to tell you i have been blessed by my share of moments this past year. we marked the 10th anniversary of the attacks of the deborah 11 with somber ceremonies in new york and -- a tax of september 11 with somber ceremonies in new york danto we ended in policy that forces the and people to live the life of anathema, to lie about who they were. they are american soldiers, and there are great feats of personal sacrifice. not long after last year's convention concluded, president obama awarded a medal of honor to a staff sergeant. this was for a fire fight in afghanistan. the first living recipient of the medal of honor since a few

months later, a sergeant first class became the second living honoree of these conflicts. he was recognized for saving lives of at least two fellow rangers, throwing away a grenade that had been hurled at his colleagues. asked at a later time what he would have done differently without a chance, without a heartbeat lost, he said, "i would have thrown it with my left hand." [laughter] that is an american soldier. it was a great privilege for all of us to honor these two men for their service and their valor and their courage, leadership, and humility. they clearly show how they are becoming known as their nation's

next created a generation. over the course of this past year, i have seen this next greatest generation at work in service to america. deployed, yes, to two very difficult theatres of war but also by 80 countries spanning the globe, including keeping peace in the cyanide, challenging nature, scouring the terrain of long ago battlefields to bring home a fallen but not forgotten comrade. their service is remarkable, and i am humbled to be in their company. i recognize the great challenge, the great responsibility have to these men and women of the american soldier, to their families, to their civilian work force. during a recent trip to representative afghanistan, i had a chance to spend some time

with a young captain and a first lieutenant just a little more than a year out of the military academy they were in charge of operations in that part of the valley. they engaged with the village elders. they were negotiating with them, assuring them of the best interest that we had in coming to their part of the world. they were to equip and train the afghans, forming the afghan police. they are the very essence of full spectrum operations. the level of responsibility, of adaptability, of authority that we have given these incredible young leaders is unprecedented. they are doing jobs today that in a not too distant past, perhaps even 2007, and that they would be expected to achieve,

and yet we cannot on them every single day, and they have performed remarkably. how we ensure that the opportunities for creativity, leadership, and advancement that have been present on the battlefields of today exist throughout the army, no matter what deployments look like. that will be the challenge for us to ensure that we are ready for tomorrow, and it will make certain that the army as a whole is prepared and postured for complex and unpredictable missions of the future. equally important, as we continue wrestling with budget realities, the army and our nation must see the lessons of history in deciding their future strength and our future structure.

marshall spoke of a surprise. not only our willingness but our capability to organize, to fight, and to win. he pondered that had anticipated american willingness and american resolve, perhaps the world might never have known world war ii, but respect, he said, is fleeting, unless we've been our efforts to preserve it. this must be our solemn obligation, to ensure this nation's continued respect, built on the ballot and -- valor

and sacrifice and bloodshed of this magnificent volunteer force, the young men and women of the united states army who committed an recommitted themselves to defending this great nation after the attacks on our shores. we owe it to them to ensure that our nation's strength, our nation's resolve, is never again so challenged. -- thank you for your you for your partnership in the path ahead -- thank you for your partnership in the path ahead, thank you for all you have done in supporting these amazing men and women in uniform and their families. god bless america, and god bless this incredible army that keeps [applause] it safe. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," we are joined by nancy cook of the national journal about a recent article on the new working class and the changing economic demographics in the united states. then economist bill hample on how credit unions differ from commercial banks.

after that, we will talk with kevin concannon about the national school lunch program. "washington journal" each morning at 7 eastern here on c- span. later in the day, remarks from defense secretary leon panetta on the pentagon's budget priorities. secretary panetta took over as defense secretary this summer after stepping down as cia director. live coverage from the wilson center at 1:00 p.m. eastern. new york times correspondent james resen -- risen bases going to court. -- face is going to court.

for a 2006 book about a cia operation in iran. last week he spoke about the case at the graduate school of journalism. he is joined by former new york times reporter who teaches journalism at berkeley. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> i am logan professor of investigative reporting here at the graduate school of journalism at the university of california berkeley. we are honored today to have jim arisen with us -- jim risen. a reporter at the washington bureau of "the new york times" since 1998. he covers the national security beat at "the new york times." jim and i crossed paths for the first time back in 1998 when he joined "the new york times,"

which was my first official relationship with the newspaper. before that you were at the "los angeles times" for many years and were well known to all of us as someone to respect and to worry about on a story. what we are going to talk about tonight is a kind of reporting that is unique to the united states. there are very, very few countries in the world where you are allowed to report on the national security of the country and its national security organizations and apparatus. most countries guard their secrets and what they call the secret part of the government with laws and enforcement so that reporters are generally jailed, or news organizations are not allowed to report it. that includes the united kingdom, canada, and almost any other country you can think up. the united states is one of the few countries in the world that allows that kind of reporting. it began during the 1960's in a

sort of informal way, mostly done by freelancers, and then the names you know that today -- names a you know today became part of the establishment press, particularly around the pentagon papers. there was going to be a report in "the new york times" and the president said you cannot publish that story. they did not, and six months later, john f. kennedy called the editor of "the new york times" and said it is to bet we -- it is too bad we did not let you publish that story. 10 years later, it was the pentagon papers, and from that a series of other records in the u.s. media that led to a tradition backed up by congressional hearings that changed the nature of the way in which we report and think

about national security in this country and the way we as journalists are able to report on it. unfortunately, over the last 10 years, that tradition has been moving in the other direction. one of the people who has tried to forcefully and aggressively keep that tradition going is sitting right here, mr. jim risen. today he told me he had gotten some calls from his lawyers in washington, and the case that currently threatens him with possible contempt of court and consequences will be going to trial on october 17. i think that is one of the reasons why this is being videotaped, because the beer is he will not be around to talk -- the fare is he will not be around to talk.

-- the fear is he will not be around to talk. could happen. i have to recommend to you the case that jim is going to talk about tonight, although he is restricted bge did explain to me -- he is restricted, that he will not be able to fully answer some questions, because he may have to testify, or what he says may be used in some way against him in the near future. cannot comment on that, that is why, not because he doesn't want to. i recommend you the indictment of the united states of america versus jeffrey alexander stirling, who is a former cia official who allegedly was a source of jim's, who is facing criminal trial starting october 17. mr. sterling is alleged to have told jim about a case involving a cia operation in iran. i think he can talk a little bit about it.

tonight? >> yes. >> it details in his book, "state of war," chapter 9 of thepart of what is in this book is a story that many of you have heard about, which is the fact that the national security id -- security ad ministration, on orders from the president of the united states, e-mails, and other communications of u.s. citizens after 9/11 in violation at that time of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, a law passed in 1978, and that this was done on and orders of the president of the united states and done secretly, and that jim and eric lichtblau got the pulitzer prize for revealing this in the pages "of the new york times." [applause]

this was a year after that actually learned this information. those of you who have attended the symposium that we do annually, the logan symposium, know that we questioned bill keller, a the executive editor about this, and he said the reason we held it for a year was that it was not fully reported. we do know that jim had actually book, which was scheduled to be published two or three months after the story appeared. >> in the filings -- jim has already been through struggle

with the bush administration about subpoenas related to that revelation and who was his source. the bush administration dropped the obama administration came and. -- came in. the expectation was that the obama administration would not continue this process. they changed their tactical approach. instead of dropping the process, they decided not to convene a grand jury to find out who jim's sources were related to the nsa instead, chapter 9 of this book, which is about a clandestine would say was a debacle, in iran. therefore, "the new york times"

im then faced another -- jim then face another subpoena on that issue. the obama administration juries investigating leaks to the media in the national security area, including this one. more grand juries and more investigations that all the president's of the united states since the passage of the espionage act in 1917 and it's the men and in 1950. -- its amendment in 1950. it is a phenomenon that most people are not aware of. [applause] lecture.

that was very good. >> thank you. i actually stayed up last night>> what gold said was all true. -- what will set was all true. what i would like to talk about is why i think this is important today, and what i think are the ramifications for our society. what happened with this case, i was subpoenaed on this chapter 9 as it relates to an operation by the cia in the year 2000, in which the cia asked a russian scientists who had defected to the united states to hand over some blueprints of a nuclear weapon to the iranians. they thought that was a good idea to give the iranians

nuclear blueprints, and they iranians of track. what i was told was that the operation was screwed up from the start, was mismanaged, and was reckless, and that it almost nuclear weapons program, which book. that is part of a larger chapter in the book about the degree to which iranian operations by the cia had been mismanaged and dysfunctional, and that as a was

virtually just as blind dealing with the iranian weapons of mass destruction issue as they had been on the iraqi issue. i was first subpoenaed -- a almost immediately after the book came out. and started talking to people came from. i now know, based on documents me, too. they kept my phone records, bank travel records, airline records, e-mails, and that whether or not they were actually wiretapping my phone in real time, i am not sure.

i think what shocked the judge who disagreed with their reporter. press. actually, in my opinion, bullies in the first amendment and who eventually bge believes in the first amendment, and eventually quashed the subpoena from thethat actually quashed two subpoenas from the grand jury, that actually indicted someoneso currently, the last subpoena against me to testify

was the government is currently trying bge has filed a series of motions to try to get the judgeso we are kind of waiting for the results of that. i think the reason this case has the first time, according to my lawyers, they believe, the first reporter in a federal criminal case has been quashed. which was badly damaged since the war on terror began. as you may remember, the plame subpoenas against reporters and

patrick miller, who was the special prosecutor in the plame powers by the attorney general not going to recognize a to subpoena reporters all over brought down kind of an unspoken agreement between the press and the government that had lasted about 30 years since the late 1970's. there had been as i set an covered national security, from about the post watergate era on, where they would conduct leakit was kind of like that scene in

"casablanca" where they said there is gambling going on, and they said round up the usual suspects. important to go to the mat on this. we all kind of understood, as long as you let the government were doing. libby criminal case. a lot of liberals and progressives don't like to think about the fact that the pressure to jail had an enormous cost tolead to a breakdown of

the that had been built into the system for 30 years disappeared almost are it is almost overnight. -- almost overnight. they no longer feel any compunction about subpoenaing reporters and sending people toi think what we are now seeing with the obama administration is that this really does cross anyone in power wants to try to cut down -- wants to control the power of information.

they like to link themselves. -- to leak themselves. any other institution in washington. they leak to people who will write what they want to write. whenthey don't like is someone else leaked embarrassing damaging information to reporters who write those stories. closed down the avenues of embarrassing, politically inconvenient stories and to limit the areas of national pish of accepted box, where they make to create in a de facto sense, to approve it, a form of an government secrecy.

action by the government is sh kshatriya who write about things that arewhat they have not been able to do, as far as i can tell, is to ever prove that any story in a newspaper or on television ever truly damaged national security. the fact that the american press has never, in my opinion, never pointed out earlier in world war or the chicago tribune

-- the saying that the united states one had broken japanese codes, and franklin roosevelt got furious about this case and ordered tobut they did not do it, and it was probably the right thing to tribune. it did not make any difference that was probably the closest case you can never come to actually potential damage to american national security, and the thing that bothers me the most about this is that you can impose limits on the freedom of the press.

filings that have filed in myi went across accepted security reporting. the government wants to create for itself the power to decide what is accepted nationalthat is why i think the next week or two should be a very direction you

want. >> we have a microphone year. produce a person. >> let me explain that since i stayed up last night and read these two documents which are on line, and if you want to come up and you can download them. but before we start with the first question, when you say outside the bounds of acceptable practice, the government says and the judge first quashed the subpoena, the story, you and

your editors went to the white house. you seem to be on a show "road the group in this case on the iran story come on chapter nine, included now professor at stanford condoleezza rice, who i the trial. clear to you and your washington york times" that you publish this is going to damage national agreed not to publish it.

not been published in the pages of "the new york times." pages of this book. did not publish the story, therefore he stepped outside the bounds of acceptable journalism. to. issue under current litigation. >> do we have any questions? in the corner. >> [unintelligible] 2005, if "the new york times" knew about it before, but did they know about it before the election?

" with the results be that they -- what with the results be had they -- had leaked it before the election? they had leaked it before the election? >> can you all hear the question? >> the question was that "the new york times" publicist dory in late 2005 after the election,had it been published before the 2004 election, would that have made any difference? >> i think everybody involved has thought about that. i think it could go either way. i try not to think about the political impact of the storyi

think you just try to write the story as soon as you can get it in a paper prepared but the question here is that it drive you crazy that it did not get published before the election? >> i was pushing for it to be published. >> thank you very much for speaking with us tonight. do you think that you are still are they still investigating you? secondly, how has the government surveillance affected your ability to function as a reporter? >> i think it would be difficult for them to get the legal authority to continue now that the subpoenas have been quashed, although it is possible

they could have other parallel judicial actions going on is that i don't know about. i know that they have thought about conducting -- i know that investigations of other chapters of the book, too, that never went to the prosecution. i don't know whether they are still doing any surveillance now, but i do know that they>> he calls me up one day and says "you are in my file." >> it was funny because my lawyers it did when i was first subpoenaed in 2008, -- >> and freedom of information act request. >> the perce response from the government was, we cannot tell you anything about ongoing

investigations, but we will get back to you on closed investigations. later, i got a huge envelope from the fbi, and it was as tough on stories that even we had done together, and it was hilarious to go through them, here because they were taking them so damn seriously. some of them were stories i could not imagine that they were doing these investigations on. we did a really good story together about -- if you remember that russian spy richard hanson who had a lot of personal issues. >> the fbi agent who was a russian spy. >> and he gave up the fact that the u.s. had dug a tunnel under the russian embassy in washington and bug the russian

embassy. he told the russians about that right away, and we had written that, when was that, in 2001? >> or before, and i found this huge file, there was this huge investigation of us. >> but he did say something earlier that i think was very important which i have experienced personally, and that is that i have sat at the desk of an fbi official who was in charge of counterespionage, in the j. edgar hoover building, and they are complaining to me, and do not worry about leak investigations, because every time we have to talk to a journalist, the attorney general always says, "no, we cannot subpoena journalists. this was 10 years ago, and, in fact, in the middle of this conversation, a gentleman walked

into his office -- someone who has been at one of our symposiums and in charge of actual counter espionage, .and he lifted the directory off of his boss's desk, and he said as part of the investigation, i have to talk a bet -- i have to check that you have talked to lowell, and i was sitting right there. the change is a very dramatic change. the bargain has broken down. >> the problem is it was all unspoken, and it was like creative ambiguity built into the system. nobody wanted to admit for 30 years that we had this bargain with the government, where they would go through the exercise of doing leak investigations, and that all changed with the plame

case, virtually overnight, and that opened it to prosecutions and investigations and much greater pressure on news organizations from the government, and it has had a chilling affect both inside the government, on people who might consider being a whistle-blower, and it has also had an effect on news organizations and reporters who have to keep this in mind about what is going to happen to you if you write about certain things. >> remember now that the beginnings of national security reporting that we were talking about began during democratic administrations in the early 1960's, and they really hated it, the kennedy administration, the johnson administration, and now, the obama administration has actually made this into an effective means the prosecution of the press or of leakers.

there are five cases. >> they have gone beyond the grand jury. >> you speak of the government doing this. they are not, unfortunately, a computer. it is guys with computers. what is the highest-ranking official whose name appears in the action against you, and how much higher than him does this have to go for them to get the authority to do whatever they are doing to you? >> it has to be approved by the attorney general personally, so eric holder approved the subpoena, and prior to that, michael mukasey and alberto gonzales. and i think alberto gonzales did

not last long. so it has to go to the attorney general. the attorney general in my opinion would not do this without the approval of the white house. i think it probably goes to the white house counsel. in fact, i am sure it goes to the white house counsel, and to go to the president to subpoena a reporter with a potential large news organization with the potential of putting them in jail, so just on paper it goes to the attorney general, and i think it goes beyond that, too. >> the need to protect leaks and with respect to national security, is that part of the failure to pass the national shield law opera >> yes. if you do not know what that is,

that is legislation stuck in congress for several years to give reporters a form of a privilege that would protect them from these kind of subpoenas. this federal shield law has been stuck in the senate. i think it passed the house a couple of years ago. in order to get approval from the white house, and even the obama white house, they had to agree to a larger one poll for national security reporting, so as it is currently written, the federal shield law would not cover national security reporting. it would cover other kinds of reporting. the problem is that really the only people who get subpoenaed in washington, in most cases, at the federal level are doing

national security reporting, so it has basically gutted the shield law, and then after they got the shield law, they let it die in the senate, so they gutted it and killed at the same time, which is too bad, and i think a part of it is just the atmosphere in washington since 9/11 has been, you know, a traditional balance between civil liberties and security has gone all of the way over to security on were truly every issue. there is no real constituency for civil liberties or for the first amendment in washington. and nobody really cares about reporters and what happens to them. >> how are your legal expenses

handled, and how do you pick your attorneys? >> well, my book publisher, simon and schuster, they have handled them for the most part. recently, my lawyers, it has been going on for so long that they have agreed to do this pro bono, so they have been very stand up about this, said they have been very supportive. >> a former u.s. attorney. >> there is one at a law group, my lawyers. great. >> nothing like free lawyers. >> given what you describe is the atmosphere in congress, is there any activity on the part of publishers, media organizations, reporter organizations to try to put pressure on or to change that atmosphere? >> they have been pushing the

shield law. newspapers and other media groups have been trying to get the shield law, but it has been stuck. i do not know if it ever got out of the senate judiciary committee, but it was stuck in committee for a long time. it may have gotten out of committee, but it basically has been in limbo for a year or two. after they got this compromise on national security reporting, which they thought was going to make a difference in passage, it did not make any difference in passage. >> where is the line about when to publish and when not to publish? are there other important stories, stories you deem to be important that did not make it into the book because you just decided on your own this is too dangerous and too much of a

threat to our own national security? >> yes, i mean, there is always a balancing act that you do in your own mind, and you talked your people and you talk to your sources about it. they are difficult decisions. i have had a lot of experience with that over the years because i have covered this stuff -- i covered the cia starting in 1995, so i had heard all of the explanations countless times about many stories that they would say do not write this, do not write this, and one of my favorite stories that really changed my mind about how to accept their version is sort of like the bay of pigs story, and in 2000, i think it was, i found out -- it was 2000 or early 2001. i found out that the cia had a team of officers in afghanistan.

trying to work with the norm -- the northern alliance to kill bin laden, and once i found out about it, i called the cia for comment, and george tenet, who was then the cia director, called me personally, and he said, "do not write that story. you will get my guys killed." so i did not write the story, and then 9/11 happens, and i finally wrote the story after 9/11, but then over the next couple of years, as you may remember, a lot of the big debates in washington once the created the 9/11 commission and you had the senate-house joint inquiry into that, it was why did the cia not do more prior to 9/11 to get bin laden, and

after going through all of the documents and all of the history on that, i later wondered was that operation that the cia was doing just a token operation in order to avoid -- in order to say they were doing something when they really were not doing anything, and if i had written about that at the time, would it have caused a debate to happen in washington about should we get more aggressive about bin laden or not, because i now know -- he knew everything about them. one man was killed two days before 9/11 to get him out of the way. that made me think about how much should you listen to them versus -- obviously, you listen to them, but how much did you bring to these issues and not

just listen to what the government is saying? that plays a big role in what i thought about those issues. >> i am a journalist. maybe this is common knowledge to journalists, but in the last 50 years, the last 100 years, what stories can government put forward to damage national security? >> well, they cannot. something that they accept as common sense. >> it is funny. i am glad you asked that question. another story i got in 2000, a source gave me internal cia history of the in iran coupe, that there was a coup in 1953 to

overthrow the democratically elected leader of iran, and then we reinstalled the shock -- shah. i thought before i started writing, i should read how the new york times wrote the pentagon papers story, and then i got another internal secret history, and i thought that must really be an amazing story, so i went back into the microfilm room and read the original pentagon papers stories, and i was expecting some shocking revelations. i was stunned. all the story said was that the war in vietnam is really not going very well. and if you go back and read those stories, it is amazing that there was a supreme court case built around that, and it

just showed you that it is all about the moment, you know, the anger of government officials at the moment that something is getting out that they do not want to get out. >> a question of year? -- a question over here? >> newspaper clippings that are classified. >> i will tell you something very funny that has happened in my case that i can now talk about. well, i cannot talk about it. [laughter] >> bbq weeks -- the wikileaks was supposed to be a disaster. >> i read a lot of that, and it

is mostly that one person calls another a moron. gossip. >> a former personnel at the state department in now uses the wikileaks as a way to liberate his riding. he can now share everything that he wrote, and he has argued to me that people do not understand how good state department people are with what they are riding. >> that is one of the things that struck me as a reporter. you go and meet embassy officials with some country, and they always play dumb with reporters, anything, you ask them questions about the country, and then you think are they really that stupid, or are they just plain dumb, and they actually know what they are doing. they are pretty smart.

>> my question is do you think that journalists coming after you will have the same fervor that you do for the truth. >> yes. i am a different than i think almost any reporter i know would have done the same thing i am doing. i know for a fact in fact that one of the reasons i am doing this is because i am afraid that if i do not, i will disappoint other reporters who expect me. i am only doing what people in the profession and expect me to do, so i do not think it is anything special beyond that, so -- i think it is kind of in the culture of journalism that you have to do this.

this is one of the good things about journalism. and the problem is, we do not have, without a shield law, and without the privilege like a doctor or lawyer, it is difficult to -- all you have really is that cultural tradition within the profession, especially now that the government does not recognize that and more. but that is a pretty strong cultural tradition within the profession. >> what do you make about the obama administration and the intensity of this? i mean, why? what is motivating them? especially given that is really

unexpected? >> i do not know. i have wondered that myself. whoever is president does not like weeks -- weeks -- leaks. people like the executive power, and maybe barack obama is more conservative than we thought. i think he has shown that he is essentially continuing a lot of the national security policies of the bush administration across the board, and i think this is part of a larger strategy by obama to insulate himself politically on national- security issues from the right. more less continuing a lot of the national security policies of the bush administration. why he has been more aggressive than bush on this, you know, in

a significant way, i do not quite understand, because he has gone beyond what he would have had to do to insulate himself. >> but he did say when he was campaigning, early on when he was campaigning for president, he thought the and it's a eavesdropping policy was illegal and a constitutional matter. >> yes, but then during the 2008 campaign, he voted for immunity for the telecommunications companies who had been involved with the nsa. as you recall, that was an important issue in the summer of 2008. there was a bill, the reauthorization act, which included an amendment that the telecommunications industry wanted desperately, because they were facing a lot of lawsuits for their involvement in the n.s.a. operation. the senate passed a bill, giving

them immunity from lawsuits for their involvement in the n.s.a. operation, and obama waited until the very last moment to decide which way to vote on that, and he was under enormous pressure from his base, and he decided to vote for immunity, and that was considered by a lot of people to be like the first sign of his change on national- security issues. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> although it is striking that he is pursuing a lot of grand jury investigations and indictments in the area of national security reporting, the washington press corps -- it is pretty aligned with the way he is running the administration in terms of dealing with the press, and from reporters i talk to, it seems that his staff is very in control of the message a lot

of time, that they are very restrictive and use that to their advantage. >> yes, i think it is part of a larger -- both on national security policy in his view of the press. i do not think cheaper to currently likes reporters or like the press in general, which is pretty common for most politicians. most of them hate us. i think he is a much more traditional politician than people thought. >> i always remember a senator on the intelligence committee pointing to me and saying, "you are the only oversight for the intelligence committee." and i said, "what do you mean? you are the intelligence committee?" >> do you believe that the value of the information you have released to the public is worth the costs you have borne, time

wise, otherwise? >> absolutely. >> do you believe that the value of the information that you have given is where the individual consequences that you have faith could >> yes. i thought about it at the time. i think i decided with the and is a story and other stories, i decided if i do not write these stories, then i should get out of the business, because this is what you get into the business to do. if you do not do these stories, then what do you do? these are the best stories you are ever going to get, and i thought, during that time period, this is why i became a reporter, and if i am not going to do it now, i should just get out of the business, so --

>> yu crested in your judgment when your editor said -- >> sure, i debated and thought about it a lot. i had to do it. as i said, this was the important work i had done. and what was in "the new york times at the same time. i felt that way at the time, too, i felt this is why i became a reporter. >> a question? >> thank you very much. from a reporter's point of view, what did the reorganization of national security into the homeland security operatives

actually do? thank you? >> journalistic access. well, the national security apparatus has ballooned dramatically since 9/11. it has just gotten bigger and and it has made it from a reporting standpoint, one of the challenges is to figure out who is doing what. and it is more complicated than it has ever been. i used to think if there is some clandestine operation overseas, that has to be the cia. that is not necessarily the case. it can be a million other people. you now have enormous growth of contractors in the intelligence community, the defense community, and other aspects.

and so there are secret operations being conducted by outside contractors. where there is virtually no accountability. and so the growth of the budget, the growth of the community, the outsourcing of intelligence operations has made it far more difficult to keep track everything, but in some ways it has made it easier to find people to talk to because there are so many more people involved than ever before. and there is a lot of people who are increasingly uneasy with the size and scale of what has happened. that is where i think most reporters will find -- the larger it gets, the more whistle-blowers will come out.

that may be what the government is afraid of. yeah. >> in light of the budget cuts on the federal level, trying to tighten their belt, is it a good story to have that big envelope full of maybe $1 million worth of research the taxpayers paid for that lead nowhere? another piece of this question is, what is the current electorate's authorization for this wasted money? if you ask americans on this phrase, at least they are being thorough. the problem with american thinking is they do not realize that this takes brains.

can americans learned that lesson? >> i do not know. what we do is we try -- as a reporter you try to ask specific questions and look into specific stories. i think one of the things, the "washington post" did a story on the growth and the blood of the intelligence community. that is something that i do not know how you keep writing about that all the time on an ongoing basis without focusing on the specifics, that is what i tried to do. is find individual cases of things that need to be corrected rather than focus on the larger issues. >> mask you a question? i am reading the decision to quash the subpoena and knowing what the government has filed, the judge says, one of the

reasons they do not need to get your testimony, your full testimony is they have other witnesses. and so therefore they quashed the subpoena. the government has come forward and said, we used to have other witnesses but the other witnesses, one married the defendant so she had a spousal exemption. the other is refusing to testify. therefore, they really need you. >> that is their argument, yes. [laughter] that is what is being litigated. that is what we're waiting to see if the judge can decide on. she is about to rule on that motion. >they have other evidence. they have laid out their evidence.

we filed -- the government filed a motion all lines there are doing what you just said and we have filed a motion countering their argument. i do not know if you have seen that. >> i have not seen that yet. >> is a fun file. arguing that the government's arguments along those lines are specious. and the judge should not change her mind. >> do you think the judge will at some point hold you in contempt? >> i do not know. i hope not. i will see. >> another question on the nature of national security reporting. it is the select field on the whole in terms of content. most americans have no inside, the majority do not have a passport and have not left the

country. in covering that field, do you feel as though you have a special sense of responsibility to get the story right, to tell the story in a particular way so that an audience may have used policy generally but has no independent way of verifying it one way or another gets the right story? >> yeah, one of the -- absolutely. one of the problems we have to do as reporters, we have to deal with a lot of anonymous sources in this area because of the danger that sources face client talking to us. and-- sources face in talking to us. we're not naming our sources in our stories. you have to develop a track record of being accurate, and

essentially, what you are doing as a reader is accepting that there is a -- the reporter who is writing that story has a track record of accuracy. and so you have to develop a level of trust between the reader and the reporter, that the anonymous sources he is using or talking about in the story have told him what they said. or the information is accurate. you have to build a global trust over time. -- up a level of trust over time. you have to be as accurate as possible. >> you said there were five grand juries now? >> i think there are five prosecutions of people who have been alleged to have leaked to

various news organizations. >> the whistleblower is not involving the reporters that you know? >> right. at this moment i am the only reporter in those cases. i am the only reporter who has been subpoenaed. >> do you have any sense if your testimony continues, the subpoena for your testimony continues to be quashed, w hether that will have some effect in the continuing interest in not just you but others? >> the reason i fought beside -- this i do not want them to think it is easy to come after reporters. if i just caved in to what they wanted, they would go after reporters all the time. the only reason they're doing

got away with that in the valerie plame case. they -- i think if we start caving, they will. that is one of the things i have been fighting for. to make them know it will be damn hard to come after reporters and they should not do it. so. [applause] >> my question was a follow-up to that. i was wondering if there was an effort to use the force of the press to expose specifically who is behind legislation that restricts and condemns reporting? >> it is not a secret. it is the obama administration.

it is more of a name. for example we had hoover for past restrictions. a specific person? >> dianne feinstein has said publicly as the chairperson of the senate intelligence community that there should not be an exemption in the shield law for national security reporting. >> president obama supported the loophole for national security reporting. the justice department supported that. the justice department wrote the law -- re-wrote the law to fit that. >> there is an argument that if you cannot -- you cannot do this kind of reporting in almost any other country. the government has to maintain secrecy. discipline. protect the people. >> right. >> who are you to decide that it

is time to make something public, when public officials, elected officials and others take an oath to maintain the secrecy of the information and because that is what they are told they have to do, to make the system functional. >> that is the beauty of the american constitution. the first amendment allows for freedom of speech for every american. >> there are restrictions what that speech can be if it endangers others. >> that is where you go to court to litigate those issues. i think the personal danger from yelling "fire" in a theater is different which i think is what they would try to argue. this is like somehow. they never been able to prove first of all any damage, any

real damage from any story or any publication that i know of. >> i will give you an example. remember the story about osama bin laden and his satellite found? -- phone? in "the washington times"? that allegedly damaged the u.s. government's ability to track osama bin laden. >> i have heard that debated. also osama bin laden got the message we work after him when a bunch of missiles rained down on his camp. i think that was it louder message then the story. he changed all his tradecraft after the 1998 missile attack by clinton. i know the government has argued

that many times. that is one of the cases they can cite. the problem is we have a constitutional system that gives freedom of the press and freedom of speech as a fundamental right. it is not the second or third amendment, it is the first amendment. that was put into place a long time before the 1947 national security act which created the cia. i think it predates and it is a fundamental building block of american journalism. no one likes to admit that an editor and reporter in the u.s. have the freedom to write what they want. if we lose that, we lose the uniqueness about the american

system. if we start reining in the press, it is the most fundamental change we can have. >> is one thing to be able to get the "the new york times" bureau and convince an editor not to run a story. and another thing to deal with jillian -- julian assange who did not seem to care whether or not they identify people in their cable. what do you do in that case? >> it is a more complicated case because you have to get into the issue of who is a journalist, what is it, is it the outpouring of data into public journalism? is that covered by free-speech when it is done overseas? it is an interesting question.

i still think the legal problem they have is that bradley manning, the alleged source of that information has been charged with violation of his oath of protecting that information. that was an alleged criminal act they can prosecute in a military court. is the fact that julian assange received that information -- allegedly received that information, he is not a citizen, not in the u.s. military, did not have a security clearance, received the information and put it on the web? is that a crime? i do not believe it is. under the current existing laws of the united states, i believe bradley manning, whoever got

that information and leaked it, may have violated the military laws. it is possible. that will be for the court to decide. the publishers of that information i do not believe committed a crime. they were on -- under no obligation to protect that information. >> the question that arises as a result of the last few minutes, will this go to the supreme court and is there any way you can lose this in the supreme court? there is no official secrets law in this country but will it go to the supreme court? >> in this case? >> your case. >> one of the things that has become clear in the last few days is that the justice

department does not appear to be ready to appeal to the higher court. they're going to trial, it looks like. it does not look like it is going to be out. they can change their mind, obviously. so it is possible it could go to the supreme court. depends on the rulings that will come out. we will see. >> deal think that is because of the makeup of the appellate court? >> possibly. there have been a lot of obama appointees to the fourth circuit. obama does not want to test how they would vote on this. i do not know. it is an interesting issue. i thought for a long time that it might. as of now, i am not sure. >> ok. are in jail, how do

we help you? >> send cards. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> thanks. >> it has been almost 30 years since a small group proposed building a memorial to honor dr. king and the sunday, what is the official dedication of the martin luther king, jr. national memorial in washington, d.c. live coverage begins at noon eastern. >> now discussion on fund- raising in the 2012 campaign. from " washington journal, this

is 25 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: michael malbin, is the campaign finance institute executive director. good morning. guest: good morning. host: rick perry looks like the most money, $70 million. -- $17 million. guest: perry says he is at 17. we do not know where mr. romney will be. it will be somewhat lower. this is the second quarter, for. is his first. all of the republicans -- for perry, it is his first.

host: what do you read of these numbers? why is it is significant for rick perry that it is his first quarter? guest: in the first quarter, you should be able to pick up contributions, maximum contributions of $2,500. it is from people who have supported you in the past. we do not have the details yet, until the files are released next week. from the early press release from his campaign, it is not as if that is happening. he has a number of contributors and his average contribution is 775. that is very high for an average. many are giving the maximum. we should not be surprised by that, because he is in a state

with unlimited contributions. host: we are looking at the latest campaign numbers. the rules say that the end of the third quarter was september 30, but kids have more time to file them. we will find out -- but candidates have more time to file them. we will find of the official numbers later. some have given a hint of the numbers that are coming out. what do you make of the number of rick perry? some say it is an interesting development, because it can contrast the fact that we have had a rough week or so in the eye watchers looking at how the big performances ago, immigration, do these numbers counter that? guest: i do not believe primarily in terms of the horse race, and who perry is slightly ahead of this quarter or vice versa.

i look at both of these candidates and they are raising the bulk of their money from people that get the maximum amount. they cannot give again. if the supporters that give the maximum amount want to support some more, they have to get into these outside committees called a super packs. on the republican side, the leading candidates, funding is coming from large donors. host: here is something from "politico." what about some of the candidates whom we have not seen

their tallies yet such as michele bachmann or new gingrich? how are they working? guest: if they wanted to brag about their numbers, they would have let something out by now. i want to caution not to start anointing the person that has the most. at this point, a quarter years ago, the top republican fund- raisers where mitt romney, rudy guiliani, and fred thompson. having the most money meant you would call one of them president, and we have not. host: if you want to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. democrats: (202) 737-0001 republicans: (202) 737-0002 independents: (202) 628-0205 email: journal@c-span.org twitter: http://twitter.com/cspanwj we are talking about the

presidential campaign fund raising this far. you were talking about who was in the lead back in this time around the last election cycle in the 2008 race. how do the overall numbers compare? how are they ultimately looking at this point? guest: the numbers are looking fairly good on the republican side. on the democratic side, there was a hot race between barack obama and hillary clinton. by historic terms, these are on the high side through the third quarter. these candidates will have enough to go through the early rounds. if this is a long haul, however, and that is possible, it may be determined by the money, but the money will make it possible. then i expect to see a

significant role played by these outside super packs, which can accept unlimited contributions into advertising. host: the "huffington post." can you explain that one for us? guest: yes, but it is not a loophole in my opinion. the committees are required to report the end of your fund

raising and spending by january 30. if states move their dates up, that means they're moving up ahead of that date. a ton of money can come in from super pacs, and the voters would not know about it, and that is problematic. even more problematic is a large amount of money can be spent by 01c organizations that don't have to file at all until the next tax year. it would be a year before we learn anything about their sources. even then we did not learn about the sources of their funds if they pass through intermediaries. host: how much more money can be coming in this year through other organizations not necessarily funneled through the candidates themselves?

what will you be watching? guest: we have no idea at this point, but it can be quite significant. it can be much as major candidates spend. especially on the republican side, because we will be worried -- they will be worried about the fact president obama is raising so much more than they are. host: ron on our independent line. are you with us? steve, republican in florida. caller: hello, i just want to comment on herman cain. he did not really spend a lot of money down here in florida, but it's he won the straw poll. the only way we got to see him was on the debates and every now and then he would do news conference.

for the most part we never heard about him, but we like his message. i think that if he had that kind of money, he could be a contender. thank you. caller: the caller is correct. the early states iowa and new hampshire did not necessarily require large amounts of money. mike huckabee 9 did so well with very little money. two points you could make. a ton of money gives you the opportunity to put your word out, but it does not mean people have to listen to what you have to say. and if the audience is small enough, and it is in the early states, then you can get a foothold. once you get a foothold, given the internet and current methods of fund-raising, you can granted up pretty fast. host: one of our twitter

follower as talks about the number of individual donors that ron paul has. about what it means to have more small donors compared with a big donors. guest: ron paul and michelle bachmann are the two republican candidates raising most of their money from small donors. and barack obama has a very large number of donors giving small amounts. the nice thing about small donors, a couple kings, one is that you can go back to them because they cannot maxed out. the second is many people that gives small amounts are enthusiastic and want to help out, but don't have a large amount, but they give their time. this, your basis for your volunteer networks, which is very important especially in the caucus states.

in 2008 the entire difference between barack obama and hillary clinton came in the caucus states that obama carried a largely on the strength of volunteer organizations in those caucus states. host: let's hear from pennsylvania, democrats lined. caller: i was wondering, i know that all this money is going to be spent. my concern is i don't know who putting out the ad. is there any way that we can require the ad is from exxonmobil, that it shows a the bottom of the screen as opposed to it being endorsed or approved by the candidates? guest: the u.s. supreme court said in its recent decision to a year ago in citizens united that you may not limit the amount of money that an organization

spends for independent advertising, but they upheld the ability of congress to require disclosure. there's no reason congress could not require more robust disclosure than they do now. you don't know that it comes from exxonmobil especially if exxonmobil gives it to the chamber of commerce or some other middle organization, because the law does not require that, but it could. the answer to your question is you could no, but it's up to congress. man at something else? -- may i . congress came within one vote to passing stronger disclosure laws in congress, so they're not far away. people have to make this known that they want this. host: let's look at president

obama and third quarter fundraising from the associated press. expected to report around $55 million. guest: these are high numbers. we do not yet know the breakdown for a party fund-raising vs campaign fund-raising. $86 million in the second quarter was about half of it was party money. host: does that distinction matter? guest: it probably matters less for an incumbent. you could control the apparatus of the national committee. but party money has to be spent at least somewhat independently of the candidate.

whereas the candidate has spoken told over money that goes straight to his former campaign. host: the read something into it if one number is higher than the other? guest: no. if he's raising mostly party money, it tells me that he's getting a lot of money from people giving $50,000 as opposed $50. host: albany, new york, bryan, democrat. caller: it's been a great show so far. i'm in his class. at what point does it no longer become responsible when you are talking about president obama raising close to $1 billion for his upcoming campaign? then you have a 9% unemployment rate and people overall are not doing that great. at what point does it become

irresponsible to earn that much money? guest: the caller is asking a good question. why do candidates raise and spend so much? certainly an incumbent president is fully known to the public. it is impossible to say of this point what these outside spending groups may do. many candidates are raising money looking over one shoulder wondering what is coming up behind them. i am sure that is true not just of president obama but of many members of congress. in the last election when the president spent three-quarters of a billion that medvedev

organizations in all 50 states, then-senator obama. i assume he could do something like that again. it is up to the voters to decide whether you think it is irresponsible use of money. host: matt writes this on twitter. guest: they have to have a 4-2 go to decided that a broken the law. and it usually takes some time, well after a campaign, before they impose a penalty. so this has not been seen as a strong deterrent by many candidates. it divides on the

tradition of a lot or the bulls 3 division, thene3- there's no decision, no complaint filed and essentially the candidate is free. , democraticgo to ed caller in michigan. caller: i would like to say that this goes way back to the reagan administration. james baker, comes from a big oil company in texas, his cabinet went to texas and the secretary of commerce for busch 41. the cabinet went to texas and this data $100,000 arrangements. -- they set up $100,000

arrangements. then you hear exxon paid no income tax in 2009 or 2010. that enabled bush 41 to come in, whose closest friends were oil people. if it were not for that, we would never had the economy ruined. the american people not knowing the effects of big oil and this government, they own the republican party and they will not let them tax the companies, which is the richest corporation on earth. this should be all over the media. thank you. guest: the caller is correct in some of things. i want to make a correction, because there is an interesting distinction. mr. baker was raising money for

george h. w. bush and the texas rangers wre for george w. bush. ronald reagan was the candidate who most depended on small contributions before this don -- most successful before barack obama. he was the one candidate who received the maximum amount of public funds in our history, because he had so many small donors. ronald reagan would never have been president if it were not for public financing of elections. he was running as a challenger and was flat broke in january of 1976.

because he got public funds, he was able to make a credible race against an incumbent, gerald ford, and became the frontrunner for 1980. ronald reagan is almost a poster boy for why a public financing system can be important and why we ought to be looking at a system in which several of small donors is multiplied through matching funds rather than simply letting maxed out donors bed unlimited super pac's the main sources of funding. host: during the governor chris christie does not plan to run for president. alaska governor sarah palin says she does not plan to run -- former governor. do any candidates benefit financially from these two setting that they are out of the race, out of consideration to be in a race? do you see a shift in donors?

home depot co-founder has now said that he will endorse mitt romney. guest: yes, as soon as governor chris christie decided, all the people who were backing and started getting phone calls from mitt romney and rick perry's caps. -- camps. sarah palin would have been competing for the slot that rick perry has fully occupied by now, i think. so, this may -- or maybe a third candidate to newcomers -- candidate who shows well in the early states, but it will come from the candidates already in the field. we will see what happens with

herman cain and ron paul. there's no question about who the front runners are. host: would sarah palin have to pay back to the people who donated? guest: a political action committee and is a multi- candidate committee that supports other candidates. it does not support the campaign of that person. she is under no obligation. to a pac ono gave the expectation it would go to someone's campaign was making a mistake. host: lapel let's go to the elmira, new york. caller: what happens to all the money candidates made if they do not? guest: there's almost no campaign that at the end of the

day is left with much money in the bank. many of them are in debt by the end of the day. a couple of campaigns have had some left over such as john kerry, who in 2004 decided to take public funds. he was able to give the money to the political party. candidates can give unlimited amounts to the party. they save some money because they're bound to have ongoing legal and accounting costs. they can give limited amount of other candidates. the bulk will probably go to the party. host: looking at this story, judd gregg is giving his support to mitt romney. i am looking at a story on the cnn political tinker -- ticker.

how significant of these endorsements when it comes to fund-raising? guest: i think endorsements are significant on the ground particularly in the home state of the people involved. the two gentlemen mentioned have very good strong reputations in their home states. that will matter. it would matter less in the fund-raising. host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. talking with us about campaign fundraising for the presidential race so far. michael malbin, professor at the state univ >> we're joined by nancy kirk about her new article on the

working class. then on how credit unions differ from national banks. and about the national school lunch program. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. remarks from defense secretary leon panetta on the pentagon's budget priorities. secretary panetta took over as defense secretary after stepping down as cia director. but coverage from the wilson center at 1:00 p.m. eastern. -- live coverage from the wilson center at 1:00 p.m. eastern. next, a discussion on race and public policy. we will hear from civil rights activists and to academics. it is 2 hours 20 minutes.

>> good morning. you can do better than that. good morning. on behalf of our 37.6 million members, nearly 2 million of whom call the district of virginia home, as well as my colleague who is in the audience, it is our privilege and honor to be here for this

maiden voyage that george mason is embarking on to have a race and public policy conference. we're not talking just about issues which is too often are we stop the to get into some solutions. we have a distinguished panel. they have worked tirelessly to put together a program that we believe will change the land's to where we need to go not only as a company but as a world. we have tough times in front of us. we're in a situation where issues of race, gender, ethnicity, and aging are at the forefront of just about everything we do every day. we are so besieged by time in america in particular we have lost our intellectual curiosity. we do not know and we do not care that we do not know any

more. we have got to put something about that. to come to panels like this ready to listen. to come to panels like this ready to learn. most important one the opportunity arises and you have the occasion to be heard. to share in the learning we bring and the lives we lead so we can walk away from here and do not come back one year later and say, nothing has changed from 2011 to 2012. on behalf of the aarp family, we're delighted to be here. we were asked to participate and we jumped at the chance. we are honored to be here. i hope it will take as much away with you today as i have. enjoy. [applause]

>> thank you. this is a wonderful partnership for us in putting this conference together. i am the dean of the school of public policy here at george mason university. i am honored to be able to welcome you here today. to be part of a critical discussion about race and public policy. this is a critical issue for our nation in the world. it is an issue that has been neglected. it is a topic area. it is problematic for america to wrestle with. last night, i was re-reading oseph ellis's book on the

founding of america. i was struck by several critical points. the first i was struck by as i was reading and thinking about what we would be discussing this morning was a central point that many political scientists, many of you have studied and noted, which is that our identity and our policies are integrally linked. there is no way to think about what we're doing as a community without thinking about who we are and how we have defined to we are. and this has been a critical issue for the american nation, and for the american republic since they were created. since the founding. trying to understand who we are as a people, trying to understand what makes this a community and how we can find ourselves together and what that implies for our policies. in reverse, what our policies

imply about who we are as a people. what makes this an american people? what binds us together across races come across class, across gender, what pulled this together? this has been a critical problem for america since our founding. it is a problem that sometimes has been repressed but keeps coming back to the fore. and right now, in american history, if you look at the policy issues facing us and if you look at the discussions of we are as people, this is a critical point to address this question, for us to be looking at race and policy, to look at these two halves of the same american client, about who we are and how it is we're going to move forward together. how we're going to craft those domestic policies and those foreign policies that in turn redefine who we are and how it

is we can engage in a shared mission of building an american community, an american community that allows each of us to develop in our full list, that allows each of us to develop powerful human potential, and in doing so, allows us as a single, strong community to develop our potential as well. that is a critical discussion. i hope we can launch on that discussion. we're not going to finish that discussion today but launching on that today to begin a conversation i hope will bring each of us back to this room, back to this location, here at george mason university, over and over again as we wrestle with these questions of who we are, what their policy say, and

how our policies defined and redefined as. i want to thank all of us who have been involved. i want to thank professor mi chael fonteleroy. what you are bringing to this discussion is critical. what we will have today is an open exchange of ideas and views, wrestling with this question of policy and race. i would also like to thank those of you at the school who played a critical role in making the arrangements for today, and i would like to think our partner organizations as well, especially aarp for making this possible.

could i hand over the microphone? thank you. [applause] >> did morning. thank you very much for coming out this morning. i want to thank you for taking the time. there are other places you can be today. we're happy to welcome you to founders hope. -- founders hall. for what we hope is the first of many conferences. we will have a moment to introduce them as we go forward. please come in. i want to say that what we're

trying to do today is bill with a critical and important issue in america's future and is based on specific realities. in 2042 according to the census bureau, america will no longer have a majority race. while america has made great strides in its efforts to deal with questions of race and over coming its impact, there are numerous areas and for to many in which public policy has a racially disparate impact and results. from incarceration policies to electoral administration and voter registration requirements and from environment to finance, just to name a handful. there are still public policy questions that will be raised as a real and definite factor. that reality along with the

increasingly globalized world where we live suggests there is a greater likelihood that there are aspects of policy that will continue to have impacts that stretch across racial lines. what is worse is that in many cases, these impacts often go unnoticed. particularly in the communities that are most impacted by our policy decisions. that is part of what we want to do today is educate people about what is going on in some of these areas. their race is proving to be a difficult topic in america and our public discourse. to only we talk about it when the air is filled with the sand of racial controversy. an elected official makes an intemperate remark or sends an unfortunate e-mail. when political candidates employ racial symbolism to get votes. when a commentator purposely

fans the flames of racial animosity. alternatively, we often stick our collective heads in the sand as if it is no longer a factor in public policy. what is most unfortunate is that too often, legitimate questions about race and the intersection of greyson public policy are obscured for partisan and demagogic reasons. i hope this discussion will contribute to any discussion, a more informed view of race and public policy. to have that kind of discussion and have the kind of impact requires that we have people here who know what they're talking about. luckily, we have that group here today. i want you to meet our panel and i will ask you hold your

applause until i am able to introduce the mall. beginning with professor dean, a n associate professor of political science in connecticut. she conducts research in mass political behavior, crime and punishment, and political psychology. i am happy to say that she is author of the book "the politics of punishment in the united states." next is a professor in the department of women's studies at the university of maryland. her recent research focuses on the intersection of race, gender, the socio-economic status, may to become a and structural inequality with a focus on health and education. she is the author of "latinos in american society, family and

communities in transition." also an assistant professor at the university of arkansas. specializing in african american political behavior and is responsible for the poll of national attitudes on politics and public policy with a focus on the american south. wade henderson is president and ceo of the conference on civil and human rights. he is well known for his expertise. he is the author of numerous articles. he serves as a jr. professor of public interest law at the david a. clarke school of law at the university of the district of columbia. we have an associate professor

in the -- at the university of workers at camden. uthor of "keeping down the black vote". she has testified before the u.s. house committee on the judiciary about voter suppression. and jack white, who has a distinguished career in journalism. in the u.s. and in kenya. his , was critically and widely acclaimed and regularly tackled racial issues.

please join me in welcoming the panel. [applause] >> i want to begin with some historical framework come on , some context.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> drugs are pharmacologically almost identical. to treat them as if one is more dangerous than the other is to assign to the one you impose a greater benefit of danger or risk that is not justified by the evidence. the social consequence of that is to incarcerate thousands of more african-americans than others. the change is modest, but significant in another sense. but that change also eliminated for the first time on mandatory minimum for simple possession

that automatically brought five years of incarceration. this is the first mandatory minimum law we have changed since the nixon was in office in 1970. why did that come about? this is the period of high partisanship. we just said how difficult these efforts were. when you think about who helped bring it about. in the senate, it was driick durbin, chair of the subcommittee on civil rights, but also senator sessions, the senator from alabama, who is not known for being a liberal. the reason they collaborated was because of a host of factors that tapped into americans resentment of something that is inherently wrong, when you are able to demonstrate the facts, coupled with the fact that prisons are overcrowded at a level that was driving up state and federal budgets beyond their

ability to be managed pursuing the current drug policy of today. california is faced with absorbing perhaps as many as 40,000 prisoners from the california state system who are being released over a period of four years because of it an eighth of men and cruel and unusual punishment involving the prison systems. one of the reason that is happening is because maintaining a prison systems with the state budgets is breaking the back of the state economic policies. so i am thinking that, as we move forward, it is in our interest to try to frame solutions that have generic application to all persons in this country, not simply to black people. if you frame the issues and solutions that pertain only to black people, the inherent bias that comes into play with those policies will defeat your

ability to succeed. when you develop policies that have generic application and you can argue that it is in the national interest to make a fundamental change, you can succeed. so when you think about who the work force of the 24 center will be, think about the fact that you were losing 50% of your black and latino high school graduates. it will end up with a workforce that is dumb as dumps. unable to resolve an address the most challenging and sophisticated job requirements of today, much less tomorrow. and we are losing our status as the premier democracy in the world because we cannot keep pace with global demand for educated work forces. that is ultimately what will change the educational system of our country, not the hearts and flowers that we associate with the early days in advocacy on the civil rights movement.

you need both. not one or the other. we are at a point where those policy changes are kicking in, because there are different set of standards that are being applied and not merely the moral high ground we relied on an earlier point in time. >> sadly, we are out of time. i want to thank all of you for participating. i appreciate your time and effort and comment. we are going to take a pause and surely will come back with the international panel. thank you all very much. [applause] >> coming up on c-span, remarks

from reposits -- republican presidential candidates mitt romney and jon huntsman. both candidates are campaigning in new hampshire. topics on "washington journal" include the u.s. economy, credit unions, and the nation's school lunch program. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. today, a discussion on consumer privacy and internet regulations. this event is co hosted by a number of organizations concerned about privacy issues and internet advertising. we will hear from the american civil liberty units, the electronic privacy information center, and the consumer federation of america, plus the chairman of the federal trade commission. live coverage at 8:50 a.m. eastern on c-span-2. later, a former attorney general michael mukasey and john ashcroft will talk about national security and the u.s.

constitution. the discussion is moderated by former attorney general edwin meese who served in the reagan administration. that is live from the heritage foundation on c-span-2 at noon eastern. now presidential candidate jon huntsman talks about his foreign policy plan. a former u.s. ambassador to china and utah governor spoke at southern new hampshire university. the event was hosted by the world affairs council of new hampshire. this is about an hour. >> good morning. i am the director of the world affairs council. we are pleased you are joining us for foreign policy

conversations with the candidates. our mission as a non-profit, non-partisan organization is to promote understanding of world affairs. that goal is never more critical than in a presidential primary. in the last midterm election, less than 10% of americans reported considering foreign policy when voting, despite the fact that domestic issues are linked with world affairs. it is now our national initiative of the world affairs council to engage america in the most pressing daschle security issues facing our country. here at the world affairs council of new hampshire we hope that by offering a platform for the public to discuss foreign policy, voters will be better educated on how local issues affect their lives heading to the ballot box next year. to find out more about our local .org.amming, visit wacnh i am honored to welcome governor tom ridge. please join me in welcoming

governor tom ridge. [applause] >> thank you very much for that very warm and gracious reception on such a beautiful day in this beautiful state. thank you very, very much. i spend most of my life and public service and i look back on the years that iwa was getting a government paycheck. i remember the 12 years i spent in washington d.c. as a congressman, and six of those 12 years occurred when ronald reagan was president. and i remember america in 1981 and 1982, the economy was suffering, and the notion was that we still have to cut taxes and stay the course. and from that pivotal moment, that challenging election, the economy gets stronger and we

became even more engaged in the rest of the world under president reagan's leadership. as i took a look around at the potential republican candidates, and there are some fine people running, i said who in this field of men and women is equipped with the experience, and frankly, the mindset to deal with creating economic strength at home and projecting america's authority and influence in a positive way around the world? and i decided a long time ago that that man had served as governor, businessman, and he'd served as ambassador and a critical part of the world, first in singapore and then in china. there are a lot of trends in america that are alarming. we have political isolationists. they want to disengage from the rest of the world. there are people like yours

truly, and i believe governor jon huntsman says we need to be more engaged. perhaps in a different way, but we will not withdraw from responsibilities. as i take a look at the governor's record back home, leaving the country in job creation, relalally doing it the reagan way. you cut taxes, streamlined government, you make it accountable. understand that there are people there that need your help. and so that intersection of both projected economic strength and the ability to protect our values, not just our military, but our values. america has a brand. a brand is our value system. part of that brand is that we know how to create jobs in america because it cannot be secure unless you are prosperous and you cannot be prosperous unless you are secure. so for the economic

protectionist you say no. 190 plus countries are potential markets for us. not only does the republican party but this country need someone who understands that the intersect. they do not collide. will the economy at home, you project your influence, your value system overseas. that's the reagan way. that is what we did 30 years ago. we have lost deptthat way. i think my party and my country needs governor jon huntsman to be president pierre he understands they are linked. he understands as president reagan did that there is peace through strength and not just military strength. there is the soft power of our values and the strength of our economy. i was to reassert publicly my admiration for his experience and my confidence in his ability to lead this country the complex and challenging times in the

years ahead. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. now, to begin our program, i would also like to introduce the dean of southern new hampshire university school of business. and just to thank again southern new hampshire university for being our mission partner in helping us present this program today. please join me in welcoming the dean. [applause] >> thank you. on behalf of southern new hampshire university and the world affairs council, i would like to welcome the governor back to the state and to the university. i would like to thank him again for his inspiration remarks to our treasury students last may. as governor jon huntsman brings

his international expertise to bear in setting out his vision for our countries foreign policy, it is quite fitting that he chose an american university as the backdrop. higher education in the u.s. remains the world's gold standard. an area where we continue to lead all nations. southern new hampshire in particular, with over 900 international students on campus, has a strong tradition of reaching out in the international sphere and fostering communication and understanding with students from around the globe. in addition, we host the world affairs council of new hampshire and its excellent programming to promote understanding of international affairs in the state. as a former ambassador to china and offering three administrations his foreign- policy expertise, the governor has unmatched experience in the international sphere and as have the in -- a unique vantage point of representing the u.s. and china and dealing directly with the u.chinese government.

he brings a valuable and on par la perspective on the role of the u.s. in the world today. southern new hampshire and universe is a privilege to welcome governor jon huntsman to our campus. [applause] >> thank you. bill, thank you very much. and anna, thank you for your leadership and your willingness to host this event today. to governor tom ridge, my great friend, someone who i admire and looked up to enormously, one of the great public servants of my generation, and to ambassador gray who is here, it is an honor you. toyowith to the state representatives, paul chevalier, my good friend, who does so much for veterans,

it is an honor to be here. is my second time to southern new hampshire university. i was the commencement speaker a few short months ago. i am reminded of the chance to give a second show at this great institution. i'm i am reminded of a bit of repartee that took place between winston churchill and george bernard shaw in the post- world war ii to period. george bernard shaw was in town opening for the play pygmalion, my fair lady, and he sent an invitation to prime minister winston churchill in which she said, dear prime minister, enclosed please find two tickets for the opening night of my play. one for you, and one for a friend if you have one. [laughter] undaunted, church or road map, dear mr. shaw, due to the press

of business, i cannot attend the first show, but would be delighted to attend the second show if there is one. show, given be a second and for that i am grateful. now, the president's approach to foreign affairs, how he or she views of the world and america's role of the world stage as perhaps the most critical function of that sickert office. this is untrue throughout our nation's history, whether it was harry truman in the dawn of the atomic age, kennedy in the cuban missile crisis, reagan and the soviet union. but it has never been more critical than today. we are a nation mired in multiple military entanglements oversee, and in the grips of an economic crisis here home. these are tumultuous times, not just for our nation but all nations -- instability in the

middle east, debt crisis across europe, and the looming threat of nuclear corporation. paul restoration. the world needs american leadership. we are struggling to provide it. president obama's policies have weakened america . and thus diminished america's presence on the global stage. we must correct our course. i have lived overseas four times. i have seen the world as a diplomat serving three times as the united states ambassador. i have seen it as a businessman. i have seen it as a humanitarian. i have lived in seeing what our most significant competitor nations are doing to prepare for the rest of the 21st century. and i have a very clear vision of what america must do as well. i believe united states has a

generational opportunity to redefine its place in the world and we claim the mantle, of global leadership. my administration's approach to foreign affairs would be guided by that which defines american exceptionalism, and that is our values -- liberty, democracy, human rights, free markets. america's values, ladies and gentlemen, are america's best gift to humanity. to those nations to share our values, and who we call our friends and allies, we will restore trust and strengthen our bonds both economically and militarily. to those nations to continue to resist the unstoppable march of human, political, and economic freedom, we will make clear that they are on the wrong side of history by insuring that america's light shines bright in

every corner of the), representing a beacon of hope and inspiration. we will establish a foreign policy doctrine that reflects our modern world. simply advocating more ships, more troops, and more weapons is not a viable path forward. we need more agility, more intelligence, and more economic engagement with the world. so how will we do this? in short, erase the old map and nation-building, engage our allies, and fix our core. this is how we will fight the enemy we have and renew american exceptionalism. today i would like to discuss the five planks which will comprise my administration's foreign policy. number one, first and foremost,

we must rebuild america's core. at this critical juncture in history, our nation's greatest challenge does not emanate from outside our borders but from within. nearly 15 million of our fellow americans are unemployed, denied the dignity of a job. millions more are so dispirited that they have given up even looking. our national debt continues to st. george on a sustainable levels and is itself a national security let -- continues to st. towards unsustainable levels. -- right here the sheriff told me that for the first time ever, his folks are handing out foreclosure notices to the middle class. all this after trillions of dollars in government spending and massive bailout. our nation's core is weak.

our people are hurting. and america cannot project abroad when we are weak at home. it is increasingly evident that we have lost leverage in the international community. in just the past few weeks, we saw the palestinians make an end run all around the american-led peace process because they lost confidence in it and in our ability to lead. the world is a better place when america leads. the world is a safer place when america leads. and our interests are best served when america leads. but to lead abroad, we must regain strength at home. returning people to work, reducing our debt, restoring confidence in our future -- fixing america first -- that will be my most urgent priority.

it will require more than half measures. it will require serious, bold reforms to our tax and regulatory systems. reforms that i have offered as part of a plan that one economist calls the most pro- growth proposal ever offered by a presidential candidate. i will drop that plan on the front steps of congress and on day one. and will not stop fighting until we get the job done. number two, we need a foreign policy of expansion not containment. today we need a foreign policy based on expansion. the expansion of america's competitiveness. and engagement in the world through partnerships and trade agreements. free trade supports nearly 18 million american jobs. and establishing new lines of trade with international

partners represents an enormous well of untapped economic and political goodwill. 95% of the world customers live outside of our borders . yet the u.s. is party to only 17 of the more than 300 trade agreements worldwide. we will particularly see greater trade opportunities with nations that share our values and believe in good government, open markets and rule of law as well as nations willing to engage in reform efforts toward those ends. it starts with passing the three pending trade deals with south korea, colombia, and can, which president obama has resisted for three years. and which could boost american exports by more than $10 billion and create tens of thousands of american jobs. we should aggressively push for

the conclusion of the trans pacific partnership which will open markets in australia, chilly, malaysia, new zealand, peru, singapore, and vietnam. we should pursue trade agreements with japan and taiwan. we need to pursue free trade agreement as aggressively as china. china is in the game. we are not. america must also support the doha development read, aimed at promoting trade between developed and developing nations. this is an opportunity for the unstoppable tide of economic advancement to lift all ships and it falls to america to lead this effort, because no one else can. energy independence is another critical piece of not only our foreign policy but our economic

policy. every year america sends more than $300 billion overseas for imported oil, much of it to the middle east. those days should come to an end. i've offered a comprehensive plan to free ourselves from opec's grasp by relying more on domestic supplies of oil and gas . to the benefit of our national and economic security. number 3, we must right size our current foreign entanglements. simply put -- we are risking american blood and treasure in parts of the world where our strategy needs to be rethought. afghanistan was once the center of the terrorist threat to america. that is no longer the case. the soviets were there for nine years before they left with over 14,000 dead. they try to crush the afghans

with power. aerial bombing, and strafing and helicopter gunships and tanks. we have been there for 10 years and are taking a different approach. we are nation-building. our presence there should not focus on nation-building, however, but rather on counter- terrorism. we cannot social engineer other countries. we cannot even social engineer our own inner cities. it is cultural arrogance to think we can make tribal leaders and to democratic leaders . it is wishful thinking to believe that our troops, by staying for a couple more years will prevent further instability or even civil war. our men and women in uniform have done their all, given their all in afghanistan and iraq. they have rounded the taliban and a cripple the al qaeda.

they have taken the fight abroad so we do not have to face it here at home. our nation has done its duty. after 6000 lives lost and more than $1 trillion spent, it is time to bring our brave troops home. and as they return, we will take care of them and help our veterans transition from the battlefield to the home front. and by doing so, remind every citizen in this country how much we value those who are willing to put their lives between our freedom and the enemy. in afghanistan, we could go from 100,000 boots on the ground to a much smaller footprint in the year, while leaving behind an adequate number of counter terrorist and intelligence functions and a facile special

forces' presence. i believe we should. as for the argument that are exit will destabilize pakistan, pakistanthi truth is only can save pakistan. only afghanistan can save afghanistan. right now we should focus on america's saving america. the hindu is not in kushh mountains. it is in the schools and universities that educate our leaders and our entrepreneurs of tomorrow. it is in silicon valley. it is in the industrial corridors of the midwest. it is in our farms and our factories, and all reports that ship our products to the rest of the world. let me be clear. pakistan, which possesses a demonstrated nuclear weapons capability and a fractured military that sponsors terrorism, does demand u.s. attention. yet, we must acknowledge certain

realities as we consider the wisest way ford. -- way forward. this is not a relationship based on shared values. it is transactional at best. many americans are rightly suspicious of islamabad in the wake of the osama bin laden operation. likewise, despite billions of dollars in aid, the u.s. is held in very low esteem throughout the country. we cannot dictate fundamental changes upon and age old civilization from afar. but make no mistake -- as president, all i will protect american security interests in pakistan without being naive long-termmabad's interest. there is another advantage to a more judicious approach towards foreign entanglements. it helps prevent our military from being stretched too thin and unable to effectively

respond to a direct security threat either to america or one of our allies. this includes standing shoulder to shoulder with israel, as they manage a host of new challenges brought on the arab spring, along with more familiar challenges such as a hostile iran, which will continue to be a transcendent challenge of the next decade. i cannot live with the nuclear arms or ron. -- iran. if you one example of one would consider the use of american force it would be dead. or re-examination of america's role in the world also requires a re-examination of our military and defense infrastructure. it may surprise some people to learn that we spend more on defense today than we did at the height of the cold war.

we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. we still have remnants of a top heavy, post cold war infrastructure. needs to be transformed to reflect the 21st century world. and the growing asymmetrical threats that we face. for example, counter-terrorism needs to be a much larger part of our foreign policy. we must be prepared to respond to threats from al qaeda and other terrorist cells which emanate from much more diverse geography, including yemen, the horn of africa, pakistan, and the asia-pacific region. we must also attacked -- adapt our defenses to evolving means of attack. this means a greater focus on intelligence gathering and a more agile special forces projection capability, which can respond swiftly and firmly to terrorist threats in any corner

of the globe. the traditional roles and missions of our armed forces will remain relevant for the foreseeable future. but the relative importance of counter-terrorism, intelligence gathering, training and equipping a foreign security forces and special forces operations will continue to grow going forward. we must also transform our orientation. i have come to believe that we are embarking on the asia- pacific century in which america must and will laplay a a dominat role. population, economic power, military might, energy use, the center of gravity, global human activity is moving towards the pacific region. embrace in this reality may bring a dramatic change to the look of our military.

the asia-pacific region is a maritime theater. whereas europe was mostly a land theater. for the u.s., the asia-pacific features a collection of bilateral military alliances in contrast to the presence of nato. in the asia-pacific is full of disputed islands and resource claims when compared to the relative calm of other regions. we are a pacific nation, and our vital interest in that region cannot be compromised. number four, we must strengthen our relationships with the major powers of the world. our traditional alliance relationships with europe remain vital to american security. and we should also work closely with our friends in nato and the european union to bring russia, a sometimes difficult actor, closer to the west. but i believe that the re- emergence of two ancient lands,

china and india, will most influence how american navigates the 21st century. first china. there is no other relationship that is mismanaged, carries a greater negative consequences for america and the world. stewardshipy, whwise of the u.s.-china relationship will make america and our allies safer and prosperous. the stakes are enormous, as are the challenges and the opportunities. naturally, we will disagree often. whether over taiwan, human rights, or the protection of international property rights. while avoiding a trade war, we must also press china to open its markets to our exports and increased internal demand, so china's growth is not at the

expense of our workers. yet a fundamental question is -- will we also find areas of cooperation? our relationship with china has been a transactional one for 40 years. we buy their products. they buy our bonds secured but for a truly healthy relationship, we need to infuse the u.s.-china relationship with shared values. until that time, we should begin to build a broader and more cooperative agenda. united states and china can and should today's start cooperating on clean energy technologies. combating global pandemic and countering piracy on the high seas. we must also strengthen our relationship with india, a country that shares our values -- religious tolerance, respect for human rights, and a commitment to democracy. we must begin with negotiations

to reach an eventual trade agreement creating hundreds of millions of additional consumers for american products. but our relationship with india needs to go beyond simply economics. the arc of countries that lie along the indian ocean for some of the most important energy and trading lanes in the entire world. those lanes are critical for the free flow of commerce and remain vulnerable to threats large and small. i welcome the indian navy's transformation to a blue water navy. as president, in will increase -- i will increase our military and diplomatic cooperation with india with the expectation they share responsibility in maintaining peace and security in this vital region. and recognizing india's emerging role, i will

support their bid to become a permanent member of the u.n. security council. as a country representing 1/6 of humanity. fifth, finally, we must take care of our own neighborhood. for too long, the u.s. has neglected its commitment to the countries in our backyard, of the western hemisphere. the result is lost opportunities, strained relations, and escalating security challenges. latin america is not only a neighbor with whom we share a rich history. it is also a major source of untapped economic opportunity. the u.s. exports three times as much to let america as we do to china. but many nations in our hemisphere are experiencing at terrifying search in violence. that threatens to disrupt this progress.

the wave of bloodshed that has swept over mexico, the result of corruption and collusion with drug cartels, has left 35,000 people dead. creating casualties even inside america's borders. mexico stands ready to work with the u.s. in combating the drug war, and we should commit to continue cooperation, including enhanced military to military engagement. in guatemala, escalating violence is resulting in an average of 55 murders per week. threatening an already overloaded justice system. these problems, though, are not contained in guatemala's borders. the country has emerged as a funnel for regional markell criminal activity, threatening our neighbors and ourselves. as president, i will not accept the status quo. i will support our neighbors to

quickly and sternly eliminate these narco-terrorist. columbia offers a fine example of the benefits of american engagement and investment in our hemisphere. after years of drug violence, colombia, initially under the leadership of president muribi, weakened the drug cartels what professionalizing its military and police. aspires to be a regional leader and they are well on their way. there is tremendous potential within brazil, the world's fifth largest country and seventh largest economy. it is rich with opportunity in the energy and technology industries, which we should recognize with the initiation of bilateral trade negotiations.

we must not forget that peace and prosperity throughout our neighborhood promotes peace and prosperity at home. i'd like to close by sharing a thought my time and china. a motion in one of the most powerful things i did as ambassador -- emotionally one of the most powerful things i did as investor was meet with dissidents. i would do this frequently. sometimes i would go to them. sometimes they would come to the embassy. we did this quietly. it was a real peril for them and also closed some official doors to meet. but what was always clear to me it was that those seeking reform and change drew strength from our nation's values.

the openness, the freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and press. half a world away, they could see this country's light. dissidents around the world can see our nation's light. all the troops in the world cannot give you that light. you either have it or you don't. that is america's value in the world today. when we signed our light abroad, magnified by a strong core at home, we are invincible. ronald reagan said that america was an empire of ideals. ladies and gentlemen, if we maintain our empire of ideals, not only will we further the cause of liberty, human-rights, free markets, and free enterprise abroad, we will strengthen it right here at

home. and that is a cause around which all our citizens can and must unite. thank you for inviting me and for providing such warm hospitality. it is an honor to be with you all. [applause] thank you. thank you. >> we have time for a few questions. >> yes, sir? >> thank you for your thoughtful remarks. one of the things that you criticize the obama administration for was there failure resulting in the palestinians going to the un for a vote on statehood. knowing that israeli settlement activity is that major bar to

direct negotiations between the parties, what would you have done, or what will you do to make negotiations have been directly between the israelis and palestinians? >> get back to the madrid understanding. get back to some of the progress made during camp david accord. look at what has worked in the past. we must recognize that in a region of change, now might not be the time for negotiations. we have to listen very carefully to what leadership in israel has to say about the timing issue. and if now is not the time, i do not think we can force the process. but what we can do during this time of uncertainty is to stand shoulder to shoulder with israel, and remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. this we have not done in a very long time. and so long as there is no blue sky between the united states and israel, it does not matter

what plays out in the region. so long as we are focused on israel's security and our strong alliance, it does not matter if there is a period of uncertainty like we have seen in generations past. that is what today i think is most important, is that public articulation to the world about what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. now that is a statement that needs to be made with respect to israel. thank you. [applause] >> with your experience in china and so forth and their unwillingness to change the dollar value, would you put a tax on the -- products that come in to united states? >> china is moving its currency. although the progress has been

painfully slow. when you look at the progress over the past year, it has been 5% or 8%, when you look at the currency and a factor in inflation that is running at 5% in china. together they have to be looked at to get your net movement on the run anenmimbi. they are moving up because the u.s. or europe is telling to move, but because they are making a transition from the largest export machine this world has ever seen to a more consumption-based model. in order to allow the middle class to move up the economic ladder, they have to have a currency that is more tied to market value than where it is today, being 17% or 20% discounted. so they are moving based upon their own domestic interest cured of it like to say that the u.s. based on the pressure we put on them and have for a long time are causing the movement. i think that is part of that. in large part, the chinese are moving because it is in their interest to move. what i would like to see as

president is to take the message coming out of capitol hill, which is we are going to move forward with legislation that has come out of the senate and house, i think ultimately, that in practice would be bad, because it would result in a trade war. the last thing you need between the two top economies in the world is a trade war. particularly during a recession, for heaven's sake. it would impact all of the people that could little afford a trade war -- small businesses, our exporters who are just trying to get back on their feet. i would take that congress and sit down with the leadership of china and the great hall of the people and said, here is where my congress is coming from. we need to be moving that currency ford a little bit faster and more aggressively. you need leverage in order to get things done with the chinese. and part of my speech in getting back to strengthening our core is because that i realize in negotiations with the chinese

and beyond, we need leverage. traditionally our leverage has been a strong economy. where we are able to negotiate trade alliances which are of greater value to most countries than anything else. when our economy is weak, we have little value or leverage in negotiations. so does the will of congress and what they're talking about provide leverage at a time when we could use it? absolutely, it does. but let's recognize longer-term and the u.s.-china relationship -- we will have our ups and downs now that we are reflecting on that 40 years of that relationship. restarted in 1972. we have gone from zero in trade to $400 billion in trade, soon to be the largest economic relationship the world's ever known. student exchanges lead the world. there are a lot of things that are good long-term. why? because china reform and opening markets and doing more to protect internet short -- the intellectual property rights will allow more of our exports as their consumer base

strengthens over time. that is good for us. that is a job creator. for every $1 billion you get into the china market, that is 12,000 jobs you create on the home front. that is a good thing. i would like to see our ability to find more and the way of areas of collaboration with china. we know where we disagree. those disagreements will be tough, and there will be profound, and they will be broadcast in the headlines to the rest of the world. but in order to balance what i think is the most important relationship as far as the eye can see in the 21st century, we also must do some work in terms of finding areas that are considered common ground, areas of commonality, whether that is a regional security, economic re-balancing, new energy technologies, or breakthroughs in human disease. there are some things we should be working on where we can bring it that which we both have an abundance and strength and trying to improve humankind. take attacking pandemics in sub

sarahaharan africa. the 21st century will be this century in which the united states and china tried to forge a relationship economically, politically, from a military standpoint that is sustainable. we have a lot of work to go. and it will require the kind of leadership that understands in intimate detail how the tiny system operates. knows their players. -- in intimate detail how the chinese system operates. i am looking forward to using the experience to help my country. >> i hope you can control congress. [laughter] >> thank you. [applause] right down here. yes, ma'am. >> i like what you said about india. i think it makes a lot of sense.

moving higher up with the un, and given the size of the population, but given the strained relationship with our country and pakistan, does that not provoke pakistan? >> of course it would provoke pakistan, and we have seen what they have done. they make certain diplomatic gestures to china to cut counteract what it is we do. but i think in the name of security in south asia, a strong u.s.-indian relationship will be critical longer term. i think it serves our economic interests and our security and our military interest in providing greater stability in what traditionally has been a troubled part of the world. i like the idea of fortified a bilateral relationship with india that allows us more and ability to see, understand, and interpret what is happening in the heart of south asia. we need more intelligence. we need to know where the bad

actors are -- who is finding them. we need to better understand the madrasah movement, the way young people are educated. i think the strong relationship with india will allow us to gain more of that kind of understanding, which longer term, service not only our security interests but the security interests of the region and the world. >> we have time for one more question. >> yes, sir? good to see you. >> thank you. in your speech, he did not mention the united nations at all. i have two opposite questions. first, do you see the united nations as declining in influence in the world? separately, d.c. united nations potentially threatening the sovereignty -- do you see the un threat in the sovereignty of the united states? >> i see the u.n. playing a useful role in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. some of that work has been done

well. what i do not like is the inherent anti-americanism that i find exist within the united nations . and at times and anti-israel bias. that concerns me. as we are able to get on our feet economically and regain our leverage by rebuilding our economic core, that allows us to do more on a bilateral action should with other countries. make no mistake. the u.n. does not lead the world. the u.s. leads the world. and we're in a much better position to be able to do that by having a stronger economic foundation and shoring up relationships with friends and allies who need to be reminded what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. thank you all so very much for having me. thank you. [applause] thank you.

>> thank you to governor huntsman for joining us and to all of you for being here today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [inaudible]

>> [man speaking chinese] >> sure. come on donw here. take picture. hey, how are you? >> nice to meet you. >> it's a pleasure. a great host here. >> you're welcome. >> i wantetd to thank you, you did the speech.

you give me advice. i am a student. >> terrific. >> thank you. thanks for being here. thanks for tuning in. good to see you. thanks for bein ghere. g here. who's got the camera? >> thanks for being here. i appreciate it. >> thank you so much. >> thanks for driving all that way.

how are you? >> good. >> [inaudible] >> how old are you? >> i'm 10. >> what's your name? how old are you? >> 12. >> i have a daughter that's 12. how old are you? >> 9. >> i hope you guys took in everything i said. did you write it down? yep. you liked that part. >> y ou have time for a quick one? >> yeah. >> that'd be great. thank you.

thank you. >> you're very kind. >> [inaudible]

>> i am a retired navy captain. world war ii. my son-in law is head of -- >> my goodness. i followed his career.

in hong kong.im that was years ago. he's retired. [inaudible] >> have you read the book "monsoon?" >> no. >> it talks about the indian ocean and how that will be the center of activity in the next century. century. >>