ok. the problem was about 72 hours, you're now trying to make decisions about what you're trying to send. that is another 48 hours. we got in around the same time frame when we got in andrew in the first place. about five days too late. i kept finding ourselves no matter what we did, we were getting things on the ground effective no earlier than 72 hours from the time an event occurred. it took us about 72 hours to get critical mass to where we were starting to see stabilization. i asked a different question. instead of trying to figure out

how bad it is, let's define what the outcome is that we want to change. i i started looking at disasters different way, but nobody ever says what exactly are we doing and how much time will it take to get that done? i started dissecting these disasters. i looked at international, a variety of things, earthquake response, hurricanes. there is a standard process. first, you have to reestablish, -- communication. more people think that is electronic, but i was thinking physically. if you have to be able to get in there. you would think you could drive him in most cases, but as we saw in hurricane ivan, when we lost the bridge, you have to be able to get to the area.

the other thing i found was safety and security. there is a tendency to wait or reluctance to use the national guard until you have a security issue. i found talking to social scientists say you are doing good getting people there more quickly by reassuring people they are not there by themselves. mrs. something -- this is presence is a mission. i never. a gun. -- i never carried a gun. what is the team to do if they're not carrying a gun? they stopped. safety and security. the third thing was search and rescue. the injured do not have time.

again, a lot of our teams that would get there would get their 24, 48, 72 hours later. the reality is when you look and most earthquakes and other events of large-scale structural damage, what does the survivor no. look like after 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours? is it a stable population, or is it decreasing? you find the sweet spot is the first 24 hours. if you want to change the outcome for the injured, you have to get there fast enough. after 24 hours the population is traps, or they will make it without you. -- trap, or they will make it without you. you have to get the essential supplies in commodities in there. the 72 hours it took us to

figure out how bad it was was actually the timeframe that we needed all of that stuff there. you have to do the assessments to know how bad it is, but the time it takes to do that eats up the time it takes to change the outcome. i propose something of a lot of people thought was radical -- let's do away with the assessment. how do you know how bad it is? we will not. if i have a major hurricane impact in an area of the population, why don't i just respond against what the potential impact is going to be and adjust downward? they will sit there is risk for raced -- waste, but i've never seen a disaster go well when you do not have enough stuff there fast enough. if you get there, and stabilize it, you buy time, and a lot of times you might not have to order it as much stuff and phase out quicker.

getting to stabilization, i'm not saying it is better, but stopping the loss is a key element. in 2004, we have a tropical storm hit before charlie did. hurricane charlie hit august 13. 22 days later, her ken francis, a 11 days later, hurricane ivan. in each situation we were able to get it stabilized and go to the next disaster. if we were using the traditional model, we would have had overlaps where we could not have moved to the emergency phase for the next disaster while we were basically maintaining a steady state to get into recovery. i thought i had figured this out. i thought this was good. we could make this work.

then, the next year you had a series of hurricanes. most people forget that we started out with hurricane dennis, which should of been an indicator it would be an interesting year. but, it was a relatively compact storm. we had great success. we headed stabilize. again, we thought we had figured the stock and then here comes katrina. -- figured this out, and then here comes katrina. as much as you read about katrina, you basically stop all of the resources out of the system. -- soft all of the resources out of the system. there was a system that got to of aromatic pressure even lower than katrina. we are in a situation where the country is focused on the katrina response. we had a lot of resources

committed. i am looking at a substantial hurricane coming to florida which did not weaken enough. we go into our response. we have a category two hitting the west coast, exiting to the east coast. you would assume the worst damage would be on the west coast, and the least on the east, but it did not read that book. we had greater impact on our east coast because hurricane wilma took power out to about 16 million people. we responded based upon the potential and tax. we sent supplies, said the distributions, and got things on the ground within 24 hours. we have distribution all the way into the florida keys. the problem was we did not have all of the distribution hot up in the first 24 hours.

again, we had waited more heavily on the west coast than the east coast, which was the greater demand, and we were slammed because of our poor response in not having enough supplies out to everyone in the first 24 hours after the tropical wind had exited the coast. this is where i learned another part. after hurricane andrew, we learned that the volunteers and the organizations have to be part of the team. we cannot run with different organizations doing their response, and we do in ours. we have to work as a team. those were lessons we learned pretty good after andrew, and we built a good team to do that. where we have not built a team was with the private sector. based on previous history, particularly early 2004, the presumption was if the power was

out, retail was down. this is what i found to be the trap. we were being government- centric, looking at a problem as how the government would solve it. we had been responding to these hurricanes that have been bad enough that a government- centered approach was getting the job done, but when hurricane wilma hits, it is a much bigger area. we park art as much product in three weeks as we did 3 -- we put out as much product in three weeks as we did in the three hurricanes in 2004. as we were setting up and putting out distribution, again with the assumption the private sector is not up and running, we started getting reports that did not jibe with that. they started saying there are stores open. they had generators.

when did they start do in bed? they did it about -- when did they start doing that? they started doing it about halfway through the 2004 season. from miami, to come beach county, we started calling big box stores, where we new power was out, and only five were not open. governor bush, who i was working for at the time, he likes to remind me of this because he was out meeting with constituents who were complaining about the long lines that we have located in areas that were central to the communities we were serving was good road access, and networks, and had good parking. we were in the parking lot handing out free food and allies.

-- and ice. they were eating fast food and they had just bought groceries in the park -- groceries. this threw me for a loop. up until this point, we had been so focused on what government was going to do, the assumption with disasters was that government was going u.s. to do everything, take care of everybody -- government was going to have to do everything, and take care of everybody. most of the goods and services is done by the private sector, not government before the hurricane, so why do we assume we can deal with that one minute after? our first question, and you may have heard this a circus -- katrina, why don't we contract

with those that know how to deal with this? it turned out that for a small fee, that was more and then my annual budget, to have that much slack and capacity, they would be interested, but they operate in a system that does not have a lot of slack or the capacity to absorb demand beyond what they're doing for their own stores, and i-we're going to invest in that, they could move some stuff in small disasters, but they could not do the things we were doing. i said i was asking the wrong question. what can i do to get you open? it dawned on me. i am competing with the private sector at something they have perfected. then, i am trying to come in after disasters, set up, and operate in that environment, and

actually compete with them. maybe i need to change the question, and stop the competition to what can i do to get you open, and where are you not going to be open? first, you look at what their footprint is like. they are actually in the same places that most local governments say are the point of distribution. where you look -- when you get where they're not bad, you look at inner-city is, and areas that did not have big box stores. if you worked as a team, those places are where we would have set -- sent supplies to. they do not have walmart, home depot. we stepped back and said perhaps this is all model we need to look at. how we work as a partner. you hear the public/private partnership.

i want to be so operational that i know where your stores are, and their status, where i am distributing supplies. i want to know where stores are shutting down, no so i can do my distribution -- so i can do my distribution. when i came to fema, i brought that philosophy, bringing in the retail sector. if you are in government, there are 1000 reasons why people say you cannot do something, and i am sure fleet agreement of that. we were to bring your -- cheerfully ignorant of that. we bring in folks that actually have a position dedicated to the scene the -- to the famous center on a regular basis --

fema center on a regular basis. looking at the private sector, not competing with them, but asking them how to get them open, and with fema i do not have the support -- as local officials, if i can work issues back to the state, opening up lines of communication and getting things done. my team started getting that it was not going to be government- centric. we would embrace the volunteer organizations. the fourth piece had started out that we tend to call them victims, and i kept talking to social scientists and here is the problem. in helping people deal with trauma, you have to empower them and give them control. loss of control, the ability to make decisions, oftentimes makes the recovery more difficult.

they said sometimes words do have power. so, i had adopted in florida the term "survivor" not "dictum." one of the things i realized when we were doing catastrophic planning in florida, and i like to use historical events because a lot of people will say you are becoming a novelist. i like to take historical events, and say what it said happened today? we took the great miami hurricane of 1926, and we overlaid debt, and say what does this look like? some -- overlaid that, and said what does this look like? we looked at the numbers, and said this is about a $120 billion hurricane, or $150

billion hurricane. the population impact is up to 8 million people. housing losses are almost five times what hurricane andrew took out, much bigger than katrina in terms of total impact and dollars. we were doing our catastrophic planning, looking at the government resources of the way up to the department of defense, and even the private sector. we were running it against these timon's of getting the area stabilized in the first 72 -- time lines of getting these areas stabilized in the first 72 hours, and the answer was it cannot be done. you can not redefine success to me what you're capable of doing. -- need to what you are capable of doing. as we are going through this, i said what about the people

living there and the answer was they are all victims. i've been to a lot of disasters. this tendency for people to portray that everyone is shellshocked, sitting around, and not doing anything, that does not happen. people start trying to help each other. people will start doing things. there is this bias that we look at the public as a liability. we tend to the public as a liability that will do bad things. i can remember after hurricane andrew there was a concern about people that were starting to cut, small groups setting up community kitchens, and the big fear was they were not licensed. [laughter] >> the fear was you would get food-borne illness, outbreaks. i have read the mortality

reports, and i did not see anyone that died of food poisoning. i understand we are concerned about sanitation, and those kind of breaks, which could be devastating, but what did not make more sense to give them some quick instructions about sanitation as opposed to saying to not do this? i figure if it is not that bad, and to you have the luxury of telling the public to stay on the sidelines and not help? there is a real challenge. the first thing that came up was the liability. the other issue was there are not trained. we have developed this idea that we will all be credentialed, and everyone will have chips on them they could waive and everyone knows who you are. again, if that is true, i'm still waiting for that to get sold to somebody. the reality is every disaster is come-as-you-are.

if it is really bad, you do not tip the luxury of choosing what to use -- you will not get the luxury of choosing what to use. we do not really say this, but we tend to take a parental approach to the public. if we tend to sink that we will have to tell them what to do, what -- we tend to think we will have to tell them what to do, and make decisions for them, and get in see that anything this suggests the public will take matters in their own hands. we have to get past that. most recently, these tornadoes, as much as we give credit to the first responder communities, who was due in the first rescues? the neighbors crawling out of the debris, going over to the next rubble pile, searching for their neighbors. that happens time and time

again. it is not a unique thing. it is pretty much what people do. i thought maybe we should change messaging from being prepared, to add one little thing, once you and your family are safe, check on your neighbor. during the heat waves, we, again, you saw this message going out from red cross and other officials -- check on your neighbors. you might say a life. if you go back three or four years ago, you might not see or hear that, but we are starting to see more and more recognizing that we have to engage the public. my evolution has gone full circle from government-centric, having to do everything, to recognizing that is a finite capability. volunteers, those that organized and trained, those that emerged, you have to be able to bring them in. the private sector, in

particular. that is an evolving process because you start getting into different sectors. if you are the subject matter experts on this, and it's always funny because we regulate a lot of folks. they will talk to us. how do we go through and really look at getting critical lifeline, services, delivery, online, that are essentially non-governmental, up and running, and do that in no way that speeds the recovery process? the private sector is starting to realize something else. they cannot plan autonomously from government. they are starting to realize that no matter how good business continuity plans are, if the community's plan fails, they

might not be successful either. is your community going to be able to deal with housing and schools open, a basic public services up and running? if they fail, i do not know if your plan will cover that. how many will keep employees in schools -- it schools will not open for months. if i have marketable skills, and i going to stay here that long? what if there is law enforcement not rock -- up and running? this is an evolution that we have gone through to get what we call the whole community. we are not saying government is telling you the government is saying you are on your own. you just need to move away from a government-hundred approach

and realize there are other solutions out there, particularly when they're doing it every day in the community. they oftentimes know as little about us. this has been part of our efforts to bring them together. on the flip side, which goes back to being prepared, this is where we need to get feedback because we saw on parental -- we sound parental. the reason we are telling it to be prepared is because we are all on our own, it is all smoke and mirrors. well, that would be the senate's approach. approach.s let me be more pragmatic. if everyone in this room who lives in the d.c. area -- have something happens here, and it is powerful, and it's the area, and power is not out, and you lose everything in your refrigerator, and you did not

have water pressure, and we start setting up supplies in commodities, have you ever ask yourself -- ask yourself we were competing with when you go get them? this is what i focus on there is a shared responsibility. it is not above being on your own. everybody needs to understand you prepared to the best of your abilities because when you do not, those that should and head of the financial means and resources, when we show up to get our supplies, who do we cut in line in front of? those are most vulnerable have the least amount of resources and aren't the greatest risk. for all of the people of this is -- are at the greatest risk. for a lot of people, they're not comfortable hearing this because they pay their taxes, why cannot -- way -- why do they

not get their supplies? part of this is trying to get everyone to understand that in a disaster the more we have individually prepared ourselves and families, the less resources we have to ship in, and we can get essential services up and start moving back toward recovery. when we talk about prepared this, too often it sounds like this -- he need to have a plan, your supplies for 72 hours, and thank you, you're done. it never tells people why that is so critical. why there will be members of the committee that will not have the resources or ability to get ready, that we do bring supplies and should that have to compete with the rest of us. the faster the response in almost any crisis is a neighbor helping neighbor. we have gone away from that. with talk about what government is going to do, but part of this

is being honest with people. the fastest response was not the fire department. it was neighbors helping neighbors. within 24 hours they got the primary areas done, but still fun people several days later. the bulk of the rescues were done in the first 24 hours, but the credit goes to neighbors helping neighbors, people literally applying skills sets that they have. so, that is that. one last piece. in our planning, we have overly- identified what we were going to do based upon planning for what i call eight generic population. now, if we were doing a good job for that generic population, why is it every time we have a big disaster we identify a group

that was march allies, we did not meet their needs, and we read and an ax? in my time frame, we have written an annex for the elderly, people with disabilities, people that have pets, and were about to for people that have children. [laughter] >> i started asking myself how much of the population is that? you are up to half of the population has pets, up 2 1/4 have children at home, depending on your community. it was like, with a minute, wait a minute, we are planning for easy, and the people that should have been prepared and not need everything we are bringing. it really hit me.

mark shriver on the commission of children and disasters said we have to address children's issues, we have to write an amex because you're not getting these needs met. innocent children should not have to suffer these indignities. i looked dead marks, and i said that sounds like our typical response -- abs mark, and i said that some of our typical response. i said what did not make sense to make the people who need the most out of the core of our plan? he said i'm not sure you're going to have the focus on children. children are not small adults. their needs and dietary issues are different. if we put them in and an ax, everybody will think it is done, and trust me, it will not be part of the court process.

it will be an afterthought you have to think about. i gave him the example. here is the problem -- if i get a request for meals for 1 million people, what will i shipped them? i am going to ship them 1 million meals, or if i'm really .esperate, mre's as a grandfather, my two-year- old can not knock through an mre. i will do what is easy. i will be source the stuff that we have always done, shelf- stable meals, ready-to-eat. we do not put the formula in there.

we do not have infant formula. if i write and an axe, is that going to fix it? we have to change the culture. if we are feeding the general population, you have to go from the consent of the way through the insurer. what goes in and comes out, you need adult models reach in the bottles and disposable -- bottles and disposable items. if you're shopping people, they might show up in a wheelchair, right? our solution was to have a special needs shelter, but they could not go to a general population shelter because they were special. the disability community said we do not like the term special needs, and the americans with disabilities act frowns upon

what you are doing. i said why can we just not be part of the community and the integrated in and you look at our functional needs. this, for emergency managers is tough. we were basically writing for people metro forehead access to mass transit, high school or better education, english as a primary language, financial resources, have insurance -- not exactly the most vulnerable folks in the room, but that is who we were planning for. then we put everyone that was .oo hard to do in an ananex we'll take our planning guide and said that approach fails every time.

we will start planning for the communities that we live in, not those that fit our plan. we know we are going to have to address these issues and their response, so let's address them in our prepared this, our exercises, how we train, how we staff and equipped. if we maintained infant baby supplies, we are going to look at instead of just special needs shelters, we have functional access shelters because people are not -- so people are not turned away. we are looking at how to incorporate all of these issues in the planning phase, and bring the folks together that day-to- day work with these various communities as a part of our team. i've got and pushed back that says this is too hard to do, it is on funded, and not realistic to expect. how many people really heard of

joplin before the tornado hit it. i went there pretty quick. i got there the night after it hit. i am there my second day, i get to the red cross shelter, there was no special needs shelter. there was a red cross shelter. people were there on oxygen, wheelchair's, medical attention was being given, and they were not turned away. nurses provided counseling and screening. they had infants and children with supplies that were being. for by -- cared for. you have the wireless companies

who figured out not only did they need to set up more cell sights. one of the local casinos went to their chargers and donated them. when people showed up with their pets, they were not turned away. how did this happen? they took of the challenges that people said to hard to do, and is said to does this every day? we're going to meet, and we're going to plan if we ever have to open up a shelter how to work as a team and bring the resources together. a couple of weeks after that meeting, they got to practice incurred when people tell me -- practice at it. when people tell me it is too hard to do, i say they did it.

the tornado gave barely any warning, took out and destroyed one of the major medical facilities for the region, and yet in spite of all of that, they operated a shelter that was a textbook of how we plan for the communities that we live in, not what is easy to make them fit our plans. so, fema, we are trying to embrace the whole of community, try to build speed in our response, tried to before- leaning and thinking. i tell my guys when something big happens, go big, go fast, the smart about it. by the time you know, you lose the ability to change the outcome. people say it is wasteful, you will spend this money, and i say trust me, if you did not plan, do not respond the way and get behind, he will be far more costly. we did not do this on every possessor.

when we have come -- disaster. we are going to change the outcome, but we are not unwind to do with just as the law. we have to bring the full seem to the table. that as a thumbnail of whole of community. people say this is all brand new, but i should this is pretty much emergency management. this is forcing ourselves to recognize emergency management is not just what government does. it is how do you bring in the whole team because the real goal here is we lose fewer lives, we get to the injured quickly, we stabilize, recover, rebuild, and restore communities in a rapid manner. that all tends to be set in the first couple of days of response. failure there can prolong, protect, and increase suffering, loss of life, total cost to the committee and the taxpayer. our goal is to speed up the response, but not limited to

what government can do, but how we will build a team. look at things like the tsunami in japan, and those things could happen here. events of that scale are definitely in the realm of possibility, not hypothetical. we have had historical events that say not only have they happen, but are going to happen again. so, with that, that is whole of community, and my thoughts. question? [laughter] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> sir? >> can i ask how you would use the mass media as and enabling, and supporting function, instead of having them in the react mode? i have read books where the

media would come into cmo or emergency management and learn what it really took to -- fino or emergency management and .earn what it really talkeook >> if you try to call what the media to be part of your mouthpiece, they will rebel and you will never get there. if you look to what the media has -- their primary responsibility is to report the good, bad and the ugly. the other part is they can be a great communicator to provide information about what to do. what you have to understand is there is a balance there. you need to educate and provide that information ahead of time. you build relationships. you make yourself available. you understand the media's role. tomorrow, i will be doing a check with the weather channel

about hurricane preparedness. we will do a live chat thing, and i will be tight in my answers. you have to build on the front end. you have to understand that if you try to call what the media so that they are part of the team, they say wait, we need to maintain separation and independence because we will report the good, in your bed. we have to seemed and partial -- and your bad. u.s. law understand what their job is, but they can also educate -- you have to understand what their job is, but they can also educate the viewer. the provide for mess that are useful. this is classic. how many people see they do the press conference a 5:00 p.m.? for the television guy, it's like "you are killing me." can we move it earlier?

can we both did during our show instead of deleted when we are not in show? that this stuff that a lot of times seven people dead and go to the media, and say what works avy people get and go toe the media and say what works for you? i'm trying to make my information user-friendly. the more user-friendly i was, the greater likelihood the use this information and get it out. there is a new peace to this. if the public are survivors, and we have to look them as part of the team, maybe they are not a liability, they are a resource. this is something everybody is dipping into, but the best information i have gotten a lot of recent disasters has either

come from weather channel folks are other folks on the ground, or from the public' itself. i ran a 911 center. do you know how many bad calls you got? there are many times i went to an unknown illness where guns were drawn. you have to build relationships set of time. you also have to remember that if they even think you are trying to control them, or show them the good news, you will lose whatever relationship you have, and if it is bad news, you might as well get it out there because they will find out anyway. sir? >> what kind of relationship does fema have with foreign governments, particularly with recent incidents in japan, to ensure that lessons learned from

there are applied to our country and a similar scenario? >> we have a lot. a part ofned mou's as our bilateral agreements with australia. we have had staff go there in the aftermath of debt. -- of that. the other part is not everything that happens might be applicable to us, so we go through the process of what happened, how did you deal with it, what applies to us? what was interesting about the earthquake, tsunami, and and the nuclear power plant, which was most of our attention in the united states, because -- which was kind of tragic, was looking at this from the standpoint of are we planning for things this bad? we did not know the tsunami what

happened, obviously, but if you look at the numbers of what we need to be planning against, the tsunami in japan actually sits underneath where our realistic thresholds are. in some cases, we find a star delegating some of the things we have been talking about because a lot of -- start invalidating some of the things it we have been talking about because a lot of people say we will never have anything that big. we look at the lessons learned, and we also validate. one of the interesting things from our conversations with australia and new zealand, australia has a similar programs to the u.s. in that their territories and local governments and provincial governments actually have more authority, like a state does. we found ourselves, one we're talking to australia's about big floods, that many of the similar issues of -- talking to

australia about big floods, then many of the similar issues are things that we face. it is something we do invest time in. again, sometimes it is validating. sometimes it is not relevant. sometimes there are nuggets of stuff that we go this is something we will have to .repare for parent > >> he mentioned the role of the state national guard. what key areas the think the death -- the department of defense could support index >> ruble-status commanders. this is probably one of the breakthroughs. congress passed a law that formed the council of governors, which appointed 10 governors, have republican, have democrat, to look at ongoing issues of the national guard, with a particular focus on one of the challenges we have always said.

when we brought in forces into a state, having to have cooled command structures, and all of -- dual command structures, this had been troublesome because many have served overseas and had been titled 10 commanders. when it came back states said, they're told you can not be in a legal chain of command. we introduced a concept of gould-status command that has moved through the process of allowing governors to innominate -- to nominate officers to bedual certified to both the man stayed active duty -- to both come and state active duty.

this is been a significant breakthrough. it is part 1 of part two. that is being able to bring in title 10 forces into a state and integrate them in gives us unity of effort, and the other pieces something that we still face as a nation. i am sure most of you know this. we cannot reach out and touch our reserve forces in a disaster without a presidential mobilization, which has a time commitment, and basically takes away from being able to do any other duty for the timeframe of that activation, yet many of our combat support forces could be faster and more responsive if we had congress giving the authority to provide that presidential call-up could be less than a call up under the current reserve act. right now, secretary janet napolitano can be reserved call- ups of the coast guard, but the

secretary of defense does not. the next big goal for the department of defense, and this will require congressional action, is to provide for the ability to bring up reserves for short-term durations in support of disaster response. that will be one of the key issues of bringing the rest of the team on board. although there are out there, they're difficult to bring in to respond to the situation we face. longer-term, we have been looking and a tendency for us to over-think problems. we were talking to folks about search and rescue. when we look at earthquakes, the tendency is we have the specialized teams that are really designed for the collapsed, complex structures, but if we have relaxed structures, a lot of suburbia

will be impacted. we need for small compliers. the tendency we get into is we try to tell you what to do, instead of telling you what is the outcome, what do you think would work? we came in and said we want engineering units. they would be perfect to do search and rescue. we actually came back with our urban search and rescue guys, and they said that is not what you need. you get to go house-by-house and do a quick search. he did not need those engineers. -- you do not need those engineers. it was like do not tell me how to solve the problem, tell me what the problem is, and let me apply a solution. for katrina, we wrote so many mission assignments. instead of trying to tell you how to do it, we told you what is the outcome, and give greater flexibility to meeting those needs. with the department of defense,

it is always just as you are, you do not always available when the next disaster strikes, so the ability to not be so focused on a particular type of unit gives greater flexibility, and also writing mission statements and assignments that are broad in scope and give commanders more flexibility in applying the tools they have. these are some of the things we are working on, but the biggest thing is speeding up the process. mission assignments, and getting a pass, and getting people in, and deployed, it still takes us a long time. i was really pleased we were working on that with one of the joint chiefs. he shares my passion. there is a lot of process that we need to speed up to get things going faster because if we're going to change outcomes in 72 hours, we need to speed that process up. part of that is making mission assignments more flexible, and more based upon outcomes.

>> my question is about the whole of community concept. can you speak to the future of the private sector prepared this program, and how it integrates into your vision? >> dhs , or the private sector in general? >> both, if you want. >> i am finding that if i really want to get the private sector engaged, i have to do something differently and talk about return on investment. i am taking a little bit different tack. if people are focused in on credentials and excess, and that is great, but what i'm really finding it is if you want to get to the heart of businesses, it is all about finding a bottom line. unless they are in non-profit, what is the return on investment? if they cannot answer the question, did not do some stuff

come off as for good will, but it will not be a sustained investment. i am pushing for this -- a lot of companies would be better off scrapping contingency plans, and just have enough insurance to pay off everything, making a profit, and) -- and close. if the community is not ready, they're better off not reopening. i'm trying to get across that their interest is as great. when i started this, most everyone i ran into where business continuity managers focused on data and financials. we now see titles more and more called emergency managers. i think the prudential peace to all of that was an early attempt. -- credential piece to all of that was an early attempt.

it is worse than church and state. it is a separation. we are finding it is useful to share data across open data systems to give them visibility and what we are doing, and what they're doing. we're pretty close for several major retailers will give us live data feeds, where we can map and see store status in real time in a disaster. so, there are some good starts there, but we're going way test bed to look at how we work, respond, and support each other in a situation where you are not going have clear lines of knowing who is government and was the private sector. >> there are a lot of us in this room that are involved in the study of homeland security or federal emergency management.

what are those areas which we can focus on, whether it be as think tanks or in academia that would help you do your job better? >> i think we could see a much emphasis on the hazards and less on the societal impacts and the sociology of how people deal with things. in my profession there are a lot of people -- the hard science, the engineering, the forecasting, the meteorology -- if this is one the things i have often questioned. we have spent more money coming up with a perfect forecast, but we never change a -- asked the outcome if we will change the outcome and are we using the right methods? we issue a warning. people still die, what happened? this is a big question with joplin and the southeast tornado. we often time spend so much time on the science, we forget about the people, and this is for me

the societal aspects of how populations react. how do you change behavior? there are two successful campaigns. when i was growing up, not wearing your seat belt and smoking were the norms. if you or your seat belt or did not smoke you were an outsider. today, it is the other way around. when we talk about preparedness, most people come if they have a flashlight and very basic steps, it is about as good as it gets pretty you are and how liar if she really got ready. how the change that? you start diluting yourself. in both situations there were punitive impact, bad things happened and have consequences. since the disasters are such a

low-frequency event, fortunately, there is a hole in that. what i think we need it is more scientists, social scientists, and more research which is not high-science, and most of the think it is not that relevant, but with the signs we're trying to work in, we end up talking at them, and they do not hear us. we do things, and except certain things to happen, and we cannot figure out why he. i think it is because we do not look at markets and research's -- research involving social science. we do not understand the demographics of the community. that is why it is easy for us to plan for a community and forget we do not live in pakistan government structures. people do not live in a city, they live in a neighborhood. people did not identify with government structures, yet

everything we do is based on government response try to overlay that. to me, that is a big area that 10 cents to get the funding, it is not glamorous, but that is if where you're going to change outcomes, or have the ability to provide information that will get people to behave differently. if we do not, it does not matter how good the forecast as. it to the people that could change the outcome did not, we do not know why. it is because we do not get it. >> i got the hook. [laughter] [applause] >> actually, kind as giving you

a graceful way out because these people would keep you here for another hour, easily. so, i wanted to live. at that was terrific. it is clear you are a national asset, and we are delighted to have you inside the beltway, although you might not be delighted by that. >> cheese and wine. >> i thought that in 1995. [laughter] >> we are honored to have you talked to us today. it was a wonderful presentation. you bring a wonderful wealth of experience and talent. >> thank you. thank you, everybody.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the airline pilots association is meeting in washington this week and we will hear from gsa administrator john kissell at 1:30 eastern.

he will talk about joining a discussion about mitigating security risk and we will have that live for you at 1:30 on c- span 2. on c-span at 1:30 eastern, we will bring you live coverage of analysts disgusting -- discussing whether the deficit reduction committee can succeed. the brookings institution is hosting the panel on the challenges facing the panel here on c-span at 1:30. at 6:30 eastern, the non-violent political movements in the world for the john hopkins school of political discussion will talk about why the movements are popping up in some countries and not in others. in political news in the u.s., texas governor rick perry says he does not believe in global warming. he also says he would not have signed the debt ceiling compromise brokered by republicans and democrats did he made those comments this morning as he launched a two-day new hampshire campaign tour. he spoke this morning at a

breakfast event with business leaders in new hampshire. we'll show you that even later in our schedule on c-span and you can see it shortly on c- span.org. he says global warming is based on scientists manipulating data and a compromise on the debt ceiling sent a message to spend more money that the u.s. does that have carried track the latest campaign contributions with cspan's web site for campaign 2012, easy-to-use, it helps navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, a candidate by as, and the latest polling data plus links to cspan partners. this is all at c-span.org/ campaign 2012. now a brookings institution discussion on the impact of political fights in congress on america's foreign policy and the country's overall standing

abroad. the panelists include the senior fellow and a former u.s. ambassador to israel who is the vice president and director of foreign policy at brookings. a moderator of this hour-and-a- half discussion. >> i am director of the foreign policy here at brookings. we thought the topic of today's conversation was so compelling and should not wait until after labor day. we are here to talk about the farm policy consequences -- the foreign policy consequences of political dysfunction in the united states. it is a subject that has been

raising the debt ceiling and the on brand america abroad, a brand that has already suffered some considerable tarnishing in the bush era, something that president obama was determined abroad but now it has only seemed to have gotten worse. we wanted to bring together some experts from brookings to talk about what is happening domestically and how that is toacting america's ability promote and protect its interests abroad.

#ádñ",+ let me introduce the senior chair at brookings. tom is an expert on all things broken and how to fix them. [laughter] i say that because his most recent book called "the broken branch," how congress is failing america and how to get back on track. to my right is theona hill, the director of the u.s. and europe and the senior fellow in no firm policy program. she is an expert on russian affairs and of the siberian kurds, communists left

communists -- left rush out and the cold as he was recently the national intelligence council officer on russia. o on u.s. foreign policy. bob is the author of a number of best-selling and profound of paradise and power." on american foreign policy called "dangerous nation." many of you know bob as a columnist for "the washington post" and contributing editor to

"the weekly standard." ken lieberthal is the director of our center on china. he is an expert on china and served as senior director for asia by national security council in the clinton administration and has written a huge number of books on chinese politics and economics for your - i'm looking last book -- i don't have it here. "the china challenge" which is about how not to do business in china. mauricio cardenas is the director of our national -- latin american initiative. before joining brookings, he served as the colombian minister

of transportation, director of national planning, and minister of economic development. he has written several books and academic papers in his time as a think-tank researcher. he has taught economics in various places including the university of california at berkeley. i want to start with tom mann. i want to have you analyze for us the nature of the dysfunction and whether you see this as somehow getting fixed anytime soon. >> i can only smile. i am afraid i will start this session of without my normal

burst of optimism. you mentioned "the broken branch" and the sequel is "it's even worse than it looks." [laughter] the signs of dysfunction are all around us. most immediate was the dreadful experience. charles krauuthamer said the system is working but everyone else sees this as truly an embarrassment, a matter of great seriousness than potential damage but utterly unnecessary. i'm talking about the hostage- taking of the debt ceiling increase. that was planned one year earlier. it was used in a way that it

never has been before. it was hoped to force a set of changes but in the and produced paltry pay off that lesson -- sickened bybservers secon the risks taken on an unimpressed by the results that came from it. put that together with sluggish growth, high unemployment, projected increase in the debt to gdp ratio and the fact that no action on any of these matters is likely to occur before the 2012 election and it is not clear how things will get themselves result afterwards. the s&p downgrade was part of

this although i think the global rush to treasurys reminds all this that the snb is likely to suffer a greater downgrade than the u.s. [laughter] underlying these specific things are two widespread views about the craziness of foot in america. the first has to do with contemporary republican party. it is ideological extremism and a sense to deny reality whether it is the efficacy of the financial stabilization and stimulus, the utility of the tax pledge, the nonexistence of climate change - this occurs

among prominent leaders and members of the party in congress and among all but one of their presidential aspirants. that sends a signal across the globe that america is in trouble and has fallen off track, that something is a mesamiss. it is not just a temporary episode of conservative populism but one of our major political parties is no longer maintaining an adult status, one in which they can wrestle and they're willing to wrestle responsibly over legitimate differences with the opposition and have something come from it. finally, coming out of all this now, there is developing a perception of the weakness of

our president in the face of all these difficulties. people see him in his futile search for a negotiating partner and politics to deliver on his promise of a post- partisan politics in government and see him maneuvered into misplaced emphasis on deficits and debt at a time when the economy is floundering and there is little sign of the growth in jobs that would actually, combined with serious action on deficits, allow us begin to regain their footing and some traction. i think all of those contribute to the perception of this function. if you see what is coming and

the next few months in the time before the election, the only solace you take is i don't think we will have quite the crisis that was contrived around the debt ceiling. it is past the election and we will return to that past -- in 2013 and there will be agreement on the budget this coming year. there'll be some minor adjustments that there is no opportunity to shut the government down over that. at the very least, it is possible that we will all be put through the melodrama of the last month. having said that, the odds of the so-called super committee, a joint committee of congress, 12 members, equal numbers of democrats and republicans, all

of whom are viewed as reliable players by their respective leaders - it wouldn't matter if they were all while the independence. ts. they are operating under composed political roles the most important which is knowing what pre-tax revenues. nothing good is likely to come out of this so we will fall back into a trigger is and that does not go into effect until after the election so there is still time to ward them off. the safest bet is that nothing will happen and that will contribute to the sense that we cannot function as a democracy. we are in full campaign mode. the media is relieved to get away from the debt ceiling story.

now they have the iowa straw poll and governor rick perry and michelle bachmann and what more do you want? [laughter] the campaign is underway. barack obama is on the campaign trail for the better part of this week. frankly, i see that as a plus because this congress fated to get nothing of consequence, positive consequences done as a result of the objective of the people who are in a position to drive it. god knows we need some clarity from the electorate. we may not get it but i think you will see lines drawn in a

way that we have not in a very, very long time. it is partly a consequence of the right move of the center of the republican party. it is partly where the energy lies and it is partly because even president obama has lost patience for mechanized by partisanship -- for making bipartisanship and doing what people in washington feel he should do. you will see lines drawn. will any clarifying signal from the electorate emerge? it is complex and mushy. the politicians, and all of us will try to make that clear. what we have in washington, the

people say it does un governable and that has to do with the party system and the asymmetric nature of the polarization that exists right now. finally, i don't see any prospects for a dramatic transformational leadership opportunity breaking us out of all of this. i think we will have been disappointingly slow growth for a long time as we squeeze the leverage out of the system, private and public, and that will put enormous pressures on those who are in charge and continue to make our politics dysfunctional. if the public wants to see

something else, if they want to see some real clarity, if they don't like the blogging, -- blocking, they will endorse a single party and introduced parliamentary-like institutions that allow that party to govern and hold them accountable. we're not there yet. thank you. >> of lifting -- [laughter] >> i warned you. >> now we will go to mauricio for something even more uplifting. the way this fits into global economic development -- today we have gloomy news coming out of europe about growth stalling in germany and france. we urge tom allude at the end to

the idea that growth could solve a lot of these problems. what the chances for economic growth from where we are today? >> thank you. they are limited. we're talking about leadership here and leadership, no matter how you define it, the fines -- is defined by a strong economy. recessions happened. strong economy is an economy that can overcome a recession and can adopt policies. policies need to be credible. to be credible, they have to have certain characteristics like not incurring huge debts that are not sustainable. at the end of the day, what we

need is the ability to conduct a specific policies that stabilize the american economy but at the same time provides a long-term plan for fiscal sustainability it is the inability to provide a plan that is, causing -- that is causing the turmoil. to restore the leadership, to make sure that the u.s. economy is a strong economy, we need to provide that type of plan. whether the political system can't do it, that is the question. in the world economy, if the u.s. is in trouble, if the u.s. political system is not working, i think things are worse in europe. the levels of debt there are even higher. the sacrifices that are necessary are much greater.

whether it will take a long time before we see fiscal stability. facing that reality, the reality of the advanced world, the events to economies of the world that are highly leveraged, there is a group of emerging countries that as much lower public debt and is represented a much higher share of growth. we see that as a great occupation them of who are we talking about? "we're talking about the brett's primarily. we're talking about asia and latin america. you hear words like irresponsible policies in the u.s. or phrases talking about

the parasite of the economies of the world like prime minister putin put it recently. this is in an environment where our countries are losing with an agenda for filling up in a vacuum and the space that is being led by the advanced economies and a preoccupation that the world is losing a ket ending. we are flying with one engine which is china. i don't think that works. that is not good news for the world economy as a whole. this is why the world is looking at washington with concerns. it is not just about the u.s. economy. it is a broader problem about the world's economy at large. >> in 2009, president obama and

other world leaders came together at the g20 and a grade i course of stimulus -- and agreed on a course of a sense of world out ofjar the mora the economic crisis. what are the prospects for the g20 now being used as a vehicle to overcome some of these problems? >> talking about the second stimulus package in the united states goes nowhere. countries in the emerging world and particularly china and brazil, for example, have the capacity to stimulate their economies. with fiscal policies like they did in 2009 and 2010 primarily because levels of public debt are still low so they can expand the government expenditures without causing the kind of

concerns we have in the u.s.. their concerns about the downgrading of u.s. treasuries or concern about the market's response to an increase in the fiscal deficit. there is that maneuver. it is ltd. and its capacity to steer the entire world economy in the direction of growth. i think that will be unreasonable to expect that as relates to india, china, and brazil, is about all world getting back on track. to talkld like fiona abide europe. -- to talk about your. europe. >> you just made a good point

about speaker is coming in and growth falling in germany is set to increase concerns on the european front. one week ago, we might have been singling out germany as being in other major driver in the global economy. germany's fundamentals are pretty sound. in the debt level be in the empire europe, that is true of different countries. the devils collectively, are not as great. the europeans are worried about the contagion affected the united states. if the u.s. loses its triple a rating, what about france, what about germany? we've already seen contagion from the great crisis spilling over into italy. there are questions about spain now.

they were already on the brink of having the markets responded to serious problems in the spanish economy. there were double standards in europe. the united states seems to have the largest debt and at the same time under the downgrade by s&p, the market's flee to the united states. this is being pointed out much of the commentary we have seen with the u.s. analysts, they say is not so bad but who are we competing for, dysfunctional europe? ofre doing a good job the united states. the fears in europe at the

moment are ones of perception. about the bottom and the importance of u.s. leadership. they are concerned about populism in the united states but they have plenty of their own populism. the have the right in london and various other mass of debates that people have had now and then. we have seen plenty of people on the streets of athens and elsewhere and even in israel where we have protests in the bureau's on but on the fringes space of people protesting austerity measures, populist parties have made a lot of traction in politics. we have elections coming up in france. next year in 2012 we will see if the men are competitive.

we have the elections in germany in 2013. the coalition has tried to keep together there. there is a question about how politics in germany will go. this function seems to be breaking out all over. >> that is a good song. >> the european song contest for [laughter] we have issues that have to be addressed on all fronts. how does onestem it? >> ken, china - is dysfunction going to -- tell us how the chinese view all of this from beijing. then give us a sense of how we can still rely on china to be

the engine that will pull us out of all of this? i think the chinese and people throughout asia consider the u.s. to be the most powerful and dynamic country in the world. does not like everyone has written off the u.s. by any means. we play a huge roll out there. of respect. having said that, i think we are known in the region rightly as being a country does not have an especially good record at avoiding huge errors in what we do domestically. what we have a terrific record at is recovering from those areas and emerging stronger than we were before. the genius of our system is in the recovery. it is not in avoiding mistakes. the big question around asia is

-- are we losing our bounceback capability? as our political system becomes a dysfunctional that we can no longer reach some kind of mobilize the enormous resources we have throughout our society to move forward in the future and capture the future? that is a very big question. the events of the last couple of weeks have added an exclamation point to that question. people see it as a self- inflicted wounds, one that was handled badly, and whose outcome does not bode well for the future. i think this is also -- has also tarnished the u.s. model of democracy + . china says you need a bigger state role and a more cohesive state. you cannot argue on last couple of

weeks. the u.s. is seeing china as a country in the past that could be counted on to be the go to country. have unparalleled resources. in the future, we do not have the capability to step up whether it is a global stimulus program or peacekeeping or whatever it may be, we will not be there to be the leader. we will encourage others to put the resources. that is a different kind of perception of the u.s. role in the future. you go to the trigger mechanism to thatm mentions. it worried me that you said we will wind up with the trigger mechanism. it has nearly half of the

settings that are mandated out of our broadly defined security system. if that is implemented, that will force serious changes. we are increasing our security- related forces in asia. there is no real question as to what will be cut. you can be sure countries around the region are looking at that. that relates to a bigger issue is the issue of how everyone relates to china. to date, as you look around the region, every country in the region must have benefited from the chinese economic growth. china is the largest trade partner of every single country in the region. as of the year 2000, we were. the change has been extremely significant. they don't want to have the

chinese leverage their economic power to diplomatic military advantage. countries throughout the region are turning to the u.s. to ask us to protect them from that and balance the chinese diplomatically and on the security side so we can benefit from the economic growth that in china. insofar as they doubt our capacity to step up to the plate, on the diplomatic and security side, but will have more in the direction of china. within china itself, there are ardent nationalists and china will have ready access to the web who argue that the u.s. is clearly in decline and will not recover. therefore, it is time for china to press its longstanding positions. chinese leadership does not believe that. still say that the u.s. is

and a mill -- and they may still be serious and long run. we're not sure so we will hold back and watch what happens before we make commitments. the shadow of the future release haunts asia at this point. the shape of that shadow is shifting. plus we get our act together better, is not shifting in the right perspective. china will continue to do very well. the reality is that is not certain. if you look to china for the next stimulus program, you might have a long wait before they direction. there were about inflation and ansett, bubbles and declines in its export markets, all kinds of problems. there are substantial levels of social instability. they're not about to start turning a s the moneypigots

again especially when their level of bad debt at local levels is very high. they are still trying to figure out how deep and all they are. they can manage it but we are talking trillions of dollars, not hundreds of billions of dollars. how it plays out. better off if china does well but they may not do well in which case i think the problems that we talked about are further complicated. let me conclude with one last remark. 2012 will be an extraordinary year in the asia-pacific region. we have an election year and the chinese have their succession in the fall of 2012. 70% of their top leadership will turnover.

many countries have political changes in 2012. there has not been a year in several generations where all of the top national leaders were essentially focused on domestic politics and the politics of succession and 2012 will be. that is a terrible time to have a lousy economy and many concerns about the future. >> one of the reasons i p have an hastob kagn lasses because he can give us a historic perspective. the debt crisis has chipped away at the global authority of president obama. was -- he was celebrant abroad

and to the office but he would end an era of u.s. intellectualism. another subject is whether the age of obama is giving way to an age of austerity that will reduce america's influence internationally. >> do i have to respond? he is not here. we are in a serious crisis. but there is a way in which we are in an election season and we want to start casting blame and we want to make sure that the other party for president is blamed not only for the domestic prices but also for tarnishing america pause reputation in the world. it is important to step back and see what the measures of american power and influence really are. we need to ask ourselves in a sober way, how much have they declined?

i substantially agreed with what ken said, i'm sorry. the united states continues to provide very important global goods too much of the world including to china whether it is through its security role, whether it is the fact its economy is still the largest economy in the world and everybody depends on the health of the american economy and i think there is no other real competitor for a role that the united states plays. i don't anybody in the world thinks there is either. we can get too caught up in our impression a brand america but as i look back over the past 60 years, we can tremendously overstate how wonderful brand america was in the past. i can remember times in the

past, 1974, for instance, or anytime between 1968 and the mid 1970 pause when the european brand was badly tarnished by vietnam and watergate and assassinations and by wasp riots. i don't think we are in that ballpark now. we have a degree of political distortion audi but the world is accustomed to u.s. this functionality. are we able to provide these kind of public goods that he met states has provided the past? in the midst of this dreadful crisis, much of the world was still looking to the united states to please use its military power in libya. coming after iraq and george w. bush and coming after economic debacle and coming after the turning of the american image,

the arab league and the europeans were practically begging the united states to use force in libya. that is rather astonishing. what can happen? i think the debt crisis is serious and when tom was saying there is too much fixation on the debt problem -- on the debt problem, i wanted to bring down alice rivlin. i think the debt crisis is the big crisis. i think that is what the world is paying attention to. they want to know whether the united states can get its debt under control. for me, the question in terms of foreign policy, what is the impact going to be on america's cravaack -- ability to provide these public goods. if the consequence of our debt crisis is an entirely unnecessary rating of the

pentagon copper -- coffers of precise to the right moment that many people around the world and particularly in asia but also the middle east and europe are looking for the united states to continue applying its military role. that is when the decline begins. when we cut our capacities, that is when the decline starts. i worry that we are talking ourselves into a decline that needn't occur and we are committing pre-emptive superpower suicide for fear of dying. i hope as we move through this very politically -- political environment, we keep our eyes on the ball. i think of the blue don't begin as this will cover -- will recover is right. i think it will be either in the second term of barack obama or someone else's first term. sometimes you go through american history and you look at the years from 1850 or the

1930's. america's had to go through tremendous destruction audi before arriving at some kind of solution. i'm optimistic we'll get the solution. >> t d getom to comment briefly let me get -- let me get tom in on this. >> the second part of the debt ceiling increase agreement was a target for additional savings towards the deficit but first was roughly $900 billion to one trillion dollars over 12 years. the fact that it was $1.20 trillion. if the congress fails to receive

from the joint committee and an act, followed by the president's signature, our day -- how they plan to do that day national way. the backup is a set of automatic reductions and those are divided roughly evenly between the defense budget and, get this, medicare providers. the grand balanced budget agreement of 1997 that everyone is so proud of had as the only cuts that on medicare providers and we have been fixing that ever since, every year so it does not go into effect. there was no savings on spending in 1997.

the other part is it did not go into effect until 2013. i would say no president could not live without a backup mechanism. i am convinced that something will replace of this. there is some give and flexibility in the face of non- negotiable demands. i presume we will do the right thing. one of the most obvious ways in the short term -- deficits and debt are a big problem that everything we have done so far as -- is counterproductive to it. what i think has to happen is for obama not to bargain away

his most powerful lever for getting something destructive done which is the expiration of the bush tax cuts. that is the one thing that makes this -- unfavorable to republicans even if obama is reelected. that would almost instantly eliminate our immediate problem and allow us to make reasoned judgments about defense spending. there is help out of this in that sense. that will only be if the actors who are in a position to do something about it but don't ask foolishly and give away the leaders we have.

it is about taxes and health- care costs. we don't want to repeal the affordable care act or disable it. we want to build on it so we can actually deal responsibly with those health care costs. it will not happen in 2012. >> one of the aspects of america's ability to reduce itself is it reduced -- renews his political leadership in a regular and sometimes dramatic fashion. sometimes you have by present obama with a second term mandate able to take more risks than he might have taken in a first term or you'll have a new president has a better chance. >> in the meantime, the world waits and watches. >> they have done that before.

the world had to live through the monica lewinsky crisis. [laughter] i remember in 1998 that there were all kinds of editorials all over the world. bob's clinton could not anything and republicans were at his throat and winter or iran- contra. does anybody remember that? talk about dysfunction and reagan is remembered as our greatest president a [laughter] >> is true that the world can wait. been used to that. it is true superpower status if it is more degrees of freedom but they are not unlimited degrees of freedom. i think they are tainted.

in today's world, there is more competition for supremacy. qmong whom? >> there are others waiting. >> brazil's >> ? we are measuring these in decades. >> wake me up when -- [laughter] >> undeniably, the balance of power is shifting. maybe it is taking time but the notion that the united states is the preeminent superpower is a little hard to maintain. china is the merging with a powerful economy and a huge budget surplus which is putting into -- with a has been putting into its military. it is not as of the world now is

just watching and waiting. the world is also acting in ways that we don't have as much ability to control of s or evenhape. we't there a danger where become preoccupied politically that others will seek to fill the vacuum or go their own way? when we finally get around to it in 2013 and how this works itself out, we may find ourselves in a situation that is much more difficult for the united states to influence. >> i am in favor of being alarmed about a lot of things but i want to push back a little bit on this judgment. is one. during the cold war, japan and dizzying heights of economic power while the united states was not.

for rise of the japanese economy and the german economy towards the rise of the brazilian and indian economy in terms of their impact. as it turns out, this did not impact literally so i don't know how brazil and india can compare. what about china? there's no question that china is not the senate was before. when we look back at the cold china. we had the soviet union. they were occupying half of with massive forces and a massive nuclear force with real global reach3 h. i would venture to say we are still better off today with a rising china than we were in that period. things are shifting and i agree with m fauricio.

shifts.re secular o until concerns about china crop of. in 1987, paul kennedy broke a smart book about american decline and make america being overstretch. it was well supported by facts and history. change but the soviet union unexpectedly collapsed. if you had to ask me what is more likely, that the united decline that will be with us decade after decade or that china will run up against some challenge which may seriously shape it's a system, i think the china challenge is probably the greater problem. do, too. >> do you want to respond, ken?

>> not really [laughter] . >> let's talk about russians and how they view this political dysfunction. >> that is a good segue from where we were just last. the united states is not immune despite all the evidence. we are hearing this argument a lot in this russian context. it is not just the russians, is about here. useful phrase for the russians because it shows that it can happen to anyone.

some have said that the collapse of the soviet union was the worst thing happened in the 20th century. chinese would really bite into this but for the russians, they are send the narrative and theare 20 years old other superpower is in the same position. are overextended militarily, massive lay in debt, alliances are in tatters and nato looks tarnished with lots of unsuccessful walls. it has been almost 20 years from the soviets withdraw from that, and where is the united states on that her? they are about to go into elections in 2012. ken was talking about the

enormous leadership transition in asia, about 70% of the chinese party so we can bet there will not be much of a leadership change in russia. we have very limited options for who will emerge. even that the chairs shift, we still have the same people for the last 10 years. we've got to make this exciting. it is a great reflection away from the iran problems at home. you can blame other people for economic issues and there's a great deal of concern that russia is slowing down and they might not be able to deal with a double dip recession. if the united states pulls europe down, there's goes directly to where it hurts in the russian economy because it is fueled by oil and gas revenues.

in terms of the political discourse and, this is a great way of reflecting the fact there will not be a leadership position in russia. democratic deficits. we are familiar with this now. just as the united states has lost its aaa rating, the diminishing of the obama presidency based on consensus or negotiation and multilateralism, it also weakens his presence in d.c.. the chinese have a need for a strong hand and keeping things together. that does not play well into politics of russia right down. look at the chaos in europe and the united states.

we can't possibly want to have a repetition of this. crisis needs of strong leadership. this is a helpful narrative for russian politics even though over the longer term, it does not help russia economically. it corresponds to the reality in moscow. they are on the same page as the chinese as to where the u.s. is. >> let's go back to china. >> as you do that, is the chinese leadership leadership going to be affected the same way? will it justify our system? >> they have made that argument in two different guises over the last 30 years gui the firstse was when the soviet union

collapsed. they said to look at the chaos of their and the decline in standards of living. if you want to change our system, that is what it will become. that is what the future looks like. what we can offer instead is very rapid economic growth and stability. more recently, they point to the united states and say affectively that democracy -- multi-party free suing democracy like we have produces chaos. that is not a way to husband resources and get from here to there. at least until they become a fully middle income country, it is worth keeping an open mind. chinese capacitor for gdp put it below #100 in the world. china is still a developing country. it is not a middle-income country. until they become a middle- income country, we need the

capacity to mobilize and focus resources in order to do the tough things necessary to manage urbanization and massive changes in society. they point to the u.s. as not a complete-example but let's face it, a democracy does not get a lot done when facing critical issues. i want to come back to the fur more ofbob. -- to the framework of bob. you presented this in your final remarks well. is he was going to recover or will t chinarip up? there was an implicit comparison to the soviet union.

thinking back in terms of the u.s. and soviet union, during the cold war it is hard to miss. the chinese advances have been on integrating it to the local economy. the data degraded -- have been degraded their entire economy. -- they have been ingrained their entire economy. their military advantage is to decrease their military and the world. it is different from the way the soviet union managed pits the situation. we have enormous interest in china's success. their success can bring and those already bring enormous benefits.

and the enormous opportunities. our worry about china's success will be that if they succeed and they are able to shape international practice in ways that are profoundly not liberal, that are revisions of the current system, that works against our interests and the interest of most folks we care about. what was a successful chad that fits into a global system that continues to operate a broadly along the principles of the system that was set up after world war two. that system is at risk if the u.s. is not powerful enough to support it. we have to be successful ourselves. our ideal outcome is a u.s. succession from chinese recession. dramatic chinese failure "is going to impose costs on all those that are huge. dramatic u.s. failure