live 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. with about 14 million americans out of work. then republican presidential candidate john huntsman lays out his plan. later, joe lieberman talks about u.s. security since 9/11. >> he is a partisan guy. all of the problems of the era, you could get from the sky, but why we could not elected is the same reason peevishly went to war. they could not be resolved. >> he had the misfortune of running against a great military hero, dwight eisenhower. i really do not think there's least given some

one. >> when you think about smith in 1828 -- in 1928. he paved the way for roosevelt. i can pre much guarantee there will be fascinating and surprising. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> history percent for -- history professor gene baker and richard norton smith talk about the 14 men who ran for president and lost. it is a preview for "the contenders," a new series on c- span. >> next, a discussion on how the public and private sectors can work together to create jobs.

this session looks at infrastructure investment. we will hear from transportation secretary railroad. this bipartisan council on jobs and -- transportation secretary ood.woullah this by pressing council on jobs was created by president obama. >> i have no position on who should win the game tomorrow night. i am honored to be here. we are holding what we call listening sessions on particular issues. the issue we're talking about today is infrastructure and its role in creating jobs and a competitive economy in the future. there is strong labor and business support for this.

we have tom donahue and the chamber is a supporter it infrastructure spending. i would like to think about the support. economists disagree on a lot of thing, but there is overwhelming support to the view that spending on infrastructure is a very efficient way to create jobs. and it also creates an infrastructure base for the competitiveness thfor the econoy going forward. we welcome you today and we are here to say something about what we're thinking about. but our ideas are in development. we are set up as a council to give the advice. as we develop our advice, we will hear from you about your

ideas about how we should be basically addressing infrastructure. some of the issues we have talked about you will hear today. and what infrastructure investment we should be making. how shall we finance it? 3, related to that, the role of public-private partnerships. we just came from a pretty bad at love field, a wonderful example of partnership between government and the private sector. it was a fantastic example. we talk about how projects should be chosen, the selection process by which projects should be chosen. financing, we talk about how we can move forward to get projects that are financed and permitted and on their way. these are things you hear about today. without further ado, let me introduce the panel. i have a very nice introduction for the president of smu.

we will start with secretary lahood. he did a fantastic discussion this morning at love field. >> thank you, laura. [applause] my first visit to your lovely campus, i was delighted that you had taken the time to be with us and to host to this and think you for your very warm welcome and to all of you who have an interest in putting americans back to work. my message is that, yesterday, we started off in the rose garden where president obama talked about the importance of congress when they come back next week, next wednesday, after the august work period, to come

back and pass an extension of the transportation bill and then pass a long-term bill. there is no dispute anywhere about the fact that, if congress were to pass the transportation bill, it would create jobs. the most lustrous way to say that is that the $48 billion that congress allocated over the last two years under the so- called economic stimulus program went to the department of transportation. in two years, we took $48 billion and we created 15,000 projects and 65,000 jobs -- in two years. last summer, we saw an uptick in employment in the construction industry and all of you were very frustrated as you drove around your communities to see the orange cones. every time you see an orange cones or an orange grove, you know that your friends and neighbors are working in good paying jobs.

congress needs to pass an extension. the current bill will run out on september 30 i. and the taxes to pay for it will run out on september 30. if that runs out, that means $100 million a day will be lost, never to be recouped, starting on october 1. what a tragedy. we just came from a project at love field. they have gone back to love field and invested millions of dollars along with strong leadership from the city and a little bit of federal dollars that are collected on airline tickets to redo love field and make it into a magnificent facility that will serve the people of this region.

and it has created 400 to 500 jobs. we saw the workers out there today. if we really want to get america to work, there are politicians, congressmen and senators, over the last month, running around their districts and their state -- in the state talking about jobs. jobs is the party of president obama. jobs is the party of this administration. the way to create jobs is to come back to washington and do with these two gentlemen have done in a bipartisan way, setting aside politics, setting aside their own personal agendas, and saying to the american people that we will extend the current transportation bill and we will pass a five-year transportation bill with significant dollars that will put america back to work and create 1 million jobs in a very short time. i can go into a lot more detail

and i know we will about how to pay for it, how much debate, but the simple solution to lowering unemployment and putting americans back to work is passing a transportation bill. next thursday, the president will go before a joint session of congress because he feels strongly that that is the best venue to talk to the american people by talking to their elected representatives and saying to them forget about the aisles, forget about the divisions, for get about political parties. let's do what is right for america. let's put our friends and neighbors back to work. how do we do it? extend the current surface transportation bill, extend the taxes, and then pass a fit vision for america. the way other congresses have passed a a vision for america -- i serve congress for 14 years. i served in transportation with my good friend bernice johnson. we served together in the

committee. the one thing has always been bipartisan in washington is infrastructure. it has always been bipartisan. i served on the committee when we passed two bills 380 votes in the house -- there were 80 votes in the senate what bernice said at love field is that there are no republican roads and there are no democratic roads. there are no republican or democratic produce. these are american roads and american bridges built by american workers. that is what we have to get back to washington, d.c. i will get into the specifics of how much and how we will pay for it. but i wanted to leave you with the idea that congress -- but i to leave you with the idea that congress can get this done.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you. >> now what i want to turn over to the president of the afl-cio. rich, to you. >> thank you for the introduction i want to thank president turner and smu for hosting us today on this beautiful campus. i want to thank all of you for being here. it is good to see you again, mr. secretary. i would like to thank you on behalf of all americans for the leadership that you feel and the tenacity and determination you have shown in this issue. it is always good to see you again, tom. i think it is appropriate that you are on my far left today. [laughter]

>> actually, from out there -- [laughter] >> for you, there probably is the right side. let me start off by saying two $0.20 trillion, that -- two $0.20 -- $2.2 trillion, that is what we need for our infrastructure. that is what is needed to maintain, to keep our 20th- century inheritance from falling apart. not to get ahead. we need another $2 trillion to enter the 21st century and to build a modern, clean energy infrastructure. we need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars a year every year for the foreseeable future in infrastructure. instead, the united states is investing a little more than $50

billion per year in transportation infrastructure. our trade partners like china have been pouring investments into infrastructure. we do about two 0.4% of our gdp for infrastructure europe does about 5% of their gdp for infrastructure. china does about 9% of their gdp for infrastructure. we are funding hours right now at the same level that we did in 1968 when our economy was one- third the size that it is today and we had 100 million fewer people than we have today. what we're talking about is america's ability to compete in the global marketplace. if we want jobs in america, we have to be moving ahead of our competitors globally in our transportation, energy, telecommunications systems, not falling behind.

yet here we are, business, labor, and government -- we all agree that there's no dispute about the need for infrastructure. and about the danger that it poses to our country if we do not do it. all we want to see is investment made yet this is not happening. we have a jobs crisis. there is massive work to be done to restore our competitiveness. and unemployment in the construction industry is at historic highs. congress has yet to pass any major infrastructure builbill. key congressional leaders have made it clear that they are opposed to funding infrastructure. there is no profound -- there's no greater profound logjam in america than this right now the idea that the focal process to address our nation's fundamental needs is not just about our

future competitiveness or about the potential for job creation. the failure to repair our roads and bridges, our most basic infrastructure needs, is about to cost this country 630,000 jobs next year. if the surface transportation bill is not done, we will lose 630,000 jobs. that is how many hardworking americans will be unemployed if congress fails to reauthorize the surface transportation act at current levels of expenditure. that is 490,000 workers in highway infrastructure and 141,000 workers in public transportation. at the end of this month, congress has an opportunity to reauthorized the surface transportation act and the federal aviation administration. without these, whose work the

airplanes will not fly. we have to stop nickel-and- diming your country's public assets. the surface transportation reauthorization should be multi- year and the funding levels that are relevant to a $2.20 trillion infrastructure deficit that keeps growing. that is what the president has asked for and that is what the country needs. we appreciate very much the leadership, but it will not happen unless those of us in this room, business and labor, getting serious about overcoming the partisan political art obstacles -- political obstacles

that are standing in the way. that is why the afl-cio is committed to working with our pension funds, with project sponsors in the financial sector and the clinton global initiative to a list $10 billion in our nation's public infrastructure over the next five years. that is money we will invest and hopefully leverage with public- proprietorships that we saw at love field. the private efforts, quite frankly, cannot take the place of public leadership in infrastructure. the solutions we propose really must be on the same scale as the problems that will ultimately face. we can start by raising america's infrastructure grade point average from its current d

gray, which i believe is a national -- d grade, which believe is a national embarrassment. [applause] >> our last speaker of this panel is tom donahue, the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce. i want to emphasize something about the president's council on jobs and competitiveness. it is a council that represents business and labor. there is a large number of very important leaders in the u.s. industry and u.s. labor involved in making these decisions. it is really wonderful today to have an opening panel where we have rich and tom coming together to talk about this very important issue. tom donohue, please. >> thank you very much. i'm very pleased to join others on this beautiful campus.

coming out of washington, it sort of soothes the savage beach for a short time. yesterday, the president, with a rich and the chief operating officer of the chamber, began his push for getting the highway bill reauthorized. at the same time, he announced after a little bit of jockeying around, that on the eighth of this month, he will bring out his jobs plan. a number presidential candidates in the other party are bringing out their plans. people that are not even running for office are bringing out their plans. yesterday, the chamber sort of began to show that jobs plan that we will bring out on labor day. by the way, there are six things we can do that any federal

increase in federal funds that will immediately start putting things to work. that is what we need. right now, if you connected some momentum on this, we are in real trouble. so all the people that have put out their comments and their suggestions and all that will have as a part of that infrastructure. and that is because, when you look at the unemployment rate in this country, we know that it is higher than 9.1% because you have as partially employed and those who have stopped looking. but the people who are really hurting in this country are people who were building houses, building infrastructure, and doing that. they are 30% unemployment. if we're going to do something, that is exactly where we have to start. the real question is whether the benefits? the benefits are clear. we put people to work. we make ourselves and far more competitive. we have to be careful of comparing the numbers. we started this was dwight

eisenhower. the chinese started only a couple of years ago. they're moving really quickly. but we need to fix what we have. the only difference we will have -- and i will make a point about this in a moment -- image -- where will we get the money. there are five things we ought to do. first, we need to pass the surface transportation reauthorization. i am concerned about doing a short term and then doing a long term. if you look at what will happen between now and the first of the year, we will have this whole deficit and debt group out doing their thing. everybody will be involved in that process. it will be very hard to get air time in the congress. this will not happen. but the right thing to do next week is pass a long-term bill. we ought to just do it because that will send the message. when you send a message to the

states and to the local community that we just passed a three-month bill and we want 25% from the money from the states and 25% of the money from the local communities, they're not sure they're putting up their money until they know the federal is in it for the long time. we also need to lock opportunities of global capital investment in this whole system. i think the secretary has mentioned that. rich and i talk about it all the time. reduce support and infrastructure bank. but that is a year or two years in the making. by the time everybody figures out how they will fund and what the rules are, what we need to do is right now. if we ever had the courage to go out and do this immediately, -- i even get in trouble on this -- we have not increased the federal fuel tax 18.5 years. we're getting a little bit more miles to the gallon than we used to. we ought to do it because that

will put incremental money into the set -- into the system. you went down to love field. that is a great place. aviation is important. we put 88,000 people out of work when we could not get that bill taken care. and there are some issues in that bill which you and i would argue about. but we want to put those people back to work and get some more people to work and stop letting that money go down the street because we failed to collect it. we're big on that. another place where there's a lot of money and there's all kinds of technology -- is there and it is cheaper -- we have to modernize the air traffic control system and that is more jobs. something the people do not talk about in the infrastructure system is water. we need to renew the water resources development act. it is unbelievably critical to this country. new york city, in some cases, not many, but it makes retelling, are still running on

wooden pipes. we need to get under this water thing because it is a serious problem all run the country. although, now we have a lot more water than we did before following the events of last week. and we need to fully use our harbor manus trust fund and leverage private activity bonds water is a great thing for this country and will create a lot of jobs. people talk about rearail. the freight rail system in this country is run by the private sector and they run it very, very well. they spend unbelievable amounts of capital every year keeping it up. there is an opportunity to get them -- in many places -- we have to build another railroad right next to the one we have. there are some tax things we can do over time to get that done sooner. i would say one other thing.

broadband, everything i have learned about it is that it is a very important thing to do, but we ought to let the private sector do it. i am making all these comments so i can get to the real issue. for us to create jobs and do something critical in this country is to expand the electrical grid and to approve the keystone pipeline project. that will put two hundred 50,000 people to work right away. to move forward -- you probably do not know this -- rich and i do -- there are 351 stalled energy projects in this country that have been held up by permitting and "not in my yard" and "not in my town" and "not in my country. process ising insane. if you want to create a lot of things in this country, build the buildings, building the roads, you could spend six years to seven years permitting.

for what? we're willing to give up the few jobs and get your permits to do less things but me and by saying that we have been working on a project at the chamber and it is a transportation performance index. it looks at all of these issues of infrastructure and transportation, energy, and so on. it can calculate, based on the health of our system, what will happen to our gdp. woulwill it go up or down? if it goes up, we hire more people. if it goes down, we hire fewer people. thank you very much. i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> let me say a few things before i opened it to discussion turned there are -- to

discussion. there are many things in the subgroups. when the president was speaking, he also noticed the council engagement on this issue. the administration is now working on identifying priority projects that have already been financed. the financing is available but held up somewhere in the permitting process. we will expedite -- the administration will be expediting the projects and also introducing a dashboard for interested individuals to actually follow the permitting process. the administration feels that the council has made a recommendation that can be actionable and have some of the emitted a fax that tom was talking about. so permitting is an important thing to discuss here. financing is an important thing to discuss here. public-private partnerships and how they were, how they can be formed is an important thing to

discuss here. and i think i want to start with that set of ideas, opening it up for questions. remember that these are meant to be listening sessions. you have heard from us. you have listened to this group could by the way, one other thing. infrastructure is more than transportation. right now, we have the surface transportation bill that is imminent. but broadband, energy, aviation, water, school construction, building and safety -- there are a lot of important areas in infrastructure. the next panel will be looking at more detail in some of these specific areas. let me open for questions. i will start right over here. this is becky mueller. >> i am the president of the texas afl-cio. welcome to our state, those of you who came from out of town.

i would not be surprised to find that the field trip would be to love field. we have had a long time relationship with southwest airlines. i am not surprised the that is where we were this morning. but i am pleased to see you three up there. business and the obama administration working together tha. in texas, our unemployment situation is not as good as you see on the national tv. we do have 30% folks out of work in some industries. we have some folks, as always, who have fallen off the road. our numbers sound good if you look, but when you look deeper, we have families that are hurting turn we have families -- that are hurting. we are families who have difficulty feeding and clothing their children going back to school.

it makes my heart feel good that we're seriously talking about this bipartisanship. but i have one question. how do we do it quickly? we talk about these families were school is started and they cannot fight -- cannot buy food and clothing. how do we break the logjam in washington, d.c. how do we work together all up and down? you can come from b.c. and say that you three are walking, but how do we get to bernice johnson talking to the other folks who do not care about infrastructure? how do we get that to happen? what is the magic answer? i would like to ask each of you? how can we help you make it happen? what can we do to help you? >> i happen to agree that we should separate the things we can do very quickly. we get some motion and some momentum and things will happen. i think we should take -- particularly on the infrastructure side -- the things that we can do and do the right now.

i agree. i listen to the people in the affected committees on both sides of their talking about how soon they could move this and what they have to do. i did not hear a great sense of urgency. the plan that we will put out on labor day with a lot of ads around the country will suggest that the 3 million companies in america that can be reached my want to call their congressman and tell them that may have noticed -- not noticed -- that this is very important. i think the hard thing for people is to separate what they can do in a big hurry and go do it. it is only a portion. if you put that on the blocks and start moving and bring everything along behind it. >> thank you, tom. i appreciate that. i to -- i truly agree with that. the country has a 25 million

people either unemployed or underemployed. those 25 million people need services. they are not contributing right now. they have to take right now. we have stagnant wages. we have a lot of people who have lost faith in washington, d.c. as a solution. we have one in five of our children living in poverty. and that figure is growing. if you're in the african- american community, it is three times that level. if you're in the latino community, it is three times that level. so there is a crisis out there. for the last 20 some years, when it came to infrastructure, there has never been a bipartisan fight over it because it is a no-brainer. it is absolutely essential for the country. it is absolutely essential for

us to remain competitive. and by not fixing it this year, you make it more difficult and more costly to fix it next year. and if you do not fix it next year, it gets more costly the year after that. and the figures go up until they boggle the mind. i say $2.2 trillion and people say, oh, my god, that is a lot of money. it is a lot of money. and if we do not tackle it next year, it will be even more expensive. and we will be less competitive. talk to your representatives. state, local, federal representatives, and tell them, for the good of the country, come together and create jobs. but the infrastructure. there is no business that can compete with infrastructure falling down. tom's members get further and further behind every year if we

do not fix this stuff. so it is up to us to come together and say enough. let's attack the real problem that we have. it is a jobs crisis. if we do infrastructure, we do the faa, we do the stuff about water that tom talked about -- we lose hundreds of millions of gallons of clean water every day because the systems that they're traveling over right now let them go. so taxpayers pay to clean the water and then it trysts back out and gets lost. if we do not something with infrastructure in the next 15 years, it will cost taxpayers about $3.10 trillion in increased cost. we can do better than this. talk to your representatives. tell them that the time is past

talking. come back and do what has been done for the past 30 years. with surface transportation, with a a, with clean water, and others, -- with faa, with clean water, and others, we will be much better off. >> is there a chance of getting a long term bill right away? on the transportation side? >> i think that the president will stick to what he was saying yesterday for the congress to pass a short-term extension. the current bill runs out and the taxes to pay for it run out on september 30. as was mentioned, senator boxer and another senator had a two- year bill. congressman mike the, the

chairman of the transportation committee in the house, has a bill pending, which has not been considered by the house. given the fact that there is so little time in september when congress will be in session due to the number of days that they will be working, it will be more realistic to pass a short-term extension and work on the long term bill through the months that the extension is going on. i would not add anything in answer to the question. thank you for the question. i really cannot add anything to what rich and tom said. >> i would add a point to what was said before. working with a number -- working with the jobs council, the administration has really focused on the issue of expediting what is already there. i do think that we will make

some real progress on taking some very important projects that have been judged as priority for creating jobs, creating competitiveness, and have financing in place and expediting them through the permitting process. i agree that we have to do everything as quickly as we can. it is the immediate issue and then there will be $2.2 trillion that we are under investing. we have to do two things of the same time. back there. >> i live here in dallas. mr. secretary, thank you for your leadership. mr. donahue, i agree with you could i think it is time to look at the gas tax. when people were voting, they have agreed to tax themselves

for transportation. this is day 3000 company industry. it is about jobs. it is ironic. no, it is tragic. at a time when we have a lot of people unemployed, they need mass transit to get to work. tax drives companies away from this industry. we have invested more toward growth outside the u.s. than in the u.s. simply because the unpredictability of the short- term funding mechanisms that we are working with. again, i would like to ask the question -- i do not think washington hears us. i do not think washington is listening. use a talk to our elected representatives. what more can we do to get

attention? >> i served in congress for 14 years. i do believe that your elected representatives have -- i do not believe they have all been back in their districts during the month of august. i know many of them have had town meetings and many have been listening to their constituents. i believe that most people are concerned about jobs. i think it is uppermost in the minds of people all over america. everybody in america knows somebody that is out of work. everybody in america has a friend, a neighbor, or a relative that is out of work. that is why it is such a serious issue. that is why i do think that, when members of congress come back, they will be paying attention to the idea that they have the opportunity to help create jobs in america.

that is why the president wanted to talk directly to the members of congress next thursday night, a week from tonight. about the issue of jobs and what his proposal is and what his vision is. and then let congress have the debate, as they have always done, and pass a bill that will put americans back to work. on the issue of the gas tax, i will tell you this. the president has said, from the first day i started this job, which was january 23, two days after the president was sworn in, there was a very bad economy and unemployment and 9%. it is very difficult for the president to be proposing an increase in the gas tax when people are really hurting. that is what the president has taken the position that he is not in favor of raising the gas tax. but he is willing to work with congress on finding ways to fund the things that we need to do,

the big things, the big projects. the president has proposed an infrastructure bank, which is a mechanism where you can have a pot of money that leverages a lot of other money, doing what they are doing at love field, leveraging private money against public money. doing what they're doing in denver, where was yesterday at the inauguration of a $3 billion transit program with six lines that connect six suburban areas into grand central station in denver and also >> people from the airport which is all the way at in kingman that -- in kingdom come all the way into denver. this is a classic example of a public-private partnership. again, public-private partnership. the idea that the president is in -- is against increasing the

gas tax, which he has been very consistent about, is also coupled with the idea that he has put out some ideas about how we leverage some of our federal dollars against private dollars against state dollars and against municipal dollars. this is a very bad time to be talking to people, many of whom who have been unemployed for way too long, about raising the gas tax. that is why the administration has taken that position. >> we thought also that people in washington were not listening. so the afl-cio arranged over 500 events out in the field during the recess where our members and townsfolk came together, union and non-union people came together, and talked about jobs, jobs, jobs to our elected representatives. is there a town hall meetings or at other events that they were having -- either at town hall

meetings or at other events that they were having, we met up and said, look, while you are fiddling around, people are turning. we ought to do better than this. this was at home while they were back at their constituents. we hope it will have some positive effect and have some small contribution and break in the logjam in getting some of these things done that will benefit the country. and put people back to work very quickly. >> i just want to make one point. we're talking about jobs and infrastructure. many cities have been done on cost effectiveness in spending a dollar per job created. it is a very cost-effective way of creating jobs. it is important for us to focus on jobs, no doubt. but we have to focus also on the efficiency of the measures are

used to create them. this is a measure that economists have lots of lots of studies to support it. you get a big bang for your infrastructure balk. -- infrastructure buck. you heard about spending more on the onset of the u.s. than inside. this leads to the desirability of creating an infrastructure bank. there are big pool of foreign money out there that would like an opportunity to invest in u.s. infrastructure. we do not have the modality to allow that right now. we are missing out on a great opportunity. you hear about that in the next session. >> my name is bernard weinstein.

i am an economist with the mcgwire energy group. of all the things i have heard mentioned today, i want to endorse mr. don hughes idea about the keystone pipeline. this is a keep peace of mr. structure -- key piece of infrastructure. i do not believe it requires any taxpayer money. it will supply of oil from alberta, a friendly nation, to refineries along the gulf coast. economic security and energy security will be much better off buying our oil from alberta rather than buying it from venezuela. last week, one hurdle was jumped. i believe the state department

approved it, but there are other permitting issues. i want to emphasize that is absolutely critical and needs to go forward as soon as possible. >> thank you. thank you for that. yes, right over there. he is bringing a microphone down. could you introduce yourself? >> my name is rob frank. i am chair of the coalition. we have a 28-mile section that is part of the highway program. we have $192 million of locally generated money to fund this project -- no state money and no federal money. we are pursuing this as a public-private partnership. what is the policy and the perspective regarding low- interest loans to help close the gap in advance in projects like this that is five to 10 years of

construction jobs? >> if this is a perfect project, -- this is a perfect project for the infrastructure bank. it really is. it is perfect when there is a surface transportation bill for bed and bernice to make it known. it is the kind of investment locally necessary. i have no doubt that, if there is a transportation bill, this project will become a high priority and you will be able to leverage federal dollars. right now, you cannot do it because we are operating on these short-term extensions. but once we have a bigger vision, a big plan, and other surface transportation program, a project like this will go forward. that is the reason we need them. i think there will be a number of ways for you to leverage federal dollars to make this project happen, which i know is very important.

toiously, you do not need lobby your own congressman. she is once -- in such a great position on the transportation committee and has worked so hard already this year to persuade her chairman to move the bill. once the bill is passed, you will be in a good position. you will be well positioned to leverage some federal dollars. >> yes, back there. >> my name is breadbox. -- my name is greg bachs. can you tell us what the chances are of high-speed rail in texas and would avert possible new positions that might create? >> high-speed rail is coming to america. there is no stopping it. we have made $10 billion plus

worth of investments in high- speed intercity rail. all federal money. that is $10 billion plus more than has ever been invested in high-speed intercity rail ever in the history of our country. it is thank you to the vision of president obama pick this is something that he -- vision of president obama. this is something that he feels very strongly about. the lion's share of the money, over $3 billion, has been invested in california, where they will really have high-speed rail. it will connect the state and the trains will go over 200 miles an hour. we have made investments in the midwest, a train from detroit to chicago to st. louis. those investments are fixing up tracks along an amtrak quarter. we have made huge investments in the northeast corridor. i am very happy that the state of texas recently accepted high- speed rail money.

there was not a big announcement about it, which is fine with us. we are glad texas is in the ball game, one of the largest states in the country ought to get into the high-speed rail business, connecting houston and dallas. it is a great project. we could not have done what we have done in america without our friends in the freight rail business. matt and others in the freight rail business have been great partners and will continue to be great partners. we do not have enough money in this country to build all new infrastructure. we need our friends in the freight rail business so we can make investments to fix of tracks, to use those tracks, so that trains can go faster because we do not have the money. we are being out-competed by europe and asia and those of you who go to europe and asia and come back and ask why we do not have passenger trains in america. because we have never made the investment.

this is the president's vision. it is a vision that has never been articulated in america before, except on the northeast corridor. people love to ride trains there. the day after the storm hit, you could not buy a seat on amtrak on the northeast corridor. people love to ride trains. texas is getting into the passenger rail business. that is thanks to rail enthusiast in this state and i want to congratulate. we want to be your partners and passenger rail is coming to texas. >> the last question is over here. >> i am mike davis. i am on the faculty here. i appreciate your comments about bipartisan roads. but i have to observe that bipartisan roads need to be built in places like west virginia and other places where congressman are very powerful. this is not to make a starkey

comment. i believe you all are very sincere in wanting infrastructure money to be spent wisely. but what assurances can you give us about what moneys will be spent and that they will be spent on projects that really need funding and not on projects that support a particular congressmen or sound really sexy like high-speed rail? >> because we are in the era of no earmarks in washington, d.c. we are. there are no more earmarks. when the next transportation bill is written, it will not have earmarks. the president is not for earmarks. congress -- most members of congress are not for your marks. senator byrd is no longer serving in the senate, in case you have not heard that. [laughter] and we are in a new era in america. note iraq's -- no earmarks in

appropriations bills or infrastructure bills. they will be approved on their merit, not because they have a powerful congressman. >> if you look at the figures, texas got the largest share of the stimulus money. this state that more money than anybody else. i do not know if that is because of your present the tips or because bobby is no longer with us. but i think that is a good thing. a large portion of the texas economy is pumped by federal dollars with defense and forts and all the military bases that are here, pumping money from the to the government into the state economy, making it grow and allowing it to survive. i do tip my hat off to you for one very important thing. a number of years ago, you decided to do some very stringent regulation of

mortgages for consumers, may be the strongest in the country. that helped you weather the storm. you did not take the hit from the bad mortgages that a lot of other states did because of the strong regulation you had. and i really take my hat off to you for that. >> let me just make one comment. i do think the secretary is right. i do not know what congress will do without earmarks. they will call it something else. [laughter] >> spoken as a true washington senate. [laughter] -- a true washington cynic. [laughter] >> we will see. but i think there is a real serious issue and i think rich and i agree on this. we have to make the right decisions on where we need to put infrastructure for a totally interconnected countrywide transportation system. at the same time, there are

massive pockets of unemployment. the question is, as -- we all started our comments on jobs. if i have five things i can do with whatever money i have available and i have i'm for free, will i start in a place where the greatest number of jobs are needed? in this industry. that will be a real challenge. >> i think we're about to shift to the next panel. we have time for continuing questions there. i ask everyone to give a round of applause for our panelists. [applause] and now i will invite up to moderate robert wolfe, my colleague on the president's council. he is president of the investment bank of ubs in the united states. i have worked with him for the

past few years. he is no more passionate advocate for public-private partnerships. thank you so much for your time. [applause] >> we will keep moving right into the next panel. my name is don graves. while robert is making his way up to the lectern and as they get the stage prepared, i thought it would be useful for folks to understand what this jobs council is doing and why we're actually here. the jobs council was created because the president saw there was a need in this country. we have all seen where the economy has gone. he believes clearly that we need to focus all of our time and attention on job creation and get people back to work all across the country. the president has said this before and he is convinced and i think all of us who work in the administration are convinced that we will not be satisfied

until every american that wants to work is able to get a job somewhere across the country. so the jobs council was created to provide direct guidance by some of the leaders from labor, from business, for macadamia on ideas that will -- from academia and ideas that will help us continue to be the leader across the world. we have a wonderful group of folks who will be on the next panel led by robert wolfe, a good friend and leader in his own the bright -- in his own right. he is chairman of ubs americas. he is one of, if not the, for most leader in infrastructure investments and the financing of infrastructure in the country. we appreciate all that you have done and that ups has done to

make sure that this is an issue that is in the forefront of everything we do. thank you, robert. [applause] >> maybe i could ask everyone to come up. obviously, we had quite a passionate panel. if that group was set the smu game, there is no question who would win that. but i want to thank lohr, who has been my colleague on this for many years. i want to thank you for opening of this great session could dr. turner, we want to actually thank you for hosting us at peaceful smu. and we also want to thank the staff from both bmsf and southwest airlines for doing the day-to-day work in putting this together. thank you all.

over the past three years, the president's council on johnson competitiveness, as well as the president's -- on jobs and competitiveness, as well as the economic council, we have received a d grading. over $2 trillion in investment is needed over the next five years. that just begins to address this problem. as laura stated, economic models indicate that a dollar spent on infrastructure actually boost spending of gdp by 1.6 times. it is one of the larger multipliers on gdp and unemployment than any of the kind of spending we do in this country. in fact, the milton institute estimates that, for every dollar

spent, every billion dollars spent on infrastructure actually leads to approximately 25,000 jobs. it may not be -- there may not be an industry that surpasses that. we know that the recent market volatility and budgetary pressures we face today has forced us to seek alternatives in financing to address this problem. many believe, myself included, that the creation of a national infrastructure bank or a financing authority would greatly improve our nation's ability to attract private- sector debt and equity capital to help raise these important private capital is willing to fill the infrastructure gap where other funding sources. the burden cannot be on federal funds. actually, many industry consultants predict there is

almost $150 billion of equity capital targeted for infrastructure and over $100 -plus billion has been raised to date. it is important to align with long-term private investment that we have with a workable, regulatory structure. the u.s. could take critical first steps towards attracting this capital to rebuild our infrastructure. while the details of a national infrastructure bank or financing authority continue to be worked out and debated, i think we can all agree that we should have a broad approach and funding projects in areas such as transportation, energy, electricity, water and wastewater and telecommunications and broadband. these would have national significance.

decisions would have to be merit-based using a cost-benefit analysis conducted by experts in the industry, not by politicians. to achieve these goals, it's crucial that a national infrastructure bank be chartered with a clear mission, strict operational guidelines and frps via regulatory reporting. it would be complementary to funding programs to infrastructure. we aren't looking to take anything away, but looking to alleviate the burdens we have today and add to this growth. it would have to be policy-driven and aims would be such as releaving congestion, improving mobility, improving transportation networks or increasing national and regional and national competitiveness and add to jobs. the aim of this panel discussion that we are about to start is

really to hear from key decision makers and thirst about the state of our country's infrastructure and their views on how to address it. the first group will be the aviation sector and maybe i can -- [laughter] >> i have a few quees for each panel and open it up afterwards. first with aviation, we have gary, gary serves as the chairman of the board, president and c.e.o. at southwest airlines. southwest airlines is celebrating 38 years of consecutive profitability. i may be off, maybe 39 and was named number one for customer satisfaction by the department of transportation. next to gary is the first chief

federal tech nick call officer for the united states and promoting technical innovation to help our country meet its goals and make government more efficient, and transparent. a few questions. the u.s. aviation industry has struggled for several reasons, including an inefficient air traffic control system and insufficient progress with modernization. gary, to start with you. could you give us background on next-generation air traffic control system and why is it so important? >> i would love to. [laughter] >> i have to chase down mr. secretary and tell him i can get him from dallas to houston in an hour. [laughter] >> first of all, it's a pleasure

to be here and thanks for moderating our session here. our council is on jobs and competitiveness. i would turn that around. i think if we, as americans and as business, if we want to generate jobs, we need to start with competitiveness and every day that's what we do when we come to work. at southwest, we are competing to customers, what is our competitive advantage and how are we going to make that happen. all of this discussion, i think, is framed around that and that's the way we should be thinking about it. infrastructure, obviously, is worth while in generating jobs while we are building a new terminal at love field. if nobody flies out of love field, it is wasted. we need to be investing in infrastructure that will be used and generate a return. and in the case of the air

traffic control system, i'm sure you all know the air traffic control system in the united states of america has fallen behind. we are using 1950's technologies and techniques to route aircraft, aircraft zigzags through the sky. it wastes a tremendous amount of time. it burns a tremmedous -- tremendous of jet fuel and modernization is long past. our best estimates are that we could improve the efficiency of the system by at least 15%. and over the last 15 years you have seen air travel decline in large part because energy prices have gone up, which, in turn, have caused air fares to go up and if there is a discretionary product or service, i can assure

you it is travel. as costs have gone up, fewer people are flying than they were a decade ago. if we want to create jobs, our best idea to offer the jobs council is to modernize the air traffic control system because, number one be, it will reduce energy consumption, which is certainly good. that is good for not only the economy, but it's good for the environment and all of that will lead to better employment. so it's hard to find a reason why we should not modernize the air traffic control system. the other thing i would say is that while we need to do and make the investments for surface transportation that were being discussed previously, you're talking about a massive amount of money. hundreds of billions of dollars. you don't need that to modernize

the air traffic control system. in fact, most commercial airliners are equipped today to take advantage of next generation air traffic control. the f.a.a. has what it needs in terms of gadgets and software to take advantage of the next generation of air traffic control. we simply need to get it done. so a focus, almost like the pipeline discussion, except better, because you don't need to make much more investment, as we need to get through all of the roadblocks and all of the hurdles that exist in implementing new flight profiles and approaches into airports. safety is paramount. there are noise questions and there is the complexity of rewriting the highways in the sky, if you will.

but it's something that needs to take place and something that would be extremely cost effective. travel and tourism probably contributes about $1.3 trillion a year in the united states of america. and aviation, of course, is a significant component of that. it is less than it was a decade ago. and it's time to lower those costs by having a more efficient air traffic control system that makes us more competitive. all the ideas on the jobs council to create jobs in other ways -- i thought lawyer aver made the point earlier -- laura made the point earlier, all businesses need infrastructure. travel is going to be one of the enablers of growing jobs in every single industry that is out there. it needs to be one of the top 10 priorities of this country and especially if we want our

country to be number one when it comes to competitiveness. >> i want to ask you, because i was very surprised by this, g.p.s., it's the only way i get around today. it's used in cars, used in all types of modes of transportation and used in all types of industries, why is it taking so long to transition from our ground-based radar system to a satellite g.p.s. system? >> i thank you for the question and i echo all the comments that gary made. part of the reason that the president has asked us is that our infrastructure and other aspects of government are injected with information technologies as an important component of the work that it does. you'll hear about that in energy, with the smart grid and impact on broadband and affecting health care. next generation of air traffic

controllers is an capital of this. it is not the problem of having a g.p.s. chip in the plane. the challenge is building the level of procedures that sit on top of that information so we can ensure we achieve the safety, the reliability and efficiencies of the routing. and what seems to be frustrating looking whack backwards but going forward, where the airline industry has made significant investments in elements of this program that allows them to run these modernized procedures. as gary said, the air traffic control system has its capability. we have the socket and we have to stick them together and make them a priority. gary was one of our hosts. we had nearly every c.e.o. that said let's collaborate with the

f.a.a. to make this the proirt the president has declared it a priority for american innovation and take advantage of the win-win-win. and glide airlines into the runways with less fuel and we can be much more reliable and in how we go about doing this. we made commitments to do this. we can do that because as gary said, investments have been made, let's put them to use and that's the commitment and secretary lahood has made this as made a commitment. is this a bummer we haven't made g.p.s., of course and we will see a focus because we have the building blocks in place. >> going back to next gen,

everybody talks about it and according to the f.a.a., something like $1.3 trillion of economic activity is driven off aviation. 5%, 6% of the total economy. so pretty big amount. how can us -- waste the case nor next-gen for job creation? >> it's huge. i think aviation is a relatively interesting a small component of travel and tourism. the number you have there is more related to aviation specifically and includes all the aerospace manufacturing companies and those jobs. you look at airline jobs, airline jobs 10 years ago were around 800,000 jobs in the united states. and there are probably 500,000

today. so just the airline piece of this has the opportunity to restart its growth, get more -- yet more people need to travel. and it is very sensitive to price. so this is simply a matter of making travel more affordable. it is amazing to me how much travel is simply driven by the price of the airline ticket. and people seem to focus less on the hotel, car, restaurants and other things i'm going to enjoy when i go, which is the consumer side. and consumers make up more than half of travel. business travel has actually wained. so we need to make it more affordable. there is a tremendous potential to grow that entire complex. but this is one of these investments you make for the

future. it's not so much having a project to quote modernize air traffic control, it's not going to create one million jobs. that's not the point. you want to make an investment that creates economic growth and vitality and that's the opportunity that you have here. look at how many jobs we had 10 years ago. where did they go? we need to make the case more forcefully to modernize air traffic control. and the focus needs to be on aviation. we have a high-speed rail system. it's already in existence and be redirected overnight. you don't have to have physical tracks. so there is a via strong case to be made that you don't need to make $10 billion worth of investments. you can take advantage of what has been invested. >> i'm going to have you put your government hat on.

>> i am. >> and you just talked about yesterday's meeting and the future and the need to accelerate, modernize next-gen but given the lean budget environment, what can the federal government do to make this a priority? >> that's the beauty -- the government was about convening and my colleagues call it a government is an i am patient convener. when you say we have no new money and we have some limits on what we can do in terms of changing the legal environment we are in, engineers can optimize and i'm pretty confident that there is enough, already invested capital that can be put to work if you think about making the plug in the socket come together in a more effective way. so part of that is the haven't's

commitment to more open and collaborative government which means as we make decisions about specific activities we become transparent so the american people can hold us accountable. that happened yesterday. we are going to put up a project dashboard. you will see each and every one of them, click on them, get your input and see the progress, you can have that information at your fingertips because you are going to hold us accountable. that doesn't cost us money to hold us accountable. we will do the work we can in the convening role and that needs to happen, to make sure that the questions are answered, do this in a safe way, be energy efficient. and the answers are yes and yes and it's about getting the job done and i'm pretty excited that we will get the leadership

excited. >> you have how many jobs. there are about 14 million jobs according to the u.s. travel association in travel and tourism. travel did not keep pace with the rate of inflation over the past decade. it is probably below 30%. if you increase travel by 35 percent, it is a gigantic part of the overall economy. >> last question, you brought up noise and i don't want to make this about the environment, but just -- will next-gen have an impact? >> it's hard to find something wrong with it. it will be different. and you have to rewrite the lanes in the sky where the planes are going to fly.

one of the very fundamental aspects of next generation procedures, it's not necessarily technology as you put the aircraft in idle, which is the quietist mode and you gradually and descend to the airfield >> i'm feeling that right now. >> i get that. >> getting one of the simulateors. it's cool. >> you told to descend and go to 10,000 feet and hold, you have to power forward and maintain that same altitude, it is noise year. >> i was on vacation next to a glider airport base and you didn't hear anything. so you could hear that gliding. >> all the way around. energy, economy, environment and employment. >> we are going to move on to surface transportation and there will be questions at the end.

matt is the chairman and c.e.o. of burlington-northern railway. he held various positions in trucking and rail and member of the national surface transportation policy and revenue study commission. to his left is michael walton, who is a professor of civil engineering and holds a chair in engineering at the university of texas at austin and holds a joint academic appointment in public affairs for more than 35 years and has pursued a career in engineering analysis. we heard a lot from the first panel about surface transportation, so we are going to get into a little more detail with this group. matt, you have always accompanied any conversation about re-authorization about surface transportation programs

with the discussion of reforms. and obvious wli the panel prior to us were cheerleaders for passing the re-authorization. what kind of reforms do you think are the most important? >> let me start with when the commission i served on, we looked at the national infrastructure and broke it down to three r's, reform, rebuild was the second and revenue was the third. the commission got it on the reform. the american public has become jaded in terms of how we are spending our money and we can look back at whether it's the bridge to knowwhere or the projects that were put across these entities for political reasons and there is a real reluctance for the americans to raise the gas tax.

if i can reduce my commute time by 10 minutes, would i pay more for that, it polls very well. you have to reform the federal programs. in the transportation bill, there is 107 federal programs and i would tell you, you can't do anything well with 107 federal programs. i believe we are going to go into a period of time. i don't think there is going to be a lot of money that comes to bear and the federal programs have to be specific in casting the federal vision and driving performance and identifying what the future economy looks like. our economy has changed so much from a domestic economy to a global economy. the president has an export goal to double exports by 2015. we don't have a transportation vision of how we're going to do that and do this with very limited money. so reform is going to be very

important. permitting reform, a subject that i know a lot about. i visited the mayor of l.a., and we we have trying to permit a mode alpha silt for 10 years. it was not shovel ready in the stimulus monies because we don't have project reform. so my point is we are going to have limited money. and you will hear people talking about the thing, the thing is to raise the gas tax, the thing is to toll everything. it's not going to be the thing. we are going to need money. we have a lot of projects and programs that are out there in terms of financing out there already that i always overlooked . private activity bonds. and i think we are going to have to get our heads around as a country how to lay this federal

vision out to allow the states and local municipalities to do what they need to do and do it best. >> dr. walton, to follow on from matt's comments, you worked closely with a lot of states. how would you view his idea of reforms? >> well, first, let me say i appreciate being here and discussion began with the president talking about football. i want everyone to know who cares. texas is emphasizing academics this year. [laughter] >> let me make that clear. having gotten that out of the way. matt is absolutely on target and i think the comments that were made by the earlier panel on infrastructure correct. i do have the privilege and opportunity to work with 30-plus states and they are all unique and very special, but you hear

themes over and over again and one is just as we were talking about project delivery, how do you expedite the delivery of programs. and could we not set a time for example where these decisions on personaling or approval process must be made, are there opportunities to push some of the decision process down to the states and perhaps the local level, not giving up any of the responsibilities or the end results or outcome that we need to have, but could some of those decisions be made more locally than not? so that's one area or a couple of areas. expanded funding options. you hear that a lot. just as you were talking about infrastructure and we can talk about that, too. but the fact is that more funding options are desperately needed and flexibility in the funding options that are there.

and matt is swlull right. all the various categories, couldn't it be simplified. i was reminded when we talked about this, a statement almost 100 years ago, ladies and gentlemen we have run out of money and time to start thinking and that's where we are. there are wonderful opportunities of how we structure opportunities. particularly in the funding areas. mentioned one, that is a good example. there are refinements that could be made there. and in build america bonds and so forth, and of course, the private activity. all of those offer opportunities and have been useful but the public-private partnerships are an example. certain states have been able to leverage that. we can discuss whether that's a

major source or not. some would say it's been about 4.5%, 5%, could be up to 9%. perhaps we could squeeze it to 14%. it's not the answer, but it's part of the menu that matt was talking about. and clearly, there is more that can be done with public-private partnerships and we have wonderful examples out there. if it takes an infrastructure to leverage some of that off-shore equity, fine. but we are leveraging that now. that money is coming from off-shore for the most part and not domestically. more clearly defined goals and performance measures. we heard about that. and clearly, that will continue to be a theme. but strengthening those partnerships, expediting delivery, keeping our eye on the ball and getting the job done.

those are the things that i routinely hear. >> not to sound defensive, but when we think of a national infrastructure bank or financing authority, it would obviously be complementary to that existing menu. build america bonds, we think should come back and there is a halt, but it's in addition to, but take away the burden from the government. >> the devil is in the detail. we have a lot of detail for you. are you going to be in the audience asking questions? [laughter] >> matt, if we listened to the first panel, the re-authorization bill, it was quite a cheerleading -- and i think c-span is going to have something great to go into the president's speech, but -- so we know the program needs to be

re-authorized. we know additional funding is needed. but, the big if. there isn't any additional funding, whether re-authorization gets a mere extension. what next? >> i think a large part of the problem we have today, if you were to go into these classrooms or maybe ask these audience how do we pay for our infrastructure, we have done a crumby job of explaining to the american public. and we have a great infrastructure system. every time you go to the gas pump, you pay. and it has worked pretty well. but part of the problem has been our success. we have a dependency on foreign oil and clean up the standards. we are getting much better mileage. that hurts the receipts coming into the highway trust fund. think about electric cars. thri if you had 25% lick cars

running down the highway, what it would do to the highway trust fund. this isn't going to work long-term. and we have to communicate that we aren't paying for it out of our federal income taxes like a lot of people think wer it's been a good system but has to be reformed and refined. if i was faced with no more fun, i would stand up and say, i'm going to be more aggressive on tolling, something that everybody hates, but you have to have revenue coming in to fund it. i'm going to swoop up $100 million. if i was the president, i'm going to put it in and find $100 million and put it in private activity bonds and do a project streamlining until unemployment gets down ol all projects and

relieve nepa -- i said it, until unemployment gets down to 6%. i would take this stuff and find every bit of leverage because that's what it's going to take. the money, you know -- nobody is going to agree to a tax increase. it's not there and we need to desperately. the highway trust fund -- it was not indexed for inflation. so the 18.5 tax, because the cost of steel and concrete. we are going to have a longer term vision how we are going to replace this providing every ounce of leverage to get leverage for every dollar that goes into this thing is what i would do. >> can i just add a quick thing.

there is something about the story that i haven't told very well. when you travel abroad and talk to administrators of other countries, they come around to the fact about how they fund their transportation system and how they envy us because we have a dedicated source of transportation improvements and programs. and that stable dedicated source that has worked so well. so the trust fund has turned out to be a marvelous invention, pay-as-you-go works extremely well for us and other countries envy. it was never intended to be the last word. it was intended to be the mechanism to allow us to get started and worked well because of the technology at that particular point in time.

as you well know, with technology changing, it's not the right instrument to move forward. but user-fee policy is still a good policy and still holds. so, i think having the trust fund, having user pay and the fact that tolls are a form of direct user fees is also more -- >> that actually allows me to go into the next question and topic. but very interesting that we have matt and jim talking about increasing the gas tax and the administration saying no to the tax. that's for a different debate. i think what you both talked about user fees and you both brought up tolls, but and matt, you have been in front of raising the gacks tax where it is versus where it started. what are your views how surface

programs should be paid for. is it totaling are other ideas that come to the fofere front? >> it's a user-based system. and if we get away from that. i think we are going to be in real trouble and will be subto the political process. we need a long view, transparent stream of money and it has worked well. we just -- we haven't done a good job of educating the traveling public. >> i know you have been one of the ideas is to move the money and move it into the account as a way to get more money. >> i find every available dollar unspent in washington, d.c., and put it into tifia. >> you brought up user fees as

well. do you see it the same way? >> i do. both of the congressional commissions came out with a whole host of ideas and opportunities and i know they are being explored. some are relatively simple to do and others are more complex. we need to look at the short-term. we have a short-term need and continuing investment. but there are longer terms options, we need to be looking now of how we transition of what we have in place now to the longer term and tknoling plays a huge role. there are a number of options out there on the table but staying close to the user pay option, it serves us well now and will serve us well in the future. >> i'm going to end this segment with you. although fraggete railroads pay

for their own networks new york city -- networks, but why is it so poor to have a national freight strategy and in the idea of how railroads fit into this national strategy when they are private based? >> if you look at our economy in the last 0 years, 40% of our economy is driven by trade. if you go out to the west coast, these ports, in 2006, when the economy was still moving forward, these ports were choking because of all the volumes and now we want to double exports. if we don't have national freight vision we won't connect the highways to the ports and the railroads. if you look at the top 30 cities in our country, it equates for 70% of the commerce and if you

look at the costs that are studied around the world, it's in these top cities. that's where the congestive costs are going to the economy and a lot of it is freight-driven. we did these listening sessions and what we have heard, we don't have a commuter problem but a freight issue in this country that is causing a commuter issue. we have to have a national vision that i think, lays out what the economic future of how we are going to sell, who we are going to sell, those types of things. >> to stay with the idea that when we think of infrastructure for us, it's very broad-based, not just surface-related but aviation and transmission and broadband. we have lou who is the chairman and c.e.o. of a leading clean energy company with 2002

revenues of more than $15 billion, 43 mega what thes of generating capacity and 15,000 employees in 28 states as well as canada. next to matt -- lou is lora, senior adviser to the u.s. secretary of energy, secretary chu. she regulated electricity, natural gas and water industries. thank you both for coming. lou, i'm going to start with you. we hear a lot about transmission and frarke. but i don't think we really understand the problems that the infrastructure is facing today. >> i want to start by acknowledging what tom said in the earlier panel and pleased to

hear it and one of the biggest opportunities for new jobs is in electric transmission and unlike everything we talked about today, one thing that is different, we don't need a penny of government money to make this happen. most people can relate to airlines and roads but don't think about electric transmission and our industry has challenged a lot. we had a vertically-integrated system where electric utilities were all local and built their power plants close to where the electricity was consumed and we didn't need a lot of electricity transmission. there are two things that have changed. one is, many states, it has been opened up to competition and we don't have that vertically integrate the structure and if you owned a power plant, you could sell it anywhere you want.

and the second thing is the advent of renewable energy and there has been renewable energy investments made over the years and renewable whether it's wind, solar or geothermal and you have to build it where the wind below zero or sun shines and not necessarily where the people live. we need to get that clean, economical power to our customers. the transmission system hasn't kept up with that and so we have a lot of constraints in the system. any time you have a constraint that is imposing a tax on consumers because it means the lowest cost electricity can't get to those markets and therefore, higher goss costs, less efficient end up running and there are a lot of benefits to transmission investment in terms of reliket in the grid and

also using the most efficient generation resources and all of that will save customers money. our industry wants to invest in new transmission. we have the means by which to do it. but the big challenge has been the way we sighted and paid for transmission. was all based on local community-typed structure. and it doesn't really work for building longer transmission lines, particularly when you have to cross state lines. so it's a very slow, very burdensome process. and to give you an example, and that's about the same amount of generation that our entire coal fleet in america today has applied for and is waiting for transmission for access to the transmission system and we need more transmission built in order to support that.

very fundamental issues that we are dealing with. one is planning, which is where do we put the transmission lines. there is financing. how does it get paid for. and not that the utilities aren't willing to get invested. even thee there is an economic investment and the third is how do you sight these transmission lines. and we at the jobs croum are working on proposals for all three of those and the federal energy regulatory commission is working on these along with the department of energy. >> we are going to come back to questions on the smart grid. but lauren, the federal energy regulatory commission, ferc, i'm hearing about this order called 1,000, about transmission planning and cost allocation. why is this so important? why are we hearing about it?

>> what is it and why is it so pour? >> it accomplishes three things. it helps with the regional planning aspect of transmission. and as lou just mentioned, history keafl with regards to the transmission, everyone was looking and we are the united states and essentially the states were looking only within their own state. and order 1,000 helps put united back into the united states to develop a system that is more integrated, to allow the kind of transfer of electrons that lou is talking about to transform our economy. so the regional planning aspect of it, it helps put guidelines on that and to enforce to design the system and design it in a much more regional manner. it requires the same entities to

figure out how to pay for it. so it doesn't mandate how the grid is going to be paid for but says look, guys, once you develop and pick lines that have to be built to reduce congestion and help power all of these gadgets that you have in your bags right now, you have to figure out how to pay for you and the person who built it pays for it and gets paid back through the rates or anybody who benefits from a line that is being built with chip-in and they would get paid back, so there are a variety of ways to do it but ferc said you have to get it done. you have to figure out how to pay for it and match up with the lines that you have identified that need to be built. and it opens up the development of transmission by historically the guys that were building

transmission were the incumbent utilities and what this does is allow and allow them to come in and build and prevents the incumbent utilities from blocking merchant transmission developers from coming in. >> we heard from two business c.e.o.'s about permitting and regulatory hurdles. besides the cost allocations that you mentioned, what are the other reforms that are needed to spark investment in this new transmission smart grid? what are the hurdles you are finding and what are we needing to do? >> the biggest hurdles we find today is sighting and permitting and finding where you are going to put those lines. nobody wants transmission lines in their back yards. any time you are talking about a

new prospect, there are a lot of people to weigh in. and the system that we use today for sighting transmission lines was developed back in 1935. the world has changed a lot since then and especially as i mentioned forward-building lines that are longer, you start crossing the many state boundaries, so you have many municipalities involved, you have the states, if you cross any federal property, you also have federal government involved. so we need a lot more coordination. and we really need permitting reform. to give you an example of how burdensome the process is. a.e.p., was trying to build a 90-mile transmission line. that's not a long line. took them 13 years to get it sighted and permitted. another example is a.t.c.

corporation trying to build a 220-mile line and took six years. i want to contrast that with gas hype lines and i could give you examples, it took 11 months, eight months to build. we know how to do it. we have a great mechanism in place in terms of how we sight this kind of infrastructure. we need to apply the same framework to electric transmission and away we go. we can generate efficiency for customers and follow that model. and there was legislation passed in 2005 as part of the energy poll sill act that really -- that the intent was to provide the federal government more of a role and without you supering the states and called it federal backstop fighting, that law was actually written, we believe we

can really redesign the implementation of it and get a lot more transmission built very, very quickly without changes to the law, without federal money and that sort of thing. >> lauren, i hit it with your government hat on, not to be surprised there is a follow-up. we know the administration has announced the formation of renewable response team. i guess we aren't going to use the acronym. but it's to improve federal coordination and ensure timely review and i meantimely review. how is this initiative going to work and intended to move the process forward? >> let me thank lou because i was one of the attorneys that represented them in sighting

that line over the seven years it took. so i lived through that nightmare and secretary chu brought me on 75 days ago to comment on and figure out how to build things quickly. we actually have a rapid response team for transmission and that's the r.r.t.t. and how that works is a couple of things. we are going to get all of the federal agencies that are dealing with a large transmission project together and we rg going to have a number of projects we are focusing on. we take our federal agencies and sit them down and we get a coordinated schedule amongst all of the agencies and put that schedule up on a dashboard and so the public is going to be able to see when the deadlines are and the immediate milestones

are. within each agency there is permitting and consulting. there will be specific designated staff that is going to be essentially held accountable for meeting those deadlines and milestones. that staff is going to be trained in transmission shugs specifically. and going to be trained in transmission technologies and transmission economics and transmission development. from my perspective. having them understand is very important so when they are looking at a variety of solutions for a specific prosecute problem, they'll understand the business impacts of picking a specific solution. they are going to have to comply with the statutory requirements and doesn't mean every program is going to be approved but will help with the communication and get things done much more quickly. that is a snapshot and i know the president issued a memo

yesterday with regards to streamlining and making sure we expedite the permitting processes among the agencies which will help a lot. >> lou, my advertisement fee is going to be my last question. we are in texas and next ter after is developing a transmission line in texas as part of the initiative. you might as well tell us about it. >> i'm delighted to be here in texas and texas is a state that has been doing a lot of things right in terms of energy policy. there has been more wind generation built in texas in the last five years than anywhere else in the united states, just as one example. it's all being built in west texas. it is window and there is so much built and we have constraints going from west

texas and northern parts of the state and you see price differentials and wind developers would love to build wind generation and they can't. well, the state figured this out several years ago and they started a process called the competitive renewable energy process and made it a competitive process. my company happened to win a piece of that business. we are building a 300-mile long line from west texas to the northeast part of texas. that's going to involve an investment of $800 million on our part. but the entire process represents investments of almost really over $5 billion in new transmission, not requiring any state money, no federal money. it will generate -- these assets will be paying hundreds of

millions of taxes into the state. but most importantly, it's going to -- the state of texas is determined it's going to lower electricity prices for people who live in texas on average between $150 and $350 less per customer per year. the environment is going to benefit and the state of texas is going to create jobs in the meantime. >> i'm not going to tell you i gave you that lay-up. [laughter] >> not a lay-up for me but for the state of texas. >> go s.m.u. >> broadband. before we open it to q and a, we want to talk about broadband which people would not necessarily define broadband as infrastructure. david cohen is the executive

vice president of a corporation and serves as a senior council, the acquirer of nbc. his experience extends beyond the corporate suite. many of you are familiar with his tenure as chief of staff to then philadelphia mayor ed rendell he is one of the three, alongside mayor bloomberg and governor schwarzenegger of building america. david, great to have you. and next to david is john donovan, chief technology officer for at&t. thank you for coming, john. and his role, he oversees the global technology and product development, network and engineering operations, at&t labs and the security and

intellectual property of the organization. so thank you both for coming. david, i'm going to open up with you. i guess from a macro perspective, talk to us about the role of broadband and economic development in terms of investment in broadband infrastructure and what is your experience will be the most effective in terms of stimulating economic growth? >> thanks, bob and great to be here and carrying through on the football theme, one of my other part-time jobs is i'm chair of the trustees of the university of pennsylvania and i wanted dr. walton to know we are also going to be focused on academics. [laughter] >> i have to finish, as a guy who played football at the university of pennsylvania and only way i could get in -- [laughter] >> so, and i think that question

really helps to tee up the question of why broad broadband is part of an infrastructure panel and it plays a unique role, because -- broadband is infrastructure. the broadband plant, wire line or wireless represents investment and jobs and real, physical plant that is layered through the -- layered throughout the entire country. you have the direct impact from building broadband plant and there have been numerous studies done. you could pick your study done. within study which the f.c.c. cites is a national broadband plan, for every $10 billion that is invested in additional broadband infrastructure in the

united states, you create or retain almost 500,000 jobs. real direct connection by investing in broadband. broadband has a longer term economic and jobs impact. that comes on the a doppings side and comes in empowering everything that we talked about today in the sense of if you went back and asked every person who you have talked to how they would conduct their business, how you would run aviation and run an business and surface transportation business, how you would run small businesses that are the vendors of all these businesses, without broadband, they would tell you it is impossible. you get a spinoff effect and there has been recent work done around that question and that work has concluded that for every one percentage point increase in broadband adoption, you create or retain another

300,000 jobs. so these are investments that really do produce jobs and really do power the economy both directly and indirectly in terms of long-term investments in the country's future. >> great. john, i think something like 90% of this country, broadband reaches patrol 90%-plus of this country and we are going on those who are declining to participate and getting that type of service, but in the rural areas, in the less populated areas, what role can wireless satellite technology play in lowering the cost of deployment to these currently unserved areas. >> let me underscore what most of the panel has talked about and that is direct connection between infrastructure, jobs and competitiveness. and before i jump into the wireless, i would transition by

saying that like most of the infrastructure that has been represented at this table with air and ground and energy, roads and so on, broadband is just a little bit different, as david pointed out, because broadband has the added effect of not only the effective development but the wireless broadband is becoming an engine in the economy that is allowing us to get aglobal advantage and one of the most important industries out there and i'll highlight that i don't need to reiterate the velocity of money that discussions most have talked about, but i'll only highlight the fact that nth alone that is spent $75 billion in capital in the last four years in this industry and the industry itself right through the recession continued to invest for the

demand that was out there. wireless and satellite is economical and i think that there is a lot that is dependent upon the terrain and what is already installed out there, but it is more economical for us and one of the big benefits for the at&t t-mobile merger we stated, it affords us the ability to extend our network from at&t% -% to 87%, so adding 55 million additional members of the population to adapt broadband. >> we currently have about 35%

of our population that could be served not taking it up. it is mainly in the low income households, which is needed the most to further education, for the job opportunities. what can the private sector and the public sector do to increase the user? >> i really appreciate being asked that question. we are a heavily urban cable company, so we have more than 99% of the household saddled for broadband, and this is really not a criticism. if you only spend time in washington, you would think of broadband problem was all about

building and constructing broadband. you hear very little about it, yet there are three times the four times as many who do not subscribe to broadband as there are who do not subscribe to broadband because they have no access. i personally have a passion about urban adoption of a broad band, which is income-based, and the good news is we have some very good research on what the broad jokes region was the projects are, and in preparing the plan, they actually did the country a great service by collecting that research and putting a spotlight on it, and we have identified three major barriers. the first and most important is

of bucket of digital literacy issues. people do not understand what the internet is. they are afraid of it. people think the government will spy on them if they have broad band in their homes. they do not know how to use the computer. they do not know how to use the internet. the second factor is the absence of computer equipment. to researchers did a study, which is almost a quarter of the households in america do not own a computer. since i am not sure i know anyone who does not own a computer, i will guarantee in upper income communities, you are talking about 2% or 3% who not on a computer, and in low income you are talking about 60% or 70% who did not own a

computer. if you do not own a computer, why would you sign up for broadband access the third is the cost of broadbent. it now costs $30 to $40 a month. you can get it cheaper in of promotion or a bundle, but it is an expensive service, so the way the government and private sector has to attach this -- has to attack this is through a program that addresses each and every one of these barriers. almost all of them are public- private partnerships with local government, state government, and private sector to try to figure out a way to break down those barriers and to make affordable broadband with affordable equipment and digital

literacy available. we are rolling out a program to recall internet a essentials, which within our footprint we will offer to eligible families of three-part program, broadband service for $9.99 a month. we are going to give them a voucher that will entitle them to buy a computer for $149.95, and we will give them a suite of materials in print online and in person in the communities. we are rolling it out in 4000 school districts in 39 states and the district of columbia. >> that is great.

>> we all get our softball. >> i am waiting for it. we just talked about infrastructure deployment common -- so clement, and how do we get there. can tax incentives broadband? what works best and is most fair? tax credits, accelerated depreciation, other options? i know you do not want to put your current political hat on, but if you are putting on your current political hat, what can we do in this economic climate with avoiding this infrastructure? >> i do not own of political cap, but i think asking questions is always a dangerous place to start.

tom donahue mentioned earlier that the broadband is an area that can attract its own investment. i think it has shown a propensity to be an in festival area. henry j. tv and -- has shown a propensity to be an investibal area. projects that are providing stability are much more important than those trying to manage the building of infrastructure, so i would highlight a couple of points. look for things that now gives service providers and no way to maximize. not be overly prescriptive. keep the requirements from being

rigid, and focus on the demand and stimulating demand side of the equations, because we have a side of the segment that just needs a light touch and consistency from the regulatory environment that would allow it to continue to build. >> we are running of a little behind schedule. the idea of repurchasing for broadband only services -- is that sufficient? is that something you would recommend. >> certain public policy more than technology. the fcc has teamed up on universal service reform. at&t has played a leading role in putting a proposed

restructuring, and i think there is widespread in reconstruction. number one, it should be repurchased, exclusively for broadband deployment purposes. no. 2, it should be limited to the building of our broadband in underserved locations. no. 3, it should be expanded on a technology bases. there should be some form of cap to limit the consumer expansion to find it, and i am very optimistic that the commission is going to act on this this fall and we are going to create a real appropriate funding

stream to be able to address the deployment side of the broadband issue. >> do not enter data. i have a better question to end with. -- do not answer that. how can funding for government- sponsored institutions demand infrastructure deployment and basically -- you think there is a winning strategy to go forward? >> there are several longstanding programs, so today at&t serves several of those anchor institutions, and i think there have been some states that have some creative things, like where you aggregate demand and get something planning that allows you to get sustainable

planning in place, so i think a lot of those programs are out there, and to continue those, about role of stimulating demand, adopting new services, helps accelerate the deployment cycle, so i think continuing those programs are in the barrel and can be executed much more quickly. >> we want to open it up to questions from the audience. we are going to get you a microphone. >> i am the president and ceo. i have officers he -- i have offices here and in dallas. i am fortunate enough to work in the field. did i hear you correctly? did i say -- did i hear you say the high school is here? >> i am not trying to be

facetious or cynical. i thought i heard you say that. >> i think matt mentioned, and matt and i agreed that we need a national transportation policy that sensibly lays out what roadways you need and has to be answered for anything that we do, and i thought that his leadership on that was outstanding. there is a place for rail, air, mara thurman, and -- their return region -- rail, air, maritime, and passenger trains. you already have 45 or 50 daily round-trips.

what possible purpose could spending billions of dollars adding passenger trains that will only get you there slower -- what purpose does that serve? but as the question we have to ask ourselves. thank you for dishing me the soft ball, too. we are in business to win customers, and if we are lucky, and we have cents. -- fans. we are in the transportation business. if we thought people really wanted to travel between dallas and houston on a train, we would do that, but in taking a more holistic picture, you can put a train in, and what are you going to do? you are going to take people off

airplanes -- not everybody and not very many people, but you are going to diminish one mode that is already built. new york to washington and is different. it plays a valuable role, and it is there. one reason you do not have high- speed rail in many cities in the united states of america and now i would argue is because you have southwest airlines, and europe did not. lastly, there is no rail system in the world that makes a profit. not one, so if we want to change the user fee system we have with rows or air to a subsidized system, i do not think that is

the right direction, but we can vote on that. >> in this corner. next question. >> i am an american merchant mariner, and we have not heard a lot about maritime today, and i want to follow up on a comment that our courts are congested. i wanted to mention that texas has more maritime activity, and we are looking at that to expand in the near future, particularly with not the

panama canal, and we are probably going to be dealing with a lot more infrastructure requirements. we think the term has come to build a marine highway network, and that would be to get some of the excess cargo of the railway is -- of the railway. this would be better for the environment. it would be better for safety and relief where and tear on our bridges and roads. how do you see that plan working out? is that on the radar screen? we think it potentially could be a public-private partnerships, and i would like to hear your i eighth -- to hear your ideas. >> higher agree about traffic safety. i think the water system is not

unlike the infrastructure. it is in real trouble. the trust fund is not working. there is a lot of money we cannot get spent, and we go through the same stuff. as far as european trade, it is going to come down to a permit issued. you cannot permit a new and who water court in california. we are doing them in texas. we are expanding. it is an industrial oil refinery location. you go out there, and you go, this is notuts. you would never build the national transportation highway system we have today, because

some of the views we have allowed to say stop. a lot of freight is going to go to canada, because they are welcoming it. they have a government initiative to build more support capacity. you are going to see more trade go to mexico, because they have a government initiative to build more jobs. we are the only country i know of that we shun its, so at some point the american public now is going to say, a enough is enough. putting of court since the facility and spending half a billion dollars to green it ought not is a pretty good deal -- sue green it is a pretty good deal, but we are not there yet. >> any other questions? >> i am thinking about the job

studies i have seen by economists on the broadbent new issue, and a lot of the emphasis is on the construction -- on the constraint, so it seems to me if there is an issue of the money may be there, but there is a partially a scarce resources, so i thought maybe david might want to say something about that. >> this is a technical question. >> we have a good division of responsibility. >> that is certainly paramount. as you looked at the assets necessary, it is dramatically different. there has been a challenge of a

policy that has been 25 years and going on and on, but underneath that, the demand that exists today is causing a spectrum crisis in america, and one thing is that our focus on with t-mobile is to find the spectrum, and that continues to be a dark cloud on the jobs and innovation donohue that looms, maybe not for every market in the next six months but for some markets in the next six months, so for the next 12 months there are going to be some the start to run out, and that is going to be bad for jobs and bad for growth.

not only is this about providing a service for users. it is also about providing a catalyst in an industry where we have a global leadership. >> another difference between a lot of infrastructure issues, and i do not say this to be an apologist in any way for the administration, but the administration has laid out a series of specific plans to be able to address the broad band infrastructure needs and adoption needs of the country. they are not controversial. they do not cost the government money.

they actually make money, so whether it is the broad band plans, the president's wireless initiatives, the national broadbent plans initiative on wireless, this has been laid out in a very clear way in this environment. this tells me how to a boil all this is in a relatively short term. >> you forgot merger approval. >> i just wanted to say one thing for our texans. senator hutchison deserves credit for her leadership. she joined hands with rockefeller in a truly bipartisan piece of legislation. it passed 21 voice in favor.

a majority of republicans and a majority of democrats. it does three things, and delivers $10 billion in deficit reduction, puts us on a path that opens the capacity for innovation we are seeing. our smart phones consume 25 times more than which than voice phones. cabalists -- tablets consume more than phones, so this industry is incredibly dynamic, extremely enthusiastic, and it is going to run up against his capacity crunch if we do not get our long term plan. we are 10 years today from one of the biggest tragedies in our

nation's history. we have not given our first responders access to the tools our kids have. my fourth grader has a better schools than our first responders do. it is high time we give them the infrastructure and services they need. we can make this happen. it is bipartisan. >> we want to thank this panel. i was also going to thank senator hutchison, a she formed the energy financing bill, which is similar to what we have been talking about, and something are council has been looking at in a positive light and something we

are going to continue to speak about. before we end, i would like to see if i can ask laura to come back top. >> i have been given the task of closing remarks. my job is zero -- it is an enviable -- un-enviable because he is so wonderful. i would like to thank everyone for coming and the panel. [applause] thanking smu, and i just want to reiterate that the council is an ongoing process. it is dedicated to an ongoing

discussion of issues. i think you have heard clearly that the council does not always agree. i think the discussion of the railroad illustrates that a little bit, so i think what we are trying to do is get as much employment as weekend. we have common with recommendations from the president. an illustration that he is taking this seriously was his announcement yesterday. these are things that came off of the focus, of trying to say, let's get some things done we agree upon. we are discussing recommendations. the president is listening. following this, anyone listening on c-span, if anyone wants to send ideas, we suggest they go

rights to don. he is our coordinator inside the treasury. you can tell we have a lot of technically sophisticated people who do things like pay attention to e-mail and stuff like that, sir your ideas will be heard. thank you forthcoming. thank you for being involved. we will do our best to make sure good ideas get to the president and that the a administration act upon it. thank you for a much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama will talk about his latest jobs plan next week before a joint session of congress. the white house initially requested the speech the on wednesday, but after some back- and-forth, they agreed to

thursday. we will have live coverage on thursday. this saturday, a tea party rally will include remarks by sarah palin. we will have live coverage getting under way at noon eastern, here on c-span, sees them radio, and region -- cspan radio and c-span.org. up next, jon huntsman lays out his jobs plan, and then senator joe lieberman, followed by a debate about whether the united states to say for following the terrorist attacks. >> it has become an adjective. i doubt there are many people in this town who would like to be described as a machiavellian.

not too many people would call themselves machiavellian. >> his name is synonymous with scheming and pursuit of power. now the author argues that machiavelli's theories may have been a response to corruption and around him. this week, republican presidential candidate and former utah governor jon huntsman announces his job creation plan. he proposes reducing the corporate tax rate. he spoke for about 45 minutes. [applause] >> i would like to welcome our

guest. i believe we are a small business and manufacturing company with about 45 hard working, conscientious, regular people employed here. we support industries that affect our daily life that i do not even think we think about sometimes. that could be food processing, deep water drilling, and a lot of others. i have got to confess that i have been an addict and a professional gambler for about 35 years, and we purchase equipment based on what we think will happen. we pay 100% of our employees' health care, short-term and long-term disability. we have no guarantee of success are in the business continuation of any kind. since july of last year, when we have a little accident in the gulf of mexico, and there was a

drilling moratorium, and who might companies lost about $50,000 a week in sales. since then, there has been a lack of permiting. now they lifted the moratorium, but they will not grant any permits. government involvement in my world is a significant disincentive to take further risks. i am anxious to hear governor huntsman's plan. >> thanks for having me. i appreciate that. it is an honored to be here with you. it is an honor to be in a manufacturing plant, a great manufacturing plant in new hampshire. i would like to outline my plan to put america back to work and rebuild her economic engine

stronger and more powerful than ever before in. we have an economic crisis in this country. above all, people need jobs. 14 million of our fellow americans are unemployed. millions more are so dispirited they have given up looking. our economy is often trained through such numbers, yet behind the numbers are human tragedies. families that are torn apart, relationships that are opposed to the brink, men and women struggling who remain -- to retain self esteem and the pride that comes with self- sufficiency. there is no more urgent priority

at this point in our nation's history than creating jobs and strengthening our economic core. everything else revolves around it and is dependent on its. many economic challenges will require serious solutions, but above all, it will require a serious leadership. above all in our nation's capital and among my opponents of the campaign trail. it was four months ago i was the only candidate to stand up and support a compromise to save our nation from the fault -- from the fault, which would have triggered a calamitous consequences for our economy. president obama never offered a plan of his own, and all of my opponent supported default.

even as far as trying to undermine it at the 11th hour, this does not cut it, especially in these trying times. the ideas i will discuss today are not radical or revolutionary. they are straightforward and common sense. many of you have heard me talk about this, but therein lies the problem. washington has never suffered from a vacuum of ideas. it suffers from a vacuum of leadership. i am not running from president region running for president to promise solutions. i am running to deliver solutions. some of my entitlement reforms come directly from the paul ryan plan. other solutions come directly from the simpson-novels commission -- simpson-bowles

commission. i may be a challenge giant -- my solution may be challenged by the left and right, but it represents a significant step forward. it also represents a very different visions for our country than the current occupier of the white house. the president believes he can tax and spend and regulate our way to prosperity. we cannot. we must compete our way to prosperity. when i was born, manufacturing comprised 25% of gdp. today it is down to around 10% this does not reflect a decline in american ingenuity or work ethic. it reflects our government's failure to adapt to realities of the 21st century economy.

we need american entrepreneurs not only thinking of new products like the iphone or segue. we need american workers building those products. it is time for made in america to mean something again. overseas i have heard our adversaries speak of america's decline as if it were predetermined. it is not. some say today's economy is the new normal all of us need to accept. i refuse to. it is time for america to compete again, and here is how we are going to get it done. first, on debt, let me start by saying that debt is a cancer, which is left untreated will destroy our economy from within. i have been outspoken as a supporter of the ryan plan, which i believe it begins to address the long-term problems that make our current course of

standing unsustainable. i also support a balanced budget amendment. we cannot restore our nation's economic strength by cuts alone. we must compete. over the last few decades, our tax code has evolved into a maze of special interest new polls and temporary provisions that cost taxpayers more than $400 billion a year to comply with. rather than tinker around the edges of a broken system, i am going to drop a plan on the front steps of the capital but says we need to clean house, get rid of all tax expenditures, all loopholes, all subsidies, all corporate welfare. use that to lower rates are

across the board and to do that in a revenue-neutral fashion. thank you. [applause] for individual taxpayers, i propose a version of the plan crafted by the simpson-bulls commission known as the zero plan. we will eliminate all deductions and credits in favor of three dramatically lower rates -- 8%, 14%, and 23%. we will limit a tax that is unfairly punishing citizens. we will also on limit dividends, which will lower the cost of capital and encourage investment in the economy. the united states cannot compete with the second-highest business tax rate in the developed world,

so i propose lowering it from 30 five% to 35%, one point lower than the developed world average. a tax holiday for repatriation of corporate holidays overseas should also be implemented immediately, making between four and hundred billion dollars and immediately. third, are creative and entrepreneurial class is being strangled by a complex and convoluted web of misguided and regulations. one example is the ongoing effort to prevent america's largest exporter, boeing, from building a new plant in south carolina in an effort to block investment in right to work states. goif elected, i will immediately

instruct them to stop this politically motivated attack on enterprise, and if a fair to do so, -- if they fail to do so, i will replace them. rather than true financial reform, the american people were hadn't a 1600 page monstrosity we did were handed a 1600 page monstrosity that gave power to our system. another fundamental problem is it perpetuates too big to fail. taxpayers must be protected for more bailouts. [applause] yet we must reconsider whether increased competition between smaller entities is more efficient than a vast new

regulatory apparatus that will almost certainly produce more bailouts. we must also repealed obamacare, a one trillion dollar bomb dropped on taxpayers but only hampers businesses and job creation. we must end of the serious regulatory overreach exemplified by its current effort to pass a new ozone rule, which would effectively halt construction, and we must also approve -- improve the ridiculous process, which puts delays on new products that have the ability to extend human life. to free ourselves from opec's grasp and create american jobs, we must and our addiction to foreign oil.

every year, america's sense more than $300 billion overseas for oil. this is unsustainable. up need to expand and open o new sources of domestic energy, improving our global competitiveness. thank you. [applause] we must start by expediting the approval process for saves, environmentally sound projects, including oil and gas reserves in the gulf of mexico and alaska and appropriate federal lands, along with supporting the keystone pipeline project along with canada. we must eliminate subsidies and regulations that discourage domestic energy sources such as

natural gas, biofuels, and liquids. the united states has more natural gas and saudi arabia has oil, yet the obama administration just issued fuel economy regulations that effectively barnes heavy-duty from converging into natural gas. we can and must begin producing more energy right here at home. thank you. fifth, as a former diplomat, a trade official, a governor, and business executives, i witnessed firsthand the tremendous opportunities of free trade. 95% of the world's customers live outside of our borders, and

with the u.s. party to more than -- to only 17 of more than 300 trade agreements worldwide, opening markets to american businesses should be a common- sense tool to spark immediate growth. for two and a half years, the president has failed to act on free trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama. i would make them a top priority. washington must also immediately start the discussion with india to end a bilateral free trade agreement, strengthening our relation with a friend who will prove to be critical to america's success in the 21st century. on each of these points and more outlined in our american jobs plan, president obama is job record has been marked by

failure. other nations are making the choices necessary to compete in the 21st century. i have seen that firsthand. in brasilia, in beijing, our competitors are making the hard choices and will help assure their children a better life. if we fail to do the same, we are robbing our children of an inheritance every previous american generation has enjoyed. i am running for president because i am prepared to lead the american people to the better and brighter future. we are the most optimistic, common sense problem solvers on earth. we can turn this thing around. i seek your vote to reignite america cost light.

we have no choice. we must unite and look beyond politics for real solutions. it is time for america to start in building things again. it is time for america to start working again. it is time for america to compete again. i believe with the new administration, we can do just that. president obama won in 2008 on hope. we are going to win in 2012 on real solutions. here. you very much for being [applause] thank you, thank you, thank you. thank you all very much. i guess we can take a couple of questions.

is that allowable bowman -- is that allowable as? >> does anyone have a question? >> [unintelligible] at&t is saying we will bring 5000 jobs to america. you feel they should bring those 5000 people back now? >> this has nothing to do with one company. this has everything to do with the big picture approach to getting this country moving again. this is not about little tweaks. this is not about half measures around the tax codes or individual company complaints or arguments about one company been

in this country or another. we fundamentally have of a problem with respect to competitiveness, and we are not going to be able to expand our manufacturing bases 25%, 10% today. we have got to get back to where we can make things in this country, and we are not going to do it by decisions on individual companies. it is going to get right to the heart and soul of fundamentally addressing the barriers and red tape that stand in the way called excessive regulation. it is going to get to the heart and soul of dealing with the reality that we can create 500,000 jobs right here if we begin a transition to fuels like natural gas that are ours that are clean, cheap, and carry profound national security

implications, so i am here to tell you, we have no choice. we need a big picture approach soon problem-solving. we cannot afford to of leaders who are not going to do what needs to be done. yes, sir? >> i was in the navy when you were born. i cannot find anything you say to disagree with. when you get not elected and walked in, 80% of the people are still going to be there. how are you going to get any of this done? >> i was born in 1960, and the u.s. navy paid for my birth. i was born in the navy. i have been forever grateful. i have two sons in the navy in a small attempt to pay them back. there is nothing like the voice

of people when they speak out. we are still elected officials with the consent of the governed. it is the people who speak to get things done. i am here to tell you 2012 is going to be about nothing beyond expanding the see economy and creating jobs. there may be some ancillary issues, but it has got to be about fixing our core, getting us back in the game, getting our country back on its feet, and i believe the discussion leading up to 2012 is going to be a referendum on the things we discussed here. what are you going to do about taxes? what are you going to do about obamacare? what are you going to do about dog-franc? when the people speak in 2012, it is going to be an attention- getter. i can feel it already. that is going to speak to

congress and to the bureaucracy, and it is going to say we want to get things done. we want to follow a particular course of action that is going to ensure prosperity for the american people, and reverting back to a system that believes in capitalistic traditions of free market, innovation, allowing the marketplace to solve a lot of our problems, i believe that is going to be the message loud and clear. i believe congress is going to stick with it and stay focused on the task at hand. whether you are a governor or or whether you are president, that is the message you get on election day. you have about a two-year window in which to get things done, and then it closes and you know longer have an opportunity. the doors close, and people are

now looking for alternatives, and i believe there will be an alternative in 2012, so you have got two years after the stamp of approval by the people to get things done, so what i am trying to do is to narrow the priorities for the american people down to debt, because that is the cancer if we do not contain is going to metastasize and killed this country, and then it is going to be how can we get out of the whole we are in? you have to grow. you cannot do that until you reform taxes, until you get a competitive tax rate, and you cannot expand the economy until you deal with regulatory. those are the things i am going to talk about, aside from getting our position right in the world. those are the three primary and compelling issues that will

drive this country forward and drive the discussion around 2012, and you will get the step from the people of this country and go through the next 12 years and not -- the next two years. thank you for your service in the navy. [applause] [inaudible] as i enter stand it, and who are the only -- as i understand it, you're the only one with experience in china and an understanding of the political culture. what message do you bring to the american middle class that will bring them hope for a brighter future? >> i will not only tell you, but

maybe i can say it in chinese of the appropriate time after i am elected with the right clarity for 300 million people. there is always a fear factor when you talk about china. there are problems with international property protection, currency problems with a deeply discounted currency. they are all bad, and we have to keep hammering on those issues, but we also have to remember on the other side, there is an opportunity for the united states, and i do not want that lost on anyone. you have the largest consumer class in the history of the world that will form in china, and they are going to be inclined to want to buy our products, and in my mind, that means exports to the united states, and china was nowhere on our top list of export nations, and it went to the top five and

the top three. i think for every state in america, china's marketplace is going to emerge as a voracious consumer. that means jobs, opportunities, economic expansion right here at home. you have got to balance in any game. you have to balance a realistic approach, rebalancing currency, doing the things that would suggest you play by the rules, and for 40 years, that has been a challenge. that will continue to be a challenge. on the other side, i am not going to miss the opportunity to see the reality of growth in china. that is going to taper down as they transition from and export machine to a consumption machine, but as they move to a consumption machine, they are going to be buying our stocks. i want to make sure we are ready

to export and we have the wherewithal to penetrate the markets to make the cash register ring at home. thank you. [applause] >> final question. >> based on your familiarity with china, what do you feel the implications are of the one child per family program over the long term for trade and as a market? >> that is a sensitive one. i hate the one child policy, and so do a lot of people there, but i also have a daughter because of the one child policy. i have a daughter we adopted from china, and i have no doubt about her circumstances. her mother gave her life and decided not to keep her, which

is sometimes an uncommon thing in china, and she was abandoned and put in an orphanage, and we took possession of her at a young age, and she is 12 years old, and every time i looked at her i think of the policy and how it is robbing the chinese people of life and opportunity and creating a disequilibrium they will have to deal with in ways i do not think any social scientist has ever thought through, but it has given me the love of my life in my own daughter, and i wish you could see what a beautiful and thoughtful 12-year-old she is. i call her my senior political adviser, because she travels with me, and at the end of the day, she says, dad, you forgot to say this, you said that's

wrong, and i listened to her because she is right. thank you very much. [applause] >> you have been terrific. thank you for being here. >> thank you for being here. >> very nice meeting you. >> good luck on the campaign trail. >> there you go. >> my dad and brother used to .ork for your dad he was a chemist. >> he probably would have worked

for chesapeake. i have worked better quality control lab -- at a quality control lab. good to see you. >> [unintelligible] we lack confidence. >> it is easy to build on it. that is part of it. there is an opportunity we cannot forget about. >> i have worked in asia. there are good humans working together. they will work together really

well. thank you very much. >> could to see you. thanks for being here. china is quantified out what family is. that will do the trick. >> that will be interesting to watch. they are struggling economically right now. >> i have great and wonderful

kids. i know what family is. >> the way you win new hampshire is by the math. you figure you have kids reaching out to every corner of the state. >> is going to take awhile to get a balanced budget amendment. i think people have had enough of the large and unpredictable deficits today. >> one of the big problems is we have to ship jobs overseas because we don't have the technology.

>> what about the visa program? we have the immigration debate. there is a legal side, too. we need brainpower. we have always relied on brainpower in this country. good to see you. >> i encourage you to promote party unity. >> we need party unity more now than we have ever before. >> you got that right. >> at all cost. >> we will do our part and hope you do, too. >> i will. >> you are navy brat? >> i am. >> i went to the naval academy. [inaudible]

my grandson is in the merchant marine academy. >> that is a great program. >> great to see you. >> i compare pictures of of me at the academy with his. he joined the navy first and then he went to the academy. >> thank you for coming to new hampshire. i like your ideas on energy and commodities. >> [inaudible]

>> i did not either until we actually did it ourselves. we are just scratching the surface of the potential that is there. >> i really liked your ideas. >> i have no doubt. >> how are you doing? what ever you have got? whatever you like. >> what will distinguish your record from the others? >> you are talking about their plans or their records? >> your jobs plan and their records? >> i don't know the specifics of what they are offering, we will wait and see. i don't believe you will find any other candidate with a tax reform program that hits the

mark quite like ours, where we are willing to phase out all the loopholes, all the deductions, corporate welfare, clean out the cobwebs completely, so that you can pay down the rates. you have to raise revenue. i do believe that is quite significant, and we may be alone in candidates offering that. >> simpson-bowles talked about using -- -- talk about using some revenue for deficit reduction. you do not want to do that? >> i believe any extra revenue, we have used to buy down the capital gains rate. to the tune of maybe $800 billion. if you look at our plan, it is a hybrid, more or less. you have one aspect of simpson- bowles and that it has our own additions.

>> relying on spending cuts and deficit reduction? >> spending cuts and growing, the rhine plan for spending cuts and tax reform and regulatory reform. energy independence that will stimulate the economy and get a revenue flowed the old- fashioned way. you have to earn revenue so you can decrease the debt. our plan is comprehensive in the sense that we are hitting on trade, energy, for regulatory reform, tax policy. everything is included that i think really represents not long term but short-term effectiveness in firing our engines of growth. >> you talk about taking away popular deductions like the first-time homebuyers. >> you have to start. -- you have to start with a negotiating position. i did the same thing as governor. we reform our tax code in a

fairly revolutionary way. it had never been done to this extent in the history of our state. basically phasing out everything and moving toward a flatter, fairer, and more predictable tax, then the negotiations begin. sometimes you have a different in point. -- endpoint. people want their president to get things done. right now we are polarized. we have the extremes. no one is moving the agenda forward. a president needs to move the agenda for and get things done. -- forward and get things done. what i have laid out today really represents our position going in. but there is the reality of the two-party system and reality of negotiations. i would like to take us as close to this as possible. if we can achieve something like this that it would leave the country with predictability for -- with a 21st century tax code that would fire our engines of growth and provide predictability for entrepreneurs and the creative class in this

nation suspect people will begin hiring again and capital expenditures will be deployed into the marketplace. we are frozen right now. >> the simpson-bowles zero plan, did you look at what the effect of that plan would be and who would be paying more taxes? >> we looked at the scoring. -- the scoring that kind of went on with the congressional budget office. we have not scored hours specifically. we can guesstimate roughly what the implications would be, but we have to do a little scoring. we are taking it off one aspect of simpson-bowles. we read the three primary proposals. this proposal was the one that met my own view of good comprehensive tax reform. i believe the system works and we will continue looking at the numbers. >> with this lower the after- tax income of the wealthiest americans? >> it will provide three rates, as i mentioned. we will see what the numbers

hold. getting to a simpler, more predictable tax rate. you can deal with how you approach phasing things in and out. i had to do tax reform in the state of utah. it's never over night or one- size-fits-all. you have to deal with the reality of different populations. all i'm saying is that this is my position going in. it's realistic and is a good place to start. i would like to stick to it as close as possible. thank you all very much. >> [unintelligible] >> it's a global business. like any other global business, you have to meet customer demand all over the world. shoring up our manufacturing base. we have to focus. >> the timing of the president's speaking before a

joint session of congress? do you think he is paying -- playing politics? >> i think it is political theatrics. if you don't have a plan, sometimes you fall back on political theatrics. you look at when the debate is taking place, you put forward your own proposal? a lot of americans would find that as political theater? >> what about the message of compromise that you have? you are saying that you are open to negotiation? >> i like the plan i put forward and i like the plan that i put forward as governor. you sit down and hammer out a deal. that's the way it goes. i will stick to it as closely as possible, just as i did as governor. if i think we got the best tax reform in the nation out of it.

if you look at what some of the analytical organizations had to say about its. what the pew center and the cato institute had to say. they do a pretty good of analyzing tax policy. we had the best tax policy in that particular year in the nation. i will let our track record speaks for itself. >> thank you. >> watch more video of the candidates. several political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c- span's web site for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feats and updates from

the campaigns, can it biographies, and the latest polling data. all at c-span.org/ca mpagin2012. >> up next, joe lieberman. that is followed by a debate on whether the united states is safer since the 911 attacks. later, an update on the proposals made by the 9/11 commission. tomorrow on washington journal, fred barnes of the weekly standard gives his reaction and thoughts to president vice -- to vice president dick cheney's memoir. michael o'grady of the university of chicago and edward sondik talked about life expectancy in america. jack hayes will talk about the

structure of weather forecasting and climatology. plus your e-mail, phone calls, and tweets. washington journal is like friday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> now, a conference on counter- terrorism that looks at u.s. security since the 911 attacks. we will hear from joe lieberman. his remarks are 30 minutes. >> thank you, very much, gary. thank you for that welcome. i remember a gathering here a few years ago when henry kissinger was the keynote speaker, and the moderator said henry kissinger is a man who needs a knowledge reduction, so -- needs no introduction, so i give you dr. kissinger, and kissinger got up and said the

it was probably true that he did not need an introduction, but he liked a good introduction, so i appreciate that introduction. [laughter] good afternoon. let me thank the national consortium for terrorism and responses to terrorism and the university of maryland. in less than two weeks, the united states will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on our homeland in our history. this anniversary will stimulate quite a round of reflection on where we have, in the past decade and where we are going, whether we are safer or not, whether we have done well or not in responding to the attacks of 9/11. for me, this is the first of

several occasions i will have to reflect on these questions, and i thank you very much for giving me that opportunity. we are at a moment here at home when the american people are understandably focused on the economic problems we are facing rather than the threat of terrorism to our homeland security. the fact that terrorism has receded so from the forefront of our national consciousness is a reflection not just of the failures of our economy but, i think, of the successes of our counter-terrorism policies over the past decade. we have not had another major terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11, and 10 years ago, no one would have dared to predict that with any confidence. unfortunately, our success in keeping our homeland say has -- keeping our homeland safe has also prompted some to question the seriousness of both the

original thread and the continuing dangers. it has become fashionable in some quarters to characterize the past decade as a time in which america mistakenly exaggerated the danger posed by islamic extremism and terrorism and overreacted in the wake of 9/11. this view is, in my judgment, profoundly mistaken, and its embrace would lead to a false and dangerous road map to our future. the american government pose a response to the tax of 9/11 and -- the american government's response to the attacks of 9/11 and to the broader ideological challenge those attacks represented to our country has been absolutely necessary and correct. first and foremost, we were right to recognize that after 9/11, we became a nation at war in the conflict that was and is real, by little, and global with -- real, brittle, and

global with -- brutal, and global with the forces of islamic extremism who attacked us. we have also been absolutely right to book this conflict at the top of our national security agenda, where i believe it continues to be long for the foreseeable future. the enemy has been weakened in the past decade, but clearly not rank with. -- clearly not vanquished. the threat posed to us and our allies throughout the world, including most particularly the muslim world, is absolutely real. had we not acted in the way we did for the past 10 years, it is very likely we would not have enjoyed the luxury to day of debating whether we overreacted to the threat. our enemies would have taken advantage of our lack of resolve, and i fear, many more americans would have become the victims. the fact that we have gone a decade without another mass

casualty attack in the united states, as you well know, has not been because our enemies have stopped trying to attack us. our homeland security has been hard won and fiercely fought. it is the result of the determination and focus of leaders across two administrations and six congresses to enact and implement reforms and reorganizations within our government. it is the result of painstaking and often dangerous work by countless heroic individuals -- soldiers, diplomats, intelligence operatives, and law enforcement personnel, to name some, operating at home and on almost every continent, and what is different in to many cases as compared to pre-9/11 is that they are coordinating their operations with one another. as a result, we have made tremendous gains against the forces of islamic extremism

that attacked us and our allies around the world, and i believe without a doubt we are much safer today than we were 10 years ago. at the same time, we have made these dramatic and effective improvements that i have referenced briefly in our homeland security. we also prosecuted the war against islamist terrorists abroad with a determination, ferocity, and ingenuity that our enemies did not expect from unmanned aerial drones to the unprecedented fusion of intelligence and military operations through a brilliant new counterinsurgency doctrine that blended civilian and military initiatives. united states over the past decade has built end of lease the most capable counter- -- built and unleashed the most

capable counter-terrorism forces in human history against what i would describe as the most significant terrorism threat in history. we showed that our best in the world military could dominate on a very different and unconventional battlefield, and a clear result is that they have failed to achieve their goals. al qaeda leadership in the tribal areas of pakistan has been decimated. its a fairly which came -- affiliate in iraq, which came dangerously close to seizing control of the country has been gutted, and the founder and architect of the 9/11 attacks is no more, just as having been -- justice having been delivered to osama bin laden by courageous american hands. more fundamentally, our country grasps the basic nature of this conflict almost from the start. rather than seeing it as a clash of civilizations, a battle between islam and the west, as al qaeda has sought control, the united states and our allies have correctly seen

the war -- in our case first under president bush and then under president obama -- in some ways as we saw world war ii and the cold war before it -- as an ideological struggle between an extremist minority -- a violent extremist minority the sikhs in very real ways to dominate a -- that seeks by in very real ways to dominate a large part of the world and eliminate the freedoms of the people in the heart of the world and on the other side, a moderate majority. in this case, on the front lines of this battle of muslims who wanted the same freedoms and opportunities that we all desire. the clearly stated goal of the violent islamist extremists -- and this really is clearly stated, back into the 1990's -- has been to establish a caliphate, and empire within the arab and muslim world that would overthrow the existing governments there. it may seem fantastical to us,

but that was quite clearly what their goal has been. i think we also correctly diagnosed early on that the ideology of the islamist extremism, the political ideology that they made of islam was being read in part by the for the deficit and the broader middle east, by the corrupt and -- by the freedom deficit in the broader middle east, by the corrupt and autocratic governments there that gave no valid to their people for legitimate grievances, let alone granting them human rights and economic opportunities. now, throughout the middle east, we see the narrative of violent islamist extremism being rejected by tens of millions of muslims who are rising up in peacefully demanding lives of democracy and dignity, of opportunity in the economy, and involvement in the modern world. indeed, the rallying cry of the

arabs offering and its successes -- of the arab spring and its successes thus far are the ultimate repudiations of al qaeda and everything islamic extremism stands for. i would like to think -- i hope that our willingness to stand up to a violent extremist repressive is long in the name of human rights may have given to the people of the arab world some of the courage invincible but they have so remarkably -- some of the courage and principle they have so remarkably shown in the last several months. now, did we make mistakes over the past decade? in prosecuting the war against violent islamist extremism? of course we did. just as every nation, including ours, has made mistakes in every ward day and we have fought. yet, looking back at our

actions over these 10 years, it is crystal clear to me that we have gotten a lot more right than wrong, and we are better off than safer as a result of it, and so is a lot of the rest of the world. looking ahead, i think we have got to acknowledge some unsettling facts. in protecting our homeland, we have sometimes benefited from just plain love. -- just plain luck. had faisal shasad wired his bomb correctly and detonated last year, the history of homeland security that i have just surveyed in the past decade would have looked very different, than thankfully it does today. we have sometimes benefitted from just plain luck. this is the challenge we face in a country as open-ended and

free as ours is and we want it to continue to be. it is difficult to be 100% secured. while high it is down, they and -- while al qaeda is down, they and their ilk are certainly not out. current political and geographic realities and not for traces of closure and complacency. in addition to the threats from abroad in places like somalia and yemen and pakistan itself and, of course, iran, which remains the no. 1 state sponsor of islamist terrorism and just about on every continent in the world, most notably in recent times to watch the spread of islamic extremism in africa, as evidenced tragically by the bomb exploding in the building

last week, current political realities really remind us that this war is not over. in addition to those threats from abroad, we also, as you well know, face a new and ominous threat at home from so- called home grown terrorists, so called lone wolf terrorists, and i know that has been one of the topics that you focused on at this event today. it is most important to note, and i speak to the chairman of the homeland security committee, that the two islamic attacks in which americans have been killed inside america since 9/11 were both carried out by radicalized muscle americans. -- muslim-americans. most people do not remember bledsoe, but he was a convert to islam and spend some time

abroad and got up one day and walked in on an army recruiting office in little rock in just shot the recruiter and killed him simply because he was wearing a u.s. army uniform. the congressional research service reported that between may of 2009 and july 2011, about two years, 31 arrests were made in connection with homegrown threats. -- homegrown plots by american citizens. many who had direct contact with al qaeda or other violent islamist groups in yemen, pakistan, or elsewhere. by comparison, in the more than seven years before that from september 11, 2001, through may, 2009, there were 21 such plots. i think one of the major reasons we are seeing this increase in home for an american

terrorism -- in homegrown american terrorism is because our enemies know how much we have raised and broadened our guard, our homeland defenses against attacks like 9/11 here that is why home grown terrorism is a real and growing threat to america and why it demands a very strong, methodical response. in that regard, after promising to do so for quite awhile, the obama administration recently released a new strategy that seeks to address this honed grown that, but to me, the -- this homegrown threat, but to me, the report, which is entitled to "in powering local partners to prevent violent extremism in the united states,

was ultimately a big disappointment. the thrust of the report and the strategy the administration announced in it is that we need to engage domestically in the war of ideas against the islamists and recognize that the terrorist threat is not just coming across our borders but that there are americans who are subject to radicalization and attacking our homeland. that, of course, i agree with. that is true. the administration's plan, however, for dealing with that reality i think suffers from several significant weaknesses. the first is that the administration still refuses to call our enemy by its proper name -- violent islamic extremists. you can find words comparable to that, but not the ones the administration continues to use, which are violent extremism. there are many forms of violent

extremism. there is white racist extremism. there has been some environmental extremism. there has been animal rights extremism. you could go on and on. but we are not in a global war with those. we are in a global war that affects our homeland security with islamic extremists, and to call our enemy violent extremists is so generally vague that it ultimately has no meaning. the other term used sometimes is al qaeda and its allies. that is better, but still, it is too narrow and focuses us on groups as opposed to what i would call an ideology, which is what we are really fighting. i assume this refusal of the administration to speak honestly about the enemy is based on its desire not to do anything that might feed into al qaeda's propaganda, that we're engaged in a "war against

islam." that is so evident realize that we can have refuted it, and i think we have done so effectively. in the poll of muslim americans, there was more than half -- i have forgotten the exact number -- felt the leaders of their own community were not doing enough to attack and criticize and distinguish between them and muslim extremists. to me, the poll was just an

expression of a reality that i have seen very clearly in my own interaction, with the muslim american community, which was extremely overwhelming. -- overwhelmingly patriotic and nonviolent. but the problem here is as we know, when you are dealing with so on conventional and brutal an enemy, it takes a very small number of people to do very great harm, so the numbers i referenced a moment ago from the congressional research service are significant to us. in fact, our most important allies in this war, it lead, are -- i believe, are the overwhelming majority of muslims and communities around the world who want the same basic things people everywhere want -- a life of freedom, a lot of opportunity for prosperity, a chance to raise their children in freedom and safety and give their children the chance they deserve, exactly the opposite of what the violent islamic extremists offer them to the arab uprising is this your the best proof that the muslim

majority in the world understands that. to win this struggle, it is vital that we understand, as i said a moment ago, just fighting an organization, al qaeda, but we are up against a broader ideology. if you will, it politicized theology, quite separate from the religion of islam. success in the war will come consequently not with a single terrorist group or its affiliates are eliminated, but when the broader set of ideas associated with it are rejected and discarded. there is a reluctance to identify our enemy as violent islamist extremist makes it harder to fight this war of ideas. let me give you an example from our senate homeland security's investigations into the murders at fort hood.

there was clear evidence they found that major hassan's fellow soldiers were very concerned with his increasing public identification, statements with violent islamist ideology. at one point, for instance, he stated in front of a group of them that he thought a muslim american soldier would be justified in killing his comments in defense of islam. but rather than reporting that immediately, they kept quiet. major hassan was actually promoted after making statements like that. how could that have happened? maybe some of his other statements just came from ignorance about the whole reality of islamists radicalization.

some of the rest of it came from a fear of making waves, particularly making waves that would cause the people who were making them -- put them in jeopardy of being labeled as prejudiced. to its credit, the administration's strategy does outline a community-led a push to countering homegrown violent extremism. the federal government plays a significant role in fostering friendships, providing support, sharing information, and helping to build trust between local muslim communities and law enforcement. i applaud that. the strategy also reaffirms its commitment to promote american ideals as a counter narrative to be bankrupt ideology of the islamic extremists. i applaud that, of course, as

well. but the document never states what we were hoping for on the committee, which is who is in charge of these programs. it never defines what resources are needed to make them work. it does not list specific actions that should be taken by specific dates that combat the clear and present danger of homegrown islamist terrorism. these, to me, are significant omissions. there is clearly a lot more work to do before we have from the administration the kind of clear, national strategy that will make sense from the government wanted you but, -- from the government's point of view, but, frankly, also from the point of view of the muslim communities we are trying to engage in america in this fight. i think such a strategy also must address the role of the internet in radicalization and what we must do to counter it, and the report does not really do that. our senate committee released a report in 2008 on this subject,

which showed the importance of cyberspace to the self- radicalization process. three years ago, terrorists communicated mostly in password-protected chatham's view today, -- islamist or jihadist chat rooms. they are spread out over the web and are very adept at using social media to train and recruit. to address the strategy, we need a plan that will define how the government can work with the private sector internet companies and others to remove terrorist content as best we can from these sites, although that is not easy to do because of the openness of cyberspace. not easy to be permanently. we also need to facilitate, i think, new partnerships between the internet companies and muslim american communities to create positive content that counters the propaganda of the terrorists, and we also need -- although the report suggests

one, but a better organized national engagement with muslim american communities who, i repeat, are our most powerful defense against homegrown terrorism because we obviously hope that within the muslim american communities, leaders and members will be educated and community members will create an environment in which individuals who know of others who seem to be radicalizing will come forward and report them to law enforcement. this is the ultimate in the growing and important and construction movement of see something, say something. the islamic extremist and some who have explicitly declared war on us in 1998 -- osama bin laden did that here they have already attacked as with a declaration of war, and then brutally attacked us on 9/11. these people will not soon surrender their fanatical

ambitions. that is what it is and where we are. as we approach this 10th remembrance of 9/11, looking back, we have reason to be grateful, i think, for all that has been done together to protect our homeland and our people and to deny the islamic extremists the victories they have sought, but it is also clear, though not pleasant to say, that this war goes on and will go on for quite a while. in the years ahead, we and our allies throughout the world must remain engaged, strong, adapted, and together, united in this conflict, as we have been during its first decade. thank you very much. [applause] them that if i understand

correctly, senator lieberman has just a little bit of time to answer questions. we solicited questions from facebook, twitter, and our own list and got quite a response. i do not know if you are able to answer at least a few of these if time permits. first is -- "do you believe there have been sufficient attempts by u.s. government at all levels to reach out and educate the u.s. muslim community about radicalization, and do you believe they have shown the right sensitivity to the culture and religion of most americans? >> the answer is no, not yet. a top of about this a little in my remarks. -- i talked about this a little in my remarks. this goes back now a few years, but i had leaders of several muslim american groups testified at a hearing at a committee and asked about their interaction with the federal government and i, at least, was quite surprised that they all said that the most and best interaction that they had with the federal government was with

the fbi. interesting because the fbi established was part of use in centers across the country and have established an outreach program. strangely, and our committee created the national tourism center, the responsibility for overseeing a lot of the response to confront terrorism has gone to the ntpc -- i have a lot of respect, but it did not make sense that that should be the case. this report from the administration does not make that clear, either. i think -- i will go back to another theme i stated in my report. i think we can do better at interacting with the muslim american community, and it is critical to dealing with this homegrown terrorism problem. i think one part of it, if i may just repeat in summary, is to make clear that there is a distinction between muslim americans and this minority of

violent extremists who have taken the religion of islam and made it into a radical, political ideology. so i hope we will do better at this in years ahead. >> what is your response to criticisms that the u.s. counter-terrorism approach is reactive ion that the focus and resources always seemed to shift to whatever group has conducted the last major attack, rather than strategically looking at all kinds of future threats? for example, the as increased focus on right wing terrorism immediately after oklahoma city, and after 9/11, the focus shifted almost exclusively to islamic terrorism. >> we were being attacked, as you know, through the 1990's. you could go back further if you go back to the hezbollah attacks inspired by iran on the marine barracks in beirut in 1983.

and you could go back to lockerbie with americans on that plane, but in terms of home broadcasts, 1993 at the world -- homegrown attacks, 1993 at the world trade center with the truck bomb, and, of course, abroad with attacks on embassies in africa and the u.s.'s coal in yemen. in 2000, we only believe will go after 9/11 because it was such a monstrous attack, but it is true, during that time we were not focused at all. i concluded based on my own work and really being greatly affected by the report of the 9/11 commission that 9/11 was a preventable attack. i believe if the federal government on 9/10 had been organized the way it is today, we would have prevented that attack, but since then, i think we have been quite broad and strategic and perhaps the most significant thing we have done -- in any war, intelligence is

important. in this war, so unconventional where we are fighting an enemy that does not come at us in the uniform in tanks in uniforms and fighter planes and battleships. it comes at us from the shadows, essentially, wearing civilian outfits and attacking civilians. intelligence is critical, and i think the most significant changes we have made, improvements we have made in the last decade, and these have really been strategic and not reactive -- for the improvement in our intelligence community and the coordination of our intelligence community components. just to mention in the sentence, there has been a remarkable, generally unheralded, not totally perfect but i think overall good transformation -- dramatic transformation, historic transformation in the

aforementioned fbi, which went from its historic role of being an investigator of a set of crimes after they occur and then turning them over to law enforcement to now seeing our domestic counter-terrorism unit agency primary unit, whose aim is to prevent terrorism attacks on us, not to apprehend after they occur. >> we have time for one more? ok, looking at places like the united kingdom where the government has recently been in -- -- recently abandoned efforts to engage nonviolent islamic extremists, how do you believe that the added states should deal with domestic ideologues that preach radical ideologies but do not directly promote or engage in violent activities? >> this is a very thin line between just about all muslims in amehis minority of violent islamist extremists is a pretty clear line, to me.

i spent a lot of time on this. this group is a difficult one because it is right on the line. they are extremists. they are very provocative. they have a right under our constitution up to avoid to be -- up to a point to be provocative, and yet, they would claim that they are not violent, not preaching violence. it is a very hard line. i do not have an easy answer. i would try to engage, but i would do it with great care and kind of skepticism because once you are preaching an extremist ideology full of hate and saying you are not calling for violence, that is a tough line because you are not sure that the people listening to that particular prison, whether it is -- that particular person, whether it is a religious leader or just an individual -- understand that all the hatred

and extremism that is being preached stops at action. that is very hard to do. so i have engaged with a lot of skepticism and doubt. >> i think that is all the time we have. i want to give a rousing round of applause. thanks for your insights. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, a debate on whether the united states is safer out -- after the 911 attacks. >> my only task here is to introduce the moderator of the debate, a distinguished professor of homeland security and counterterrorism at the national defense university, before joining the nvu faculty, he was professor of the jews to form a home security and prior

to serving as assistant secretary, he was the deputy mayor for homeland security and public safety for the city of los angeles, but the part of his record that i think is perhaps most interesting and impressive is he has a two-month old brand new daughter. [applause] its going to moderate debate this afternoon title "are we safer?" >> thank you very much. if our distinguished debaters could please take the respective lecterns. and thank you for mentioning my brand-new daughter. if i doze off, it has nothing to do with the speakers. i have not slept in two months, so, thank you very much. 10 years after the horrific attacks of 9/11, is america safer from terrorism? that is the question that will

be debated here today by our distinguished speakers during this session looking at issues 10 years after the 9/11 attacks. as gary manchin, i am on the faculty of the college of international security affairs, and it is my distinct pleasure to be today's moderator for the chair for what will undoubtedly -- or, in debating parlance, the chair for what will undoubtedly be a lively engage in debate between our two terrorism experts. before i introduce our distinguished debaters, i would like to quickly outline the agreed upon question and format for this debate. the debate question is -- 10 years after the attacks and 9/11, is america safer from terrorism? this is limited to terrorism against the united states and the u.s. homeland, not against u.s. interests overseas, such as embassies or military bases, and it is limited to terrorist attacks, not covert attacks by nation-states.

when we talk about safer, we are referring to the likelihood of potential severity of a possible terrorist attack. the debaters arguments will compare the two points in time -- today, september 1, 2011, and the day before 9/11, but arguments may also include how america's current volatility, if -- current and vulnerabilities, if any, may be exploited in the future. format of today's debate is, after a provide brief introductions, each for this -- each participant will have event will have five minutes to make opening statements, setting forth their position on the question. then each participant will have three minutes to respond to the opening statement. after the openings and responses, we will then have a question time, and as chair, i will ask questions of each participant, allow them an opportunity to respond, and then i will solicit questions from the audience to ask the debaters. the rules require the questions from the audience be directed

to me, as the chair, and i did receive permission to do this. [laughter] then i will ask questions of the panelists here obviously, given the short time we have, all questions should be exactly that -- questions and not commentary. finally, each of our debaters will have two minutes for a final summation or closing argument. gary is here before me. he will be showing the time, and he has assured me that if we go over, he will give us a very nasty look. finally, one of the most important parts of today's debate is actually at the end when you will have a chance to vote for the argument you thought was most persuasive in answering the question. voting will be conducted by text messaging, and instructions are on your cable, as you can see. -- on your table, as you can see. there's an old political thing that you make sure to vote early and often. we ask that you not take this saying seriously and that you

instead wait for the conclusion of the debate. now, to our distinguished guests -- representing the position that america is safer from terrorism since 9/11 is peter, a -- peter bergen. familiar to many of us at cnn's national security analysts, but he is also an award winning author having written extensively on al qaeda, osama bin laden, counter- terrorism efforts in the united states viewed his most recent book is filled with " the longest war: enduring conflict between america and al qaeda -- his most recent book is "the longest war: enduring conflict between america and al qaeda." please join me in welcoming him. [applause] to my right, represent the -- representing the position that america is not safe from terrorism since 9/11 is david, a senior fellow at the foundation for the defense of democracy and internationally recognized author, educator, and expert on counter-terrorism issues.

he has consulted on a range of issues including hostage negotiations, to developing stories for major media companies. his most recent book was released -- i believe two days ago? >> monday, actually. >> monday. entitled "bin laden's legacy: why we are still losing the war on terror." please join me in welcoming him. [applause] >> let us begin with peter. if you could give us your opening statement for five minutes on why you believe america is safer since 9/11. >> presumably you think it is more safe because you have been involved in making it more say. -- more safe. let's review what happened on 9/11. four planes crashed into targets in washington and new york, killed 3000 americans in the course of a single morning,

and looking more direct damage on the united states than the soviet union had done during the cold war. since then, what has al qaeda managed to do? the answer is nothing. there has not been a single successful attack on the domestic united states for a decade. the idea that there would be one in the future it is fairly implausible, and if it does happen, i think it will not be something that completely changes our national security as 9/11 did. furthermore, there have only been 17 americans who have been killeding heidi terrorist attacks since 9/11 by people motivated by al qaeda's ideal jean-pierre fort hood, texas, the most obvious. more americans die in their bathtubs by considerable numbers than in terrorist attacks. we should not fear of heights if you're their ability to try to do anything in terms of catastrophic tax or anything relatively small is very constrained. why is that?

the difference between 9/11 and today. on 9/11, there were 16 people on the no-fly list. now, there are thousands. on 9/11, there were a sprinting of joint terrorism task forces. the work is currently a task force is pure enough, there are about 100. on 9/11, the cia and fbi did not talk to each other, and one of the reasons help al qaeda successfully attacked was because it was on form to the fbi that they were in the country until way to lake erie -- way too late. joint session operations which killed osama bin laden was something that was almost never used. now, we have had thousands of operations and have killed thousands of people in al qaeda and affiliated groups. liaison relationships -- think about 2006. think about the fbi, where there were almost no analysts.

now there are about 2000 year that is probably too many, but the fact is there's a much larger analytical capability. think about the u.s. public fear they were not aware of the problem. who disabled the shoe bomber? it was, of course, the public. who disabled mutallab? it was the public. people on the plane who disabled him. who found the as to be in times square? it was a hot dog vendor. public awareness is a very different situation. and finally, we have the tsa. we may debate help perfect an organization it is, but it exists and did not exist on 9/11, and certainly, that is a good thing. we may hear that al qaeda has a tough but we clever idea to bankrupt the u.s. economy. there are several problems with this idea. first of all, the american economy is very large and al qaeda's members are not economists. we are spending 1% of gdp in

afghanistan. just for historical reference, we spend 9% in gdp in identity during the vietnam war. during world war ii, we spent 40% of gdp. if they were economists, they would recognize that the war on terrorism has been benefiting what some people in this room. it is no four incidents that five of 10 of the richest counties in the united states now surround washington, d.c. far from bankrupting us, it has been from an economic perspective healthy. sher al qaeda says they have the great idea that they will bankrupt us and it is part of the plan. you do not by the propaganda of the enemy. remember the east coast blackout in 2003? remember al qaeda saying they were responsible and, of course, that was not true? the thought that our economic problems are caused by out data is crazy. -- al qaedaatis crazy. the subprime mortgage, fannie mae, tax cuts at a time of war, the entitlement programs -- you

know what the real problems are. they are not caused by al qaeda. and we have killed 20 of the top leaders. al qaeda is on the roots -- on the ropes. that famous figure soft on terrorism guy said yesterday that al qaeda is on the ropes. finally, david petraeus, and other peoples of on liberals the said they are facing strategic defeat. so they are facing strategic defeat. they are looking defeat the in the face. to fear them would be merely to do their work for them, and we do not want to do that. >> thank you. [applause] >> i understand general petraeus is watching, so it will be interesting to see his reaction. david, you have five minutes for your opening statement on what you believe america is not safer. >> 10 years after 9/11, the united states is a far weaker country. everyone in the room knows this. terrorist groups on the other

hand are not significantly weaker and may in fact be strong appear therefore, we're less it is that simple. i first sent to the global context in which the fight on terrorism moving forward will occur, and then i will talk about why it is foolish to count al qaeda out. we know that the u.s. economic was feared an economy in shambles, in national debt of over $14 trillion. this debt threatens our ability to maintain our current security apparatus on which peter is staking his argument and also our ability to project power. a decade ago, we derived safety from our ability to massively devote resources to this, which is exactly what we did, but in the coming decade, we had fewer resources to devote to it, and we may well have dramatically fewer resources in the current concern about the u.s. but the credit worthiness. this occurs in the context of global austerity with every country trimming its intelligence budget, as there is not just diminishing

capabilities but also and threatening its ability, as we saw in the riots that threaten britain. moreover, in the context of resourced is a beef with everything from oil to commodities to food with skyrocketing prices, there would be further constraints of the u.s. ability to deal with terrorists and further instability. not only does this mean we will be more hard pressed to counteract terrorism, but it will be much more difficult to absorber another attack. our resilience has eroded. peter is right -- al qaeda did not cause all of this, but it is here, and for that reason, we're less safe. what about al qaeda? what peter is talking about about how i hate it is on the books should be viewed with skepticism because we have heard all this before. president bush boasted that of 2/3 of al qaeda was a new leadership -- no leadership has been captured and killed. in 2006, the u.s. intelligence community by consensus held that al qaeda had been defeated.

president bush and the u.s. intelligence community then overstated al qaeda's weaknesses. in july 2007, the national intelligence estimate was forced to conclude that al qaeda had in fact projected or regenerating key elements of its homeland attack capabilities. there's no reason to think that right now the intelligence community has so much better understanding of al qaeda. the consensus view that the law and could be funded to federally administered areas of pakistan and the majority view the he was merely a figurehead -- he was not. in fact, peter referenced his death. john britton said that we do not know who will replace him. this shows the weakness of our intelligence. moving from these shall we unverifiable proclamations about whether i'll fight it is on the votes, let's turn to objective indicators. in the 9/11 commission report, in analyzing what al qaeda and

other groups need to execute catastrophic attacks against the u.s. concluded that they require physical sanctuary. 10 years ago, they had won in afghanistan here today, al qaeda affiliate's enjoy four -- somalia, yemen, pakistan. you look at the geography, it is not going in our favor. nobody has the plans to dislodge of fighting leadership from these areas. and they retain the capability to understate catastrophic attacks. beyond the threat of a massive cash as traffic attack, al qaeda's overarching strategy is going fairly well. the group is undermining our economy. peter is right -- this is what i am going to say, but it is also true. the group has turned toward what they called a strategy of 1000 cuts, emphasizing smaller, more frequent attacks, many of which are designed to drive up security costs. al qaeda of the heated goods have gotten three bombs onboard passenger planes in the past three months. the fact that nobody died does

not mean those attacks failed. the ink cartridge plot presented a dilemma, to be the spend billions of dollars to inspect each and every package, or do nothing and keep trying. the argument about how small this is in comparison to our economy ignores our $40 trillion deficit. there were 13 operational the heidi von braun terrorism cases in 2009, representing at the time over 1/4 of the publicly reported cases of g. hardy radicalization and recruitment since 9/11. 2010 figures were still greater

than any other year. as one is deemed terrorists analyst said, when it comes to the threat of home grown terrorism, there's no denying that it is increasing. that is deemed analyst -- peter bergman himself. [laughter] the bottom line is that al qaeda did not pose a threat to us 10 years ago. but they may however pose an existential threat today, primarily because the position we are now in relative to this group. >> thank you. [applause] >> david talked about al qaeda's strategy of 1000 cuts. this is more like 1000 begins with a feather duster. nobody died. come on. an alternative history of world war ii were germany does not invade belgium for france or poland or czechoslovakia. we would not be writing the history of world war ii as of the nazis were a serious threat.

the fact that he mentions the cargo plane fox, the urban warfare plan he mentioned in european cities in the fall of 2010 -- what do they have in common? they all failed. so this is a record of abysmal failure. the safe haven these groups enjoyed in somalia -- they just withdrew from mogadishu. they called it a tactical withdrawal, but it looks like safe haven is beginning to fail. of a bat in arabian peninsula has had a safe haven for a time in yemen, and it is expanding, but what have they been able to do? there has not been a successful attack by al qaeda and its affiliates in the west since 2005. this is really a record of failure and a record of failure that is likely to continue here not to said that there might not be a small scale terrorist attack at some point in the future, but nothing that would be oriented our national security policy as 9/11 did, and nothing that would allow us to say that we are less safe, which is really the burden of proof.

you have to prove that we are blessed. it would be one thing to say that the war on terror is overblown, but to prove that we're less it is it pretty high bar that he has yet to jump over. >> thank you. david, you have three minutes to rebut peter's statement. >> the burden of proof lies on peter's said. a resolution is is the united states safer from terrorism? he argued that it is. all i have to show is that we are not, and i have already shown that. peter has not refuted the fundamental argument, which is look at where the u.s. is now and its capacity to deal with the problem here our capacity is far worse than it was 10 years ago. all of feeders arguments prove that al qaeda was not an accidental but 10 years ago. they did not prove where we are going forward. he talks about how nobody died as part of 1000 cuts fewer not quite true. he did reference the 7/7 attacks. massive attacks in madrid. they have shown ability to carry out attacks outside their own

territory with you got a tax. if you look at european blocs, which peter somewhat derived, the reason we are able to learn about this is from detainees being held in afghanistan who gave intelligence officers in afghanistan the name of a name that was not previously known to u.s. intelligence. we are drawing our assets away from afghanistan. will we be able to find out about this plot moving forward as resources devoted to the problem become less? that is the fundamental problem. he talks about withdrawal from mogadishu. ok, but they still control the west of somalia outside that one city, which is with the african union forces are able to operate. bottom line is this is a very easy debate. peter has not repeated the argument that we are in massive financial trouble, which means that more resources are drawn away from intelligence, which means we are less resilience against the problem. he has not answered at all the arguments advanced quoting him the home grown terrorism is an increasing problem. it is not just words like g.

hardy terrorism groups fear you have right wing extremism at home and other types of political extremism at home. the attack in norway shows you cannot ignore other non-g. hardy groups, and our capacity for all these groups is never less. he ignores the argument i made about how our allies also, will rely upon for vital intelligence information, will also have less resources in this era of austerity. it makes the entire system more unstable and gives more room for violent, non-state that is to operate. this is very clear. he also did not answer the arguments that i made about why we should not trust the intelligence community now. debate is very clear. at the end of the day, the consensus view among people is that the threat is less than it was before, but the facts just do not bear that out.

it is one of those situations where we saw some of against the ropes in the 1970's in a homily against george foreman, but the heart of george foreman punched a homily, the more he became tired. of the past 10 years, we wore ourselves out against al qaeda's rope-a-dope. >> i am going to ask you a related question. you indicate that we are safer because there have been unsuccessful attacks, but yet, when there are one of these unsuccessful attacks, at least the consensus among many is that it generates an incredible amount of fear among the populace and does create a reaction, at least in the political world. how are we safer when our reactions -- in other words, the objects of terrorism -- has actually, one would argue, been successful? >> i think that is a debatable proposition. suddenly, the reaction to flight 253, there was a huge overreaction, probably because of some miscues by senior

administration officials. let us look at the times square,. the workers were back to taking the subway the following morning. they came out and said, we have this covered. americans went on about their business. terrorism as a concern for americans are is actually pretty low. americans are preoccupied by things like, i do not know, the kardashians. it is a sign that we won. it is not like we are living in israel where we are towering in fear over a mass attack. that is a good thing. terrorism does not succeed if it does not terrorize. we have moved appropriately be on that. they can draw their own

conclusions. >> i have to set kim kardashian actually did have a good wedding. >> on that issue though, you mentioned that al qaeda still poses or does pose an existential threat. is your argument because of the economic impact, that the existence of the united states is at risk? "it did not say they posed a threat. i said they made an existential threat. if they do, it is because of the fact we are very weak right now. i am not saying they do pose an existential threat, we absorbed 911 just fine. we probably could have absorber another quite easily. at this point, an attack like that that caused two trillion dollars work of damage, it would cause more damage now because of the fact that commodities and resources are more expensive. it would be harder for our economy with the massive debt to

absorb an attack of that kind. i am not convinced that pose an existential threat, it goes more of a threat now because relative to where we are, an attack like that would do more damage. >> what effect has the billions of dollars that has been spent since 911 on the national security apparatus on the threat. you seem to suggest that that has minimal impact. >> i am not saying that everybody x this room is wasting time with their jobs. the fact we have not seen another successful attack this large scale against the united states is a great tribute to the hard work people and security apparatus is have done. it is hard work. what i am saying is a multiple factors. not just our war against al qaeda, so many things over the

past 10 years have weakened us. one reason that al qaeda was something we couldn't absorb is because we had the ability to wrap up our resources. we could not ramp up resources right now. if pakistan implodes, what kind of option do we have? a country with nuclear weapons. you are seeing other weapons that are -- other countries that are on the brink, we have sold your options to deal with a dangerous world. that is also the case when it comes to terrorism. i do not need to win in this debate that al qaeda posed as an existential threat, just that terrorism is more of a threat now or we are no safer now than 10 years ago. >> peter, let me finish my question with this. al qaeda has proven to be somewhat resilient. it has existed for many seek to take many years. we know that we are in a fiscal situation where there will be contraction. what do you think would happen if the american people become

complacent and the security apparatus is not as robust? >> this is a strong man. including there will be some appropriate reduction in this country because we face budget crises. we are spending double what we were spending on our defense expenditures today than what we were spending on 911. on september 11, those devastating terrorist attack in modern history, with 300 special forces into afghanistan. that was the immediate aftermath. president obama readily authorize 100,000 men to go into afghanistan. we do have the resources if something is a serious problem. stabilizing afghanistan is a serious problem. we have the political will to continue to deal with it. yes, there are resource constraints. does that make us less safe because we are spending 5% last?

>> i will not answer that question. could you tell me how many more minutes we have four questions? ok. we have 10 minutes for questions from the audience. we would really like questions rather than commentary. i was a federal prosecutor for many years. question start with you, what, when, how, and why. if you could start off with that, i would appreciate it. we have one question here, the gentleman in the suit. as opposed to the man -- if you could stand up and introduce yourself and address the question for me. >> we have seen over the last six-nine months the arab spring and winter. given the chaos for the next three or 10 years, would the palace expect incidents of

terrorism to increase or perhaps decrease? >> you violated the judge's order immediately. there is one other question. right here, the league who is wearing a suit. >> gambit but what role would you place religion -- what role would you place religion and the increasing around the world exports let me ask you because i think it is directed someone in his statement. what is going to be the impact of instability in the world for allowing safe havens for terrorism? >> it is hard to make predictions about the future. the future is very grim. let us look at the arab spring. one of the striking things about it, not a single picture of

osama bin laden and any of the protests. not a single israeli or american flag burning. this is a good thing. certainly it or try to take advantage of chaos, but that is the only place where we are releasing where al qaeda can extend its reach in the world right now. by the way, your cooperation in the war of terrorism will continue with or without your -- including our special forces program. i think iraq it may get a temporary bottom right now, but they will be under tremendous pressure. it does not matter what the future of young men hold coming from the united states. >> -- yemen holds. >> in kuwait, there were a

number of pictures of been -- a osama bin laden that were displayed. this is neither here nor there, there have been protests that have been sympathetic of osama bin laden. when you look at the overall picture of the arab spring, there is certainly reason for hope. but there is reason over the next five years or so to be concerned. first of all, the operational capacity of al qaeda has increased with the violent extremists that have been released from egypt, libya. the talent pool is much larger. it is a fair question as to see the growth of al qaeda. it is a fair question whether there is more al qaeda on the ground in egypt now than there is an yemen. likewise with libya, there is a big controversy about the numbers of the group. they may agree with al qaeda, but as part of the revision they

said they would not fight gadhafi's regime. there are significant questions as far as occupational capacity, but the idea that the arab spring will provide an alternative, it is not just about democracy. it is about unemployment, food price inflation, and the trends are heading in the wrong direction. when you look at countries like kidneys and egypt that have been dependent on tourism, tourism is drying up. one thing you are going to get to is the discontent of the arab spring. historically but you have sky- high expectations that go unfulfilled like to have with the arab spring, extreme ideologies may fill in the void. we may see that. >> with respect to the question of religion, i'll ask you first and give you an opportunity to resolve it did respond. what role does religion have in making this assessment on whether we are safer since 911?

>> when we talk about religion in the context of terrorism, one of the facets of terrorism that we are talking about, it is another part of this debate. we are talking about a particular interpretation of religion. one of the turns i use is the saudi view. to me in the studies i have done, homegrown tourism specifically, in my view it seems to be more of a factor in a lot of the analysts that marginalize the role of theology beliefs. overall, i would say for this debate, it is not as relevant a question between need and peter, i will say there isn't ideologies that one can attach to groups like al qaeda. it is not as a flourishing and their hopes have been dashed. >> just to sort of zoom out a little bit, al qaeda has been losing the war of ideas around the muslim world. we are talking about muslims.

they have views about groups like al qaeda that speak in their name. the have been losing their view by killing so many muslims. if you look at polling data is, is support for al qaeda has triggered in every country around the world. to give you an easy to identify did a point, think about pakistan. look at the protests that followed an layton's -- osama bin laden staff. maybe hundreds if you are lucky. the sympathy that existed for the robin hood image he once had has evaporated. while the increasing religious all but it religious in the world, -- >> i think we have time for a couple more questions. i will take a question from the ban with the tie. if there is anybody else back in the corner over there, we can position the other microphone

over there. >> >9/11 commission noted we had not only a lack of attention, but a lack of imagination. my question is, have we been sufficiently imaginative or not to build 80 necessary to avoid the consequences of an action? >> back in the corner. state your name. >> given the islamist or terrorist justification for the use of wmd's against the west, how does it affect the debate? >> peter, i will start with you on the 9/11 commission. you are very familiar with what they have on the scorecard. the question was, the lack of imagination -- is that not a concern we do not know in the future? >> i am more of the evidence

based community in that i do not believe we do not know is what we need to fear. that was kind of the room sell the idea that essentially, the unknown -- we should all freaked out and invade other countries. this is not the right way to think of the world. we know a great deal about al qaeda. we have their crown jewels which we just took. the treasure trove revealed they had nothing real in terms of attacks. they had lots of blue sky ideas. and haveked about wmd's the problem of they have bought into their own propaganda points. when they actually had a wmd program in afghanistan which we obliterated, the spread between $2,000.4000 dollars on their program which is not a big number. we look at the to hoddy terrorists convictions since

911, a really interesting data points. not a single one involved nuclear, chemical, by weapons. for all of the concerns or they are saying we are due for a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons within 10 years from now, we are still looking for evidence of this. it is hard to assemble any kind of serious weapon of mass destruction. i ran has spent 20 years try to get weapons without success. said don spent years without success. while governments need to be -- saddam hussein has spent years without success. it is just nonsensical. >> a thing peter addressed both questions how you respond? >> he talked about the room filled idea of freaking out

about what we do not know and a bit other countries. the school about freak out about what we do not know and invade other countries has made us less safe in the past 10 years. as part of what this debate is. it is not about should we freak out and imagine the worst. it is about how safe are weak compared to what terrorists can do. 911 was a failure of imagination. the only person in the administration who thought of something like this, using high- tech plants, was richard clarke because he read a tom clancy novel. you can see a failed imagination right now. the you can see it with parents bring more people cannot see how al qaeda could capitalize on this. they are doing just that. you can see it in the notion that we are safer -- al qaeda is on the ropes. you have heard that with peter citing multiple figures. all of the evidence to see is in

the other direction. who are you going to see, me or your lying eyes? you can look out in the world and see that al qaeda has actually gained ground. yes, there are areas where they are more unpopular. it's always been a vanguard of movement. it had never commanded millions of muslims. it to the extent they have had support has always been soft support. this was a tent -- this was a small group 10 years ago and remains a small group today. what is our capacity? so clearly, it is lower. >> i will exercise the chair's discretion to have one concluding question. peter, what would it take to maintain the safety we have achieved cents 9/11, what would it take to become safe sense 9/11? >> we will never become

absolutely safe. to history maintains that is not a plausible. with the government has done over the past decade has made us more safe by any metric. the facts speak for themselves. if we were safe we would have had multiple terrorist attacks on the united states. none of them have succeeded. even the near misses, al qaeda attempted to bomb the manhattan subway. if it had worked, it would kill two or three dozen people. >> the question is, how do we maintain safety in the future? >> it is about the public understanding that there is a threat that still exists. it is about not cutting the agents by 95%. it is about maintaining our superlative operations. the idea that our intelligence is not good clause in the face of what was one of the greatest intelligence the victories of all time, hunting down office --

osama bin laden. none of these things are going to go away. there will be some up corporate downsizing. everybody will have to pay on the bank on this one. no reason why the national security should not. we know from the private sector, sometimes a little bit of belt- tightening is actually useful. it gets rid of programs which are unnecessary. the core mission is still there. >> thank you. since you do not think we are safer, how do we achieve more safety? >> what should we do? >> what should we do to achieve city that is not done now? >> i think the bottom line is the analogy i used, the rope-a- dope analogy. what muhammed ali succeeded in doing the was turn foreman's strength against him. over the past 10 years, the idea was recognized that al qaeda was a small adversary.

not overspend and not make the war broader which is what we have done. principles can be used going forward, but i think looking at where we made mistakes and the reason i say we are not more said, in that lies what a proper road ahead would be. >> thank you. we now have closing arguments. if you could begin with a two minute summation. you will have two minutes for your submission. >> this is not a debate about whether we should fear al qaeda. this is also not a debate about whether al qaeda is an existential threat. it is a simple debate. it is about, are we sit for 10 years later? as i just said, al qaeda employed a rococo strategy. let the united states hit it and hit it and that eventually it will get exhausted. 14

peter never answer the argument i made. it is very much an open question, but it is not just us. it is also our allies. our allies are there to try to free ride on the united states? we are drawing down assets in afghanistan. i talk about the example of the operative who is part of the european plot. as we draw down our assets, are we going to be able to maintain this level of security? peter has never answered the fact that our resilience is far less. we of less capacity to absorb terrorist attacks. also, when it comes to the intelligence apparatus, we have heard all of these claims before. peter, himself, said that the homegrown terrorist threat is occurring. it is not just the jihadist terrorist groups.

over all when you look at the picture and the relative strength of the u.s. and al qaeda, it is very clear. al qaeda has not died. there are multiple ways is to be bolstered by current events. it can to monopolize on the arab spring. they have an increased operational capability. if the era screen turns out to be a good thing, which it may well be, the lessons of the arab spring is the u.s.'s capacity to deal with it. the bottom line is that al qaeda's wrote a note worked very well. the u.s. is very much depleted, more so than al qaeda. nine state actors can pose a threat to us now in a way they did not do 10 years ago. peter's argument only proves that al qaeda did not propose a threat 10 years ago.

>> peter, as the proponent of the debating question, you have the final word. the question is, are we safer today than we were on 9/11? let's go back to 9/11 and look at what happened. 19 hijackers were training and living in the united states. the fbi, the chest, and others were aware of that by now. money transfers from dubai to the u.s. financed the operation. they had a training base in afghanistan and. al qaeda means "the base." they had command and control in germany. our liaisons' in germany would be all over that now. clearly things have changed. we have made ourselves safer. the record of failure on the

chemical, biological, and nuclear front outline this. on the question of homegrown were 76 casesere in 2009 and 2010. i into the 11, there have been 11 cases. an analyst said that there is -- that is not clear that the homegrown threat is increasing. he has made some other statements that are useful in this context. american flights are safer than they were before 9/11. al qaeda, at the end of the day, is not going to win. >> i have to commend you and your preparation. you probably read the work of each other pretty extensively. we appreciate your time. please join me in thanking our distinguished guest. [applause]

now, all of you, as i mentioned before, you have the unique opportunity to vote on which side of the argument was most persuasive instructions are on your table to send a text message. if you agree that america is safer since 9/11, there are instructors on how to do that. if you agree with daveed, there are instructions there. although you may be tempted to vote for me, there are no instructions to do that. i want to thank everybody for what i thought was an engaging debate. thank you. [applause] >> president obama will talk about his latest jobs plan next week before a joint session of

congress. the white house had originally requested the speech be on wednesday, but after some back- and-forth with the house speaker's office, they agreed to thursday. live coverage thursday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. this saturday, a tea party rally in iowa. it will require -- it will have remarks from sarah piven will have live coverage getting underway at noon eastern on c- span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. >> members of the 9/11 commission this week said that the u.s. is still vulnerable to terrorist attacks because it has failed to make enough progress on a number of counter-terrorism recommendations. that report is next on c-span. after that, jon huntsman lays out his jobs plan. >> machiavelli has become an adjective.

there are not many people in this town who would like to have themselves described that way. not too many people would call themselves machiaveeian. sunday night, miles unger argues that his theories may have been a response to the corruption around him. that is at 8:00 on c-span's 2 and 8. >> in the decades since the 911 attacks, the u.s. has failed to implement a number of proposals made by the 9/11 commission. we will hear from tohm kean and lee hamilton. >> welcome to the bipartisan policy center.

we are pleased that so many of you have joined us today. we are overflowing, so some things are falling over i am sorry not all of you have seats, but you are closer to the food and drink. there are people who of toiled here diligently since 9/11 to reshape our homeland and national security institutions. the challenges for securing our policies are not theoretical. you have been in those battles. we are fortunate to be joined by seven of the 10 9/11 commissioners. they made an indelible mark on history. their report and recommendation are an example of the bipartisan collaboration that our country desperately needs more of in other areas. the commission is unparalleled in the number of changes that were adopted as a result of its recommendations. the work closely with the victim causally families -- vadim's families to pass landmark

legislation in 2004. it is restructured our homeland and intelligent agencies. this morning, governor kean and congressman hamilton will summarize the report card to buy the group they cochair. they were advised by several national security experts and government officials. the entire list of advisers can be found on the inside cover of the report card. if you have trouble seeing the chart up here, on page 10 of the report card is the full chart. in addition to those advisers, the group consulted with current administration officials. i would also like to recognize the invaluable assistance and counsel of mike hurly. we will turn to a moderated discussion with the commissioners to get their thoughts on what has been achieved and what remains to be done we are pleased that and

compton of abc news has agreed to be our moderator. we hope to wrap up around 1145 -- eleven o'clock 45. it is my honor to introduce governor came and congressman hamilton. together, they were the cochairs of the 9/11 commission and now co-chair the national security prepared this group. please welcome them. [applause] >> i am leading off. lee will follow. this is a very special occasion for us. this is the first time in a long time that so many of us from the commission have been together. we established a good working relationship and good friend chships. it is special to have you all back. thank you, again, for an amazing

job. september 11 was that day when violent islamic extremists hijacked four of our commercial planes, turn them into weapons, killing nearly 3000 people. the world changed. these attacks exacted a devastating toll on many families, our government, the private sector, and our daily lives are very different since that day. indeed, it is difficult to comprehend all the ways of nation has changed. the most visible reminder of those changes are the airport screening protocols -- being asked to report suspicious activity in public places -- drone strikes that killed terrorist operatives are front- page news every few days. the less notorious changes are even more dramatic. we have seen the largest

reorganization of the intelligence community since 1947. the intelligence budget has doubled. the terrorist threat has changed as well. today, unlike 2001, we must be concerned about americans, such as anwar al-awlaqi, playing roles in al qaeda's global network. for example, in minneapolis, minn., muslim-american youths have -- are being recruited to fight for al qaeda in somalia. we have seen americans recruited by islamic extremist through internet forums. hassan, who killed 15 fellow soldiers at fort hood in texas, was radicalized online. this self radicalization is very difficult, almost impossible for federal officials to detect. after a 20-month investigation in july 2004, we made 41

recommendations. we were charged by congress to try to improve this nation's security. they were endorsed by both presidential candidates at the time and almost every single member of the united states congress. now, as we reach the 10th anniversary of those attacks, it is appropriate to reflect and take stock of where we are in trying to reform and national security. what do we have yet to achieve? today will release a report assessing the 9/11 commission's recommendations. the good news is a lot of progress has been made. a good many of those recommendations. among these is the transformation of the intelligence community and breaking down the barriers that are so terrible, so costly in information sharing. legal policy and cultural barriers between agencies create impediments to

information sharing. therefore, we made a lot of recommendations to try to improve information sharing across different parts of government. information sharing within the federal government and among federal, state, and local authorities. it is not perfect, but it is a lot better than it was before 9/11. those changes are among the things that facilitated the capture of osama bin laden. today, we highlight nine unfinished recommendations. they demonstrate that we are not as secure as we can and should be. here we urge immediate action to complete their -- we urged immediate action to complete their implementation. first of all, let's talk about unity of effort. this is critical. everyone has to work together. somebody has to be in charge.

a well coordinated response will save a number of lies. our nation was not fully prepared for the challenge of 9/11. neither was it prepared for katrina. we will find out how well it responded to the latest hurricane on the east coast. what training under a uniformed command structure is taking place, many metropolitan areas multiple agencies that respond to disasters that still have not solve the simple problem -- who is in charge? the failure to resolve the basic business -- basic building blocks of responsibility while doing catastrophic disaster planning can result in confusion at the scene and can cost lives in the future as it has cost lives and in the past. second, radio and opera ability. if we are going to have unity of

effort among first responders, becker -- they have to be able to talk to one another. it still has not been implemented. this recommendation has stalled because the political fighting over allocating radio spectrum directly to public safety for a nationwide operable network. efforts to achieve unity of effort and communications have to be accelerated. firemen cannot talk to policeman, cannot talk to rescue workers, medical personnel -- people died. the died because of that on 9/11. they died because of that during katrina. and they will die because of that unless this particular problem is not solved. congressional reform -- we often say that congress implemented all the reports except the part concerning themselves.

we felt, when we issue our port, congressional oversight was very difficult. it still has not been done. it has to be done. congress should immediately consolidate jurisdiction of the department of homeland security within the house and senate homeland security committees. this would avoid what exists now with almost 100 committees and subcommittees that the vhs secretary reports to. that is confusion, it is not oversight. it makes it dysfunctional. it meets the homeland security department spends so much time appearing and testifying that they are not spending enough time protecting us. that is their prime job. we also recommended a joint, bicameral intelligence committee in each body with combined authorizing and appropriating a party. the basic issue is that the

intelligence committees do not control the purse. as you know, agencies listen to the congressional committees that do control the purse. the funding is through the dod budget. at a minimum, separate intelligence committees and subcommittees should be established to fund the intelligence community. now i would like to introduce my cochair, lee hamilton. he is an extraordinary individual who is done so much for this country over so many years. it was my pleasure to work with him. we would not have the report we have if not for lee hamilton. [applause] >> good morning and thank you for coming. i recognize that there are many in the audience who have contributed hugely to the homeland security and the national security of the united states.

just one quick snapshot about tom kean. on the very first meeting we had after he had been named chairman and i was named vice chairman, tom came up to me and said, "lee, we are going to make every single decision jointly per "i had come out of the congress where the chairman has all of the power and the ranking member has none of the power. but what an extraordinary over chair he made at the outset. that was one of the principal reasons the commission was able to reach a bipartisan agreement. tom's leadership was superb. civil liberties and executive power -- we recommended in 2004 that the privacy and civil liberties oversight board should be established to address and monitor privacy and liberty concerns across government.

five democrats and five republicans on the commission felt strongly about this recommendation. since 9/11, the executive branch has received expanded authorities to collect information and conduct surveillance. even if these powers are being employed in a careful way, respectful of civil liberties, the history of the abuse of such power should give us pause and make us commit to ensuring the mechanisms are in place to protect our liberty. a robust and visible board can help reassure americans that security programs are designed and executed with the preservation of our core values in mind. although legislation was enacted to establish this board, it has been dormant for more than three years. today, only two of the five members have been nominated by the president and neither has been confirmed by the congress. the remaining three should be

appointed and, of course, confirmed immediately. second, the director of national intelligence -- the establishments of the director of national intelligence and the national counterterrorism center to coordinate the activities of the intelligence community represented major progress in intelligence reform. the last six years, the dien i has increased information sharing, improved coordination among agencies, sharpened collection priorities, brought additional expertise into the analysis of intelligence, and further integrated the fbi into the overall intelligence effort. it still is not clear that the dni is the force for intelligence integration that we had envisioned. there have been four in six years. there is also ambiguity about the authorities over budget and personnel. further clarity about the dni

is always needed. that can be done with legislation or repeated declarations from the president that the dni is the leader of the intelligence committee. third, by a metric exit entry system. we recommended that the federal government institute a by a metric system to track foreign nationals that enter and leave the country. the department of homeland security has deployed a system that checks all individuals who arrived at u.s. borders. it ensures they are who they say they are and helps prevent known terrorists from entering the country. but the exit portion of the system has not been completed. we do not know with any certainty who has left the country or remains here on an expired visas. such a capability would have

helped law-enforcement searching for two of the 11 hijackers who have overstayed their visas. next, standardized secured ids. 18 of the 19 9/11 hijackers obtained 30 state-issued ids among them that enabled them to more easily board planes on that dreadful morning of 9/11. due to the ease with which fraud was used to obtain legitimate id's that helped the hijackers embed and assimilate in the united states for the purpose of carrying out the terrorist act, the 9/11 commission recommended that the federal government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers' licenses. in 2008, detailed regulations set standards and benchmark court driver's license issuance. however, the state's compliance with vhs regulations for more

secure drivers' licenses has been delayed until 2013 by dhs. this delay in compliance creates the vulnerabilities and makes us less safe. no further delay should be authorized. instead, the deadline, in our view, should be accelerated. next, transportation security. with significant federal funding, psa had deployed large numbers of inapt screening equipment, explosives protection, and checked bag screening. unfortunately, the explosives protecting technology lacks reliability and lags in this capability to automatically identify concealed weapons and explosives. the next generation of whole- body scanning machines are also not effective at detecting explosives hidden within the

body and raise privacy and helped concerns that dhs has not fully address. our conclusion is that despite 10 years of working on the problem, the detection system falls short in critical ways with respect to detection. dhs must improve the way it sets screening technology requirements, worse with the private sector to develop this equipment and test it in the field. next, the standards for terrorist detention. in -- within days of his inauguration, president obama signed a series of executive orders on the treatment of detainees, barring the cia from using interrogation methods not authorized in the u.s. army field manual. by bringing the united states into compliance with the geneva commission on the treatment of prisoners. the executive orders have substantially filled our

recommendations. however, for too long, our nation's political leadership has delayed resolving the admittedly very difficult problem of reconciling the rule of law with the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists, some of whom would do the nation and individuals in the nation grievous harm. congress and the president must decide on a comprehensive approach on how to handle these detainees that is grounded in principles of fairness, due process, and protecting the american people. as tom suggested a moment ago, we have done much since the attacks 10 years ago and are safer than we were on that day. all of us agree that there is much, much more to do. political leadership from both parties and that all levels of government should renew their focus on completing the implementation of the 9/11

commission recommendations. now i have the pleasure of introducing today's moderator for our panel discussion, well known to all of you -- ann compton of abc news. you may not know that on september 11, she was the only broadcast reporter allowed to remain on board air force one during the dramatic hours when president bush was unable to return to washington for a number of hours. her career has allowed her to cover capitol hill, provincial campaigns, and the white house. she is now covering her sixth u.s. president. she is the president of the white house correspondents association. ann, we turn it over to you and we welcome you. thank you for coming. [applause] >> these panel members are well

known to most of you. starting closer to the podium, fred fielding, a presidential lawyer. he knows the pressures and the risk the president faces inside the oval office. he has said something of an olympic record of a membership on commissions like this. slade gorton -- during that decade leading up to the september 11 attacks, he was the -- he was a united states senator. he quit the senate intelligence committee right after the gulf war in frustration. i believe he called it "a waste of time." more on that later. john lehman -- i have heard it said that secretary of the navy was the best job in washington. he is ceo of more than 1 million

employees and $95 billion in budget. in fact, he is a figure that blends the experience inside and outside washington. tim roemer -- as a congressman, he saw september 11 developed from capitol hill as the most recent ambassador to india. he has also seen what it is like to watch and help an ally respond to the incredibly savage terrorist attacks in mumbai. seated next to me, jim thompson. few public figures blend together. 14 years as governor of illinois, my home state. the longest illinois governor ever. he was also chairman of the president's intelligence oversight board in the early '90s. gentleman your chairs have

given the country and the government and a report card. i will ask each of you again -- in alphabetical order, if i can -- is the one element that you feel has either made a critical difference or that, if it were enacted, if it were employed, would make a dramatic difference in the next 10 years? fred? >> you really cannot get them out as a menu where people can pick and choose. listening to our chair and vice chair, it is obvious to me that the most frustrating recommendation we made was one we knew was for to be frustrating when we made it. that with the reformation of congress. congress had to reform itself. i say that with sincerity.