mississippi river system. that, by definition, is as up- to-date as possible. will that beoperating manual mo? >> no, senator. it won't be the operating manual for the misery, if that is what you are referring to. >> what about operating the -- updating the operation manual? >> i will defer to the man from missouri and mississippi. >> thank you, senator. there are several means to make adjustments to how we manage this system. annually, we go through the annual operating process, and that is a public process that

begins next monday and omaha. we will conduct a series of eight public meetings in each of the eight basin states. that will feed our immediate plans for how we anticipate operating the system through the calendar year 12. the master manual that was alluded to earlier, the document that backstops the annual operating plan, a document that fundamentally allocates across purposes how the water is allocated to meet those eight authorized purposes. it is a public process. we have discretionary authority to adjust that on a one-year basis. longer-term, we need to go through a public process. >> my time is basically up. in general, what is the

timetable for updating that a manual? >> it will fundamentally depend, but the independent external review of water management operations will help us decide whether or not to undertake that revision and to what scope and scale based on recommendations will come from that panel. >> is the evidence pretty strong that given this extraordinary event and given new data, and that this is the moment in time that you would want to update of the manual? >> we have a new hydrological datapoint that makes us take that into consideration very seriously. >> what is a realistic time frame for updating that long- term manual? >> anywhere from 1 to x years. >> x is pretty open-ended.

i just want to point out that that gives us the possibility of many additional flood the season's with an arguably outdated manuals, and given the extraordinary nature of this recent event, i would encourage a real focus on upgrading the long-term annual relatively quickly. >> yes, sir. >> let me thank you not only for your testimony, but for your service to our country. we appreciate the professionalism in which to operate, these very stressful issues. that will complete this panel. we will now turn to our next panel, we have the number of interests represented including broad and a national perspectives across the impacted region. we welcome dr. gerald galloway

from the university of maryland. we're very proud to have a person from the university of maryland here. the executive director of the association of state floodplain managers. the president of the lower missouri coordinated research council, had the president of the montana association of conservation districts. the civil engineer for ocean city, maryland. capt. marino, president of the associated branch pilots. the director of the nebraska department of natural resources, and the mayor of memphis, tennessee. i think you all very much for your patience, and i will ask that you try to convince your opening comments to 3/4 minutes. we will let you go over if you

need to. the reason is that we need to adjourn the hearing by 12:45. we will start with dr. galloway. >> is a privilege to be here. the disaster floods for 2011 impacted many parts of the country, and while that is the critical focus of the meeting today, i would like to talk about the future. i would make two comments about the testimony we just heard. it is interesting that on the missouri river, the issue of how it is to be operated has been the subject of much discussion. 1 national academy report that says the answer lies on the hill with the resolution of conflicting laws and regulations and guidelines on how to operate. the second part is the court case in 2004 were a federal judge looked at the complications and made the decision that congress needed to

do something about that. there are two issues of management of the misery that requires some work up here. i would note that other than the mississippi river and tributaries project, venation essentially does not have a flood control system. we have talked about that, there is no national plan, we don't have a national goal or objective. population growth will make that even worse. i would like to give you a few thoughts on where that should go. we use flood management as the flood control, because there is a shift on reducing flood damages by trying to control where flood waters go into accepting the premise that floods are natural events and only through a portfolio as you just mentioned of green and not structural infrastructure, can

we minimize or reduce the damages. but risk-management also in such a proposition that absolute protection is not possible. let me highlight a few reasons why the current approach is not up to the task. i have four major points that i will quickly go through. in 1994, and white house study, i reported to this same committee. we pointed out that we have no goals and objectives and that the responsibility for how we manage floods is scattered between the federal, state, and local governments. clearly, we need to come up with some sort of solution as to who is responsible for what. you directed the secretary of the army to revise principles and guidelines to reflect flood related policies that you included in nearly four years later, it hasn't reached the hill.

day at a local government have responsibility for land use management. that continues in high risk areas. in most cases, states have been absent from the management and oversight of levees, that has been left to the federal of government. individual property owners don't share and irresponsibility as much as they should. the participation of people that live in the flood plain, even when it is mandatory, to somewhere near 25% penetration, floodplain residents don't see a need for them to carry part of the responsibility. we face significant flood risks in this country, and many people do not understand or appreciate the risk that they face. we don't know or seem to be willing to find out natural exposure to the risk of flooding. third, much of the flock -- populated sit behind or below

uncoordinated amalgams of federal, state, at a local levees and dams. estimates indicate that there are 100,000 miles of levees in this country, 14,000 fall under the corps of engineers or some other form of federal oversight. the american society for civil engineers gave d- to levy and d to dams. they recognize the urgency of the situation to establish the levy safety program to look after the situation and make recommendations to the congress in 180 days. january of 2009, they turned in a report to the administration. you have not acted on and even though the report is available to you. nothing has been done to move ahead on the well thought out recommendations that you require active state and local

involvement. the third part is finding. congress and the administration must come to grips with funding for this infrastructure. they suggest it would be a five- year $50 billion burden to deal with of the levees, or a $5 billion, five-year program. other related structures remain part of a national approach to deal with flooding, resources must be identified and provided within a federal, state, local private partnership. every day, funding is postponed, problems grow larger. we talk about integrated management, but we don't act that way. a project in one community can cause problems upstream and downstream. congress authorizes individual

projects. that is not the right way to go. i will conclude by saying that managing the risk presents a serious challenge that we have known about for two decades. but i extend? not all of your statements will be included in the record without objection. >> i will truncate my remarks. i hope that the committee recognizes that the flood control system is an amalgamation of various things. it is programs and various federal agencies. we talk about fema, the watershed programs on and on. through and 20,000 flood prone

communities in 50 states, they're the ones that have the primary responsibility for reducing 5 loss and protecting public safety. we have a mishmash of activities. in 2008, in my view, we dodged a bullet. you can look at it two ways. i think it is important to recognize that it was a lot of the so-called systems that were really on the edge. we were really close to catastrophe. some of the reasons for that senator baucus talked about. take the mississippi river. we wonder how we can constrain these maximum flood events during those times of heavy flooding.

when she tries to reclaim that flood plain. in the northeast, there are many different systems. there aren't as many systems that there are individual projects. i am not sure that is all bad, it is just the way it is, and we need to recognize that. the question for 2011 is whether these were at the. the answer is, they warn. how he can tell you that, but they worked. lead to recognize that they weren't and we're going to see more and more of these kinds of events. a thousand years of and in national, a couple more of these events, it is all based on statistics in the past. these things change over time and we need to recognize that. our current systems and programs and policies and practices are inadequate.

i think this year, 2011 was the event. let me mention four things quickly that i think you could address as overarching objectives. first, a comprehensive review of our policies of 20 years and 50 years from now. assessing the infrastructure, how many people are at risk. finishing up the administration, establishing a national policy framework. a bank that is an important element. how we manage dams, levees, rivers, and all happened under this rubric of a flood risk management approach. we think about how we do that. we have many other recommendations and will be pleased to work with the committee to make the nation more sustainable and recognize the costs and benefits from

flooding. >> members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. i grow high quality barley and sugar beets on the missouri river bottoms in northeast montana. my family for 97 years has been working down the stream, the first on the missouri river system. i also represent irrigation interest for the recovery implementation. this was a difficult summer watching floodwaters' drown my crops. my heart goes out to all those that have suffered flood damage and those that had damages to their homes. conditions responsible for the 2011 river flooding began in the fall of 2010, the rain resulted in wet soil before freeze up. it didn't allow moisture from melting snow to enter the soil

and it ran off, filling every pot will and wetland and over half of the annual flood control zone. when the record rain came in may, it fell on saturated soil and ran off. it continued to grow and reached 141%. the combination of these events resulted in the record flooding of 2011. earlier recognition of the flood of improve response. farmers have watched a hailstorm why out and come understand what it is like to be at the mercy of nature. they could not have forseen the record rainfall. it is easy to judge with the benefit of hindsight. it is much harder when nature keeps throwing more water your way. the sooner significant flood events can be recognized in the

pre release, improvement in overall flood control and be achieved. earlier recognition may have decreased the maximum releases. average runoff is -- by september, it was 61 million acres. it would have increased the safety, and the flood tunnel and were not available for use because of severe vibration at the gate. some of the other dams were shut down because of inspection and repair. this wasn't an option. authority has been requested for a placement, but not approve. mainstream dams and structures in accordance with the master manual and existing law. the downstream residents have time to prepare, plan, and

removed possessions from harm's way. the national weather service forecast was extremely helpful. this forecast predicts rivers five days forward. with abrupterreact changes, it doesn't make good sense to manage the system for an event that occurs once in 500 years. it is the foundation for long- term decisions and investments both private and public. with a revision completed in 2003, the master manual has provided a contentious base. there is path management of the system for flood control hydropower, navigation, water supply irrigation, recreation and wildlife. the first is to provide more space in the reservoirs at a detriment to other authorized purposes.

my choice is to improve recognition of significant events. the annual operating plan begins each new year at a normal or average starting point where we rarely have an average year. ,he mountain's snow package using variables like soil moisture and climate trends. we should also look at events, the definite correlations of the 70's 80's 90's and this year. the temperature phenomenon shows promise as a predictor of precipitation in the northern plains. we also need to ensure adequate funding for u.s. stream gauges. as federal budgets have tightened, the gauges are a critical link in flood control

and can't be defended on sources of funding. without any bitterness, he says the river has been good to me for many years. >> is about a three-hour drive east of here. all of the population is only about 7000, over 8 million visitors each year, and on an average summer weekend, the population swells to 300,000 people. this makes ocean city the second largest city in maryland in the summertime. within that small area, we have 28,000 living in its dividing over $10 billion. our greatest risk is ocean flooding from tropical and extra tropical storm event.

tropical storm gloria passed just off shore of ocean city. the storm destroyed the boardwalk and damage or undermine the foundations of numerous buildings with virtually no beach or dune system. ocean city was at a crossroads. it was right around this time the beach replenishment came recognized for strategy and the miami beach project was completed, proving to be very successful. studies show that if the platform itself could be stabilized, a positive cost benefit and a short production project could occur. to that end, the local and state governments completed the phase one of the beach replenishment project using 100% local funds. the ocean city beach was widened to create a suitable foundation for a federal project. in 1990, the shoreline protection project began construction.

the project built 8.3 miles of new sand dunes, a 1.5 mile sea wall, and the project cost $48 million, cost shared between the federal and local governments. it was nearly completed when a series of northeast storms including the infamous perfect storm that in previous years would have severely damaged ocean city struck. ocean city suffered no damage except for some lost sand. we were open for business and did not miss a beat. the success of the project continues to this day. total damages are now $330 million. total project costs including phase one of local money and initial construction of the project total just over $100 million with the federal share just over $50 million.

although the preventative damage numbers are impressive, they don't tell the whole story. $3 billion, we contributed $35 million of annual federal tax revenue. today, it is over $10 billion, and over $75 million comes from the city annually. on saturday, august 28, ocean city was in the eye of the hurricane. the storm came in the busy summer season and expecting the worst, we successfully evacuated the town. when the sun came up sunday morning, is that of toppled buildings and destroyed infrastructure, he found live sighting in a pothole in a city parking lot. visitors were streaming back into town and we had one of the busiest labor day weekends we have had in years. in some ways, we got lucky.

but i would call your attention to this photograph taken 25 years ago, just after a storm similar. imagine we never had beach replenishment. we would start from this point has and have 25 years of erosion and additional damage from hurricanes. that would have been the ocean city. this photo shows the exact same area of the beach taken last week. these projects work. damages from the hurricane are not limited to the coast. by recognizing the risk associated with strong storms and adopting strict building codes and investing the ineffective what procedures, the impact of these storms can be significantly reduced.

>> capt.? >> mr. chairman, before i touch on my concerns with the 2011 high water situation on the mississippi river system, i would like to thank the district for doing a great job not only this year, but in past years as well. and the district is funded adequately and equipped adequately, they do a fantastic job. mr. chairman, this brings me to my primary issue. how can we adequately formed the budget to maintain the river system? i can assure this committee is within all of our best interest to collaborate in solve this problem. combining the five ports make of the largest port system in the u.s., the second largest in the world. more than 10,300 vessels came

either in and out of the river system in 2010. each of those vessels was navigated through one of the most treacherous and demanding systems in the world. failure to properly maintain through project dimensions is a safety issue for all of us that live and work on the river system. just as importantly, it is a substantial economic threat to our nation. we handle 30% of the nation's oil imports, 60% of the exports. those numbers can be reduced drastically without proper maintenance of the shipping channels. the issue is complex, but the bottom line is simple. without adequate funding for maintenance, you cannot get american made ingrown goods on ships for export with high river conditions. the demand of these products

exist. if shipping companies cannot access american goods, they will go elsewhere. i don't have to tell you what that would mean for our farmers, individual jobs, and the economic bottom line. the problem today comes from two sources. constant underfunding and the misuse of the harbor maintenance trust fund of which was instituted for necessary funding. in the new orleans district, it has been underfunded in their budget. next year, they will be underfunded by at least $20 million once again, and that is if nothing goes wrong, like another high river. to their credit, the mississippi valley division has understood how critical the mississippi river system is.

they have reprogram funds to accommodate necessary dredging. reprogramming the funds will no longer occur. the accord restricts funding usage, and this new policy eliminates the possibility of enough to maintain project dimensions at a particular time. at one of the meeting meetings i had on this issue, i discussed the economic impact associated with laws and the response was, it will be shipped from other ports in the u.s.. mr. chairman, that is not correct. when i further stated that which could have further grounding, i was told that maybe something has to bring this issue to light. this brings serious concern that the change in the policy regarding funding does not reflect sufficient priority to the mississippi river system.

instead, it appears to be more about political posturing and an effort to go on for the necessary funding for the corps. we are used as a pawn in a very dangerous game. this is not an acceptable way to manage the busiest and most complex waterways system in the u.s. and possibly the world. please refer to the slide presentations that we have. i like you to review the diagrams we have of project dementia and death and width, the possibility of collision which could a shot off american farms. the first one, if you would look and see where the red meat to the yellow, that is the entrance to american heartland. if that area is closed, everything shuts off. nothing moves in and out of the river system.

those are two ships passing in the normal channel. 300 feet between those two ships. rendered feet between ships that are about a thousand feet long and 150 feet wide. when you reduce the channel from 750 to 650, you can see it goes down to 195 feet wide. 600 to 500, now 100 feet to pass those two ships. when you get down to four under and feet, it is not a save situation at all. but it has been done because we have to keep the river system open. just because we lose project draft and dimension, which it is

something that has to be stressed and the maintained at all times. both project with and dimension. >> i have asked you to complete your statement. >> i wanted to touch on these, i think the committee, and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> on environment and public works, i will be brief period of like to begin by reporting the governors from representatives of eight states met with the court yesterday to coordinate efforts and accurately address needed matters. this is not the first meeting of the group as most of the governors also attended an august 19 meeting to discuss concerns. in the first meeting, the governors or the representatives signed a letter indicating a clear consensus that flood control must be the

highest priority in the operation of the missouri river system. the request of the quarter examiner management in light of the precipitation and flooding, report to them on alternate actions. it was requested that the court provide recommendations for specific operational changes and consult with states and tribes in selecting and implementing any changes. -today, the governors discussed opportunities to increase future flood control focus and discussed priority focuses. the governors are very serious about taking action to reduce the risk of future flooding and the level of future flood damages as was a draft recovery priorities. we don't have a reliable tally of damages, but we have received the data on over $155 million of

public infrastructure damages. we have declarations of damages for 13 counties. overall, our experience with activities during the flood was positive. we generally received invaluable assistance and are very appreciative. one outcome i hope to see come from future efforts is improved communication in both situations were flooding becomes a possibility in during the emergency flood situation itself. it involves a wide spectrum of state and local government responses were having the best possible information as soon as possible can help result in better and more cost effective decision making. while a thorough examination of the 2011 missouri basin flood will identify areas were certain actions can be taken, in most

important controllable outcome is featured decision making in terms of both system operations and how those of us prepare and respond. it has resulted in a strength and a focus on flood control. we look forward to working with the corps of engineers or they examine their activities and options. >> thank you for being here. >> i would like to thank senator alexander for inviting us up. i am from memphis tennessee, right at the tip of the delta there. i joined the other witnesses and underscoring the fact that for the most part, our systems, aged as they may be, i did work. i want to thank the engineers for working with us as we install the flood walls, and in

spite of working so well, the flood did impact our community. it was not as severe as it could have been. the children's hospital located just a few blocks from the river was a spare the massive flooding because the system did work. i might add that the pumping station that kept it out of the flood is 95 years old. the key point i would like to leave is that while the system worked this time, it has aged so that we are not confident that in future floods of this magnitude, that these aging structures will be able to withstand the pressure placed upon them by floods of this magnitude. i would hope that we take away some estimates and some timetable for beginning while we

have the time to reinforce the aging infrastructure. leading us out of the economic slump, it is almost a perfect storm. we have high unemployment but over the last 18 months, we have been able to place about 2000 jobs. we want to make sure that those investments are indeed safe as we look at the initial estimates. we're looking at $20 million to $30 million. the work of $2.5 million, shoreline work another $5 million. again, a very costly occurrence. we wish to thank the core for working with us, helping us maintain and install the structures. we ask that they continue their diligence in forecasting into

the future as to the life of these structures and what is going to take to make sure that they are able to withstand future floods of this, and perhaps greater magnitude. thank you for holding the hearing. >> thank all of you for your testimony at thank you for content -- convincing the presentation. we assure you that your entire remarks will not only be made part of the record, but be used by the committee as we investigate how to proceed. >> i appreciate you being here, and brian, a special thanks coming down from nebraska. mayor, i think you and i are working on the trail in your community. i've been working with some business people there. -omaha, probably this year.

>> i happen to know some people there, and we like that idea. mr. chairman, if i might offer a thought. as we think about the next year coming up, i have to imagine that everybody on this panel is nervous. many of the things that built up to create the problem this year are not only there now, but they are not likely to improve any between now and next spring, when we start to deal with run off at those issues. the second thing that i think we have all learned from this hearing is that we have a $2 billion issue out there that

quite honestly, my concern is that we just didn't get a good sense of how that problem is going to be solved. there is currently no supplemental coming our way. i appreciate the very difficult economic times and somehow, we have to figure out how to fund these things. i'm a little bit worried that we will hit a drop dead date the where in the midwest, there is no construction season left. if we appropriate money in december, it is not going to help much because you can't do construction during the winter months that needs to be done. at the conclusion of this hearing, i am hoping that we feel a sense of urgency to try to solve this problem.

i did not hear any good way of solving it, but somehow, i am hoping that republicans and democrats in a very bipartisan way can sit down and talk through this, figure out how to get the funding and quickly so we can take advantage of the limited days left in this construction season and try to repair some of the damage that is out there. the final thing i would say to all of you that have worked on these issues longer than i have, obviously, i want to encourage you to continue to work with us. we have a host of problems out there. when you say that your hospital, which is world renowned, was saved by a pumping system that is nearly a century old, that has got to be a concern for everybody because i guarantee we

have those problems throughout the system. i had a choice of asking questions are saying a few words, thank you for your patience. i decided it would be the best use of my time to say a few words. >> i think you summarize the circumstances extremely well. i fully concur. it is interesting at this hearing, we had 20 witnesses at the witness table just showing interest, including nine members of congress. by members of the committee have participated, which is a large number considering this is a day in which there are a lot of committees that are meeting. as the chairman and ranking member said, this is an area where we have a bipartisan agreement that we need to do what is necessary to protect the people of this country. i think this is a matter of urgency that we have to move or foreword.

dr. galloway, your challenge was absolutely right. we need to develop a national plan for flood risk management. we use traditional structures, we also use green infrastructure that we have been talking about, and the management issues. you can't prevent these conditions, but you can manage them in an effective ways of the public knows the risks and take appropriate action to minimize its. we don't have as much damage to repair after the fact. and i just want you to know, your numbers updated our numbers. the direct savings were three to one if you include the investments. your last number i thought was the most telling. the work that we have gone on green infrastructure is bringing

more money to the federal treasury. if you take a look at ocean city and realized what the values and revenues would have been if the programs had not been done, what we were able to preserve and get back into business quickly after hurricane irene, the federal government got more money and as a result of the relatively modest investment of $50 million. i think that these projects enjoyed bipartisan support for good reason. they made good economic sense as well as providing the services that are important for the people of this country. i have one question for you because your numbers really worried me. was that a temporary problem of obstruction, or was that a failure to maintain channels of

appropriate width? at 400 feet. you >> we are speaking today about 2011. i have been up pilot on the river for 33 years, and every year, you encounter the same type of situation, just a different degree. in answer to your question, it went down as low as 185 ft to be quite honest with you. then we had to lower the draft from 47 feet to 45, to 43. each foot represents $1 million of cargo either in or out of the united states. when i am asking for $20 million to maintain that channel and we lose a few ships, and that is nothing.

it is very narrow. we try to do the best we can. >> we agree with you, and our challenge on the east coast is a little bit different. maintaining the channels are a little bit important. trying to get rid of those areas presents a huge risk. it is a funding issue and we need to make sure that is done. i will keep the record of the committee open for questions that might be asked to you all. because of the lateness of this panel, i would ask your cooperation is -- your cooperation that you would respond promptly. if you could respond a little bit quicker, we would certainly appreciate it and make our committee record complete. thank you for your testimony, and thank you for what you have done to help build this great

nation. with that, the hearing will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, treasury secretary tim geithner testifying on capitol hill today. he urged senators to pass the president does the job plan. speaking in front of the small business committee, the treasury secretary faced criticism from the ranking republican on the committee, olympia snowe. >> i was here when president reagan was elected and we faced a very severe circumstances, 10. and% -- 10.8% unemployment.

we work hand in glove to get it done for the american people. rome is burning, and we are facing the decimation of our community. we feel we are not getting any deference from the administration and in congress, for that matter. about policiesng in 2014, 2016, we have had three years of virtually the same unemployment numbers as we do today. that is the point. this is nothing new. when needed to get ahead of the curve and make long-term, fundamental, unpredictable changes. i am hearing it from everybody from fortune 500 to companies of 341. everybody is saying the same thing, they need a certainty and stability. that price tag is being born right now by the americans

unemployed. i am not here to find blame, i am here to get the job done for the american people. >> in addition to the treasury secretary on c-span at 8:00 eastern, on c-span 2, the senate, and security committee looks at terrorism after -- homeland security committee looks at terrorism after 9/11. in the democratic whip in the house of representatives. >> six republican presidential candidates travel d toes moines -- traveled to des moines. rick santorum as well as rick per of an airry, ron paul, and michelle machmann. >> the pentagon's top lawyers said today that congress is

[unintelligible] he is referring to legislation that would favor military commissions over civilian trial for terrorism suspects. they took questions this afternoon at the heritage foundation. >> thank you for the invitation to speak to this distinguished organization. there was reference to the fact that i was a federal prosecutor for three years. i am sorry that the former attorney general could not be here today. i know of his connection with this organization, and thinking about the attorney general and the reference that he made, i am reminded him when the mayor guiliani hired me in 2008 to be

in new york, i had been out of law school for six years. i was a litigator and anxious to try cases. i never tried a case, got into the united states attorney's office and figured that i was finally unleashed to try cases. almost immediately, i had my first trial three weeks into the job. i was taught that you always give the same opening statement before every jury. it varies depending on length at the nature of the trial, but you essentially give the same opening statement to every jury. it was beaten into me. first of all, before you even introduce yourself to the jury, my name is jay johnson -- jeh johnson, go to the defendant and you were supposed to walk away from the jury and point

that the defendant and say, who that man right there sold drugs on the corner of 28th and 8th. i will show you how he did it. u-turn and j say myeh j name jehnson, -- i my name is johnson, i work for the state government. everything will be preceded by the evidence will show this, the evidence will show. at the end, you say the same thing. in conclusion, i asked you to listen to the evidence, listened to the law as judged. and use your common sense. if you do those three things, i am confident you will find the defendant guilty as charged. it was the same opening i gave for all 12 trials. some were longer, some were shorter. i am out at the defense bar, and

i am thinking that this is my real opportunity to be unleashed because i don't have to play by the same rules as the government attorneys. it was a pro bono case, someone with selling crack in manhattan. i basically decided to use themope d-- the mope defense. he wasn't a selling crack, he was using crack. mr. johnson, i am not a seller, i am just the user. i tried the mope defense. i told the client, the assistant united states attorney is going to walk over and point to you during his opening statement. i suggested to him what happened to me at my first trial when i did that. ing, al is an emotional tha and sometimes it is ok to let

your a motions go when you are accused of something really bad did -- emotions go when you're accused of something really bad. he walked over, got in his face, crie td rig -- and he cried right on cue. it was great. the jury looked at him in sympathy, and when it came time for my opening, i did not point at him. i stood behind him, i put my hands on his shoulders, and i said that this man is a poor, and a less crack addict. i went into my opening statement. i did not begin my sentences with "the evidence will show." i left the lectern, and i left my notes. i was pretty much all on autopilot, which you should not do. on autopilot, i was given this

great opening and i said, ladies and gentlemen, i want you to do three things. listen to the evidence, the law into the, -- listen to the law, use your common sense. and you will find the defendant guilty. [laughter] the court reporter was sitting right there. not guilty, not guilty. [laughter] that was my career. someone once told me that at some point in history of the department of defense, perhaps it was my predecessor sitting here. the job of general counsel was a relatively sleepy one. i came to the job with the belief based on prior experience that an agency general counsel should rarely if ever be publicly seen or heard.

when i returned in february of 2009 after having been away for eight years, i found a very different place. particularly in the post 9/11 world, in the middle of many difficult front-page issues. guantanamo bay, military commissions, libya, the legal contours' of our counter- terrorism efforts, don't ask .on't tell ,wikileaks, googl and youseracarch my name, will find the controversy thirdi sti - -i -- i stirred. on a regular basis, when i read the newspaper in the morning, i discover a story with a public account of private legal advice by a supposedly authored

internal government deliberations. i look around this room and i see the distinguished visitors and distinguished journalists. i find that some people are actually interested in what the general counsel for the department of the defense has to say. therefore, policy and politics aside, at every opportunity i have before civilian audiences such as this, i devote part of my remarks to paying tribute to the sacrifices and the dedication of the men and women in the u.s. military. it is the case that less than 1% of the u.s. population does the fighting for all of the rest of us. these remarkable men and women in the post 9/11 military have volunteered with a sense of public service, patriotism, and selfless duty to a larger cause. a list of those that paid the

ultimate prize, the most painful thing to read stare the ages. 20, 21, 22. not much older than my own teenage son. these people gave their lives for the country before they had a chance to know what life is all about. many will never know the joy of marriage, parenting a son or daughter, or what life has to offer. there are those that survive their injuries and must struggle without an arm, leg, or something else that the rest of us take for granted. navy lt. snyder was the leader of one of my deputies. on september 7, lieutenant snyder went into an area and declared safe passage for a medic trying to get to others that had been wounded in action. an ied exploded in his face,

injuring him and taking his eyesight, probably for the rest of his life. despite his injuries and the loss of his sight, he refused a stretcher and managed to guide the manic -- the medic to those wounded. those seriously wounded in action, the powerful sense of unit cohesion. they are maintained even after they are injured and taken out of the flight. within hours, they will frequently express an impatient desire to rejoin their bodies in their unit and continue service. i will never forget at a beauty at bethesda that asked me, do you think this will affect my ability to get a command? when the tenants snyder learned that the secretary of defense was about to visit him, he

said, i need to get out of bed and stand at attention. but i have no pants. in dedication to our country, the u.s. military is the most respected and revered institution in america today. i am convinced that one of the other reasons that our military is so revered and respected is that for all its power, we placed sharp limits on the military's ability to -- this was a core american values that is part of our heritage dating back to before the founding of our country. the declaration of independence listed among our grievances, the fact that he had kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without consent of legislatures.

bodies of armed troops among us. this was reflected in the federalist papers, and james madison wrote, a standing military force with an overgrown executive will not be safe to liberty. the means of defense against foreign danger has been always the instrument of terror in the at home. -- tyranny at home. this is reflected in places like the third amendment. and in the 1878 federal criminal statute. which prohibits will fully using the military escoraa posee comititus. this brings me to the point of my remarks today. there is danger in over

militarizing our approach to al qaeda and it's awful lot since. there is risk in permitting and expecting the u.s. military to extend its powerful reach into traditional areas typically reserved for civilian law enforcement in this country. against an unconventional non- state actor that does not play by the rules, operates in secret, observes the geographic limits, constantly metastasizes and continues to look for opportunities to export terrorism to our homeland, we must use every tool at our disposal. the military should not and cannot be the only answer. recent events remind us that brought assertions of military power can provoke controversy and invite challenge. overreaching with military power can result in litigation in which the courts intrude further and further into our affairs and

can result in national security setbacks, not gains, eight. best illustrated by that question donald rumsfeld once asked, so am i going to go down in history as the only secretary of defense to have lost the case to a terrorist? particularly when we attempt to extend the reach of the military on the u.s. a will, the courts resist, consistent with our core values and heritage. we have worked to make military detention in particular less controversial, not more. the overall goal should be to build a counter-terrorism framework that is legally sustainable and credible and that preserves every lawful cool and authority at our disposal. this is meant as the president's advisor said recently, an approach that is pragmatic, and either a

wholesale overhaul, nor a wholesale retention of past practices. to build that last controversial, more credible, and sustainable legal framework, we have in the last several where -- years accomplish the following -- we have applied the standards of the army field manual to all interrogations. where appropriate, in the context of terrorist activity, we have invoked the public safety exception to the miranda rule, created by the supreme court, insuring that the opportunity to gather the valuable intelligence is fully utilized and at the same time preserving the prosecution,. we have worked with the congress to bring about a number of reforms reflected in the military commission's act of 2009 and following that we issued a new manual for military commissions. by law, use of statements

obtained by coral and human and degrading treatment, which was once the most controversial aspect of military commissions, is now prohibited. we have accomplished these reforms, working with a bipartisan coalition in congress and with the full support jag leadership. we have appointed the former judge advocate of the navy to be the convening authority for military commissions, appointed a military expert to be the chief defense counsel for commissions, and this month appointed a general, a west point, victorian, harvard law school graduate, to be the chief prosecutor. we are recruiting the a-team for the system. we have reformed the rules for press access, established a new public website for the

commission system, and built what i believe is a credible, sustainable, and more transparent system. in the habeas litigation brought by guantanamo detainees, lawyers in the department of justice and defense have worked hard to build credibility with the courts by conducting a thorough scrub of the evidence and the intelligence before we put forward our case for detention in the courts. we never find existing systems for periodic review, for the cases of detainees at guantanamo and at a prison in afghanistan. overall, the hard work of many civilian and military counter- terrorism professionals, spanning both the this administration and last, is producing results. first and foremost, we have been aggressive and focused in the fight against al qaeda. where necessary have not hesitated to use lawful, legal

force against cockeyed and its affiliates, and we are literally taking fight to them where they plot, where they meet, where they plan, and where they train the export terrorism to the united states. counter-terrorism experts say that al qaeda senior leader ship is today severely crippled and degraded. second, just as we brought justice to the man who ordered the attacks on 9/11, which seek to bring to justice other alleged planners of 9/11 in reformed military commissions. new charges have been referred in the case of the alleged coal bomber. third, that government is seeing consistent success in the habeas cases by guantanamo detainees. the courts have largely recognized and accepted our legal interpretation of our detention authority, and the government has not prevailed at the district court level in more

than 10 consecutive habeas cases brought by guantanamo detainees. we are seeing a similar could result in the d.c. circuit. in the d.c. circuit, also, the department of justice successfully defended against an effort to extend the habeas remedy to detainees held in afghanistan. fourth, through the interrogation of those captured by the united states, and our partners overseas, we continue to collect valuable intelligence about al qaeda, its plans, and its intentions. this administration, like its predecessors, continues to successfully prosecute terrorists in our federal civilian courts. as a former federal prosecutor, i know firsthand the strengths, security, and the fact dimmest of our federal courts system, and i know colleagues agree with me on this point. given the reforms since 9/11, the federal court system is even

more effective, and as a result of lengthy and mandatory minimum prison sentences authorized by congress and the federal sentencing guidelines, those convicted of terrorism-related offenses often face decades, if not life, in prison. the result this week's for itself. since 9/11, numerous individuals have convicted of terrorism- related offenses. in the last two years alone, we have seen in our federal courts a guilty plea from the man who admitted plotting to bomb the new york city subway system, a guilty plea from the man who tried to bomb the commercial aircraft over detroit on christmas day, 2009, a life sentence imposed on the individual who attempted to detonate a bomb in times square, and a life sentence imposed for participation in the 1998 bombings of our embassies in kenya and tanzania. going back decades, the department of justice has successfully prosecuted hundreds

of terrorism-related cases. despite our successes, we know that the fight is not over. we know there is still great danger, and although the degraded and on the run, we know in the post bin laden. come out, and its affiliates still remain determined to conduct terrorist attacks against the united states. we know that while their core is degraded, it is a far more decentralized organization than it was 10 years ago, and relies on affiliate's to carry out its terrorist aims. we know how cut is likely to continue to metastasize and to try to recruit affiliate's to its cause. these terrorist threats are increasingly complex, multifaceted, and defy easy labeling and categorization. within the last several months, we have seen terrorists who claim affiliation to more than one terrorist organization,

along the one terrorist organization and serve as a conduit to another, fit within our military detention of party, but not our military commission's jurisdiction, and fit within neither our military detention authority nor our commission's jurisdiction. on top of all this, our al qaeda concerted efforts to recruit by way of the internet into the united states over and over again, we see individuals within the united states to self-radicalized and find the vacation with their hatred toward america in al qaeda's ideology and propaganda. in dealing with this category of people, who are here in the united states, who have never trained in and out at a camp in

afghanistan whenever sworn to went out qaeda leader, we must guard against any impulse to label the person part of the congressionally declared enemy to be dealt with by military force. there is no jurisdiction to try u.s. citizens in military commissions, and our prior efforts in this conflict to put into military detention those arrested on u.s. soil lead to protected litigation in which the government nearly prevailed in the federal appellate courts. as i said before, the military cannot always be the first and only answer. this is contrary to our heritage and in the long run will undermine our overall counter- terrorism efforts. in responding to threats and acts of terrorism, we must build a legally sustainable arsenal and have all the legally available tools in the arsenal, whether it is lethal force against a valid military

objective, military detention, interrogation, supporting the counter-terrorism efforts of other nations, or prosecution in federal court or by military commission. against this backdrop we confront a series of laws and pending legislation concerning detainee's that limit the executive branch cost and military's counter-terrorism option. hubble kate our efforts to achieve continued success, and will make military detention more controversial, not less. here are some specific examples. section 1032 of the 2011 defense authorization act prohibits the use of defense department funds to transfer any guantanamo detainee to the united states for any conceivable purpose. no waivers or exceptions, including federal prosecution or to be a cooperating witness in a federal prosecution.

given a lengthy prison sentences mandated by tattle 18 in the federal sentencing guidelines and a range of offenses available for prosecution, there are some instances in which it is preferable and more effected to prosecute an individual in our federal civilian courts. section 1033 of the same law requires that before the government can transfer a guantanamo detainee to a foreign country my client, the secretary of defense, must pertly certify to congress certain things about the detainee and the transferee country, unless there's a court order. after living with this requirement for almost a year, i will tell you that it is onerous and near impossible to satisfy. not one guantanamo detainees has been certified for transferred since this legal restriction has been imposed.

rigid certification requirements reduced our ability to pursue the best options for national security and the evolving world situation and intrude upon the second branch traditional ability to conduct foreign policy. in this case to determine when sending a detainee to another country for prosecution or reintegration would better serve our national security and foreign policy interest. our nation is not the only one on earth that can deal effectively with this issue. the other potential consequence of such a rigid certification requirement is that it incentivizes the executive branch to leave to the courts the hard work of determining who can and should remain at guantanamo. we want the courts last involved in this business, not more. if certain proposals are equally problematic.

section 1039 of the house version of the bill prohibits the use of defense department funds to transferred to the united states in the non-u.s. citizen the military captures anywhere in the world as a part of the conflict against al qaeda and its affiliates, the weavers, no exceptions. within that national security team, we have determined that such an unqualified across the board ban is not in the best interest of national security. suppose the military captures a dangerous terrorist and doubts arise about our detention authority overseas. suppose the military captures an individual who it turns out would be vital as a cooperating witness in a terrorism prosecution in the united states? must the option to bring these individuals to a civilian court room in united states be prohibited by law? likewise, section 1046 of the house bill imposes across-the-

board requirement that if prosecutions exist, we must use not the courts for prosecution of a broad range of terrorist acts. decisions about the most appropriate form in which to prosecute a terrorist should be left case by case to prosecutors and national security professionals. the considerations that go into those decisions include the offenses available in both systems for prosecuting a particular course of conduct, the weight and nature of the evidence, and a likely prison sentence that would result if there is a conviction. a flat legislative ban on the use of one system, whether it is a commission system or the civilian courts, in favor of the other is not the answer. section 1036 of the house bill rewrites the periodic review

process. the national security team crafted for guantanamo detainees. the gross rewrite mandates the use -- the proposed rewrite mandates the use of military review panels. our experience shows that review is liable to take advantage of the expertise and perspectives across the national security community in our government. finally, section 1032 of the senate version of the 2012 defense authorization bill includes what has come to be known as the mandatory military custody provision. basically, it requires certain members about how the or its affiliates be held in military custody pending disposition under law. unless the secretary of defense in writing agrees to give him up. for starters, the trigger for this requirement is unclear.

some of my friends on the hill say the provision is intended to apply only to those who have been captured in the course of hostility. read literally, that provision extends the individuals wherever they are taken into custody or brought under the control of the united states. who fit within our definition of an enemy combatant in the conflict against outcry that and its affiliates, including those arrested in the u.s. by first responders in law enforcement. this would include an individual who, in the midst of an interrogation, by an fbi or tsa officer at an airport, admits he is part of al qaeda. must the agent stop a revealing and productive interrogation and go call the army to take him away? on top of all that, the provision at the individual must be a member or part of al qaeda

or an affiliated entity. while we use the phrase a kite and its affiliates to describe the contours of the conflict in nonlegal terms, the term affiliated entity has no legal meaning has never been tested in court. the phrase in the bill, a participant in the course of planning or carrying out an attack against the united states, has never been tested in court. for this and future administrations, we will oppose efforts to make military detention more controversial and restrict the executive branch's flexibility to pursue our counter-terrorism missions. the executive branch, regardless of the administration in power, the flexibility case by case to make well informed decisions about the best way to capture, detain, and bring to justice suspected terrorists. the conflict against al qaeda is

complex and multifaceted. congress must be careful not to micromanage, complicate, and impose across-the-board limits on our options. both the congress and the executive branch must be careful not to impose rules that make military detention more controversial, not less. i have spoken today about ways to legally solidify and improve our contact -- conflict. war is sometimes necessary to secure peace. you heard me described as a tragic story of a young naval officer lost his eyesight to an ied. martin luther king, the man for whom he dedicated a memorial on sunday, said that in the end, and i for and i leaves everybody blind. no matter how much conflict goes

on, we should continue to believe that the arc of human experts on earth, is long, but it tends toward peace. thank you all for being here. thank you for listening. [applause] >> thank you for that pharaoh and understandable and -- -- for that thorough and understandable speech. i will ask the first question, and many of you have questions. but my question it stems from a paper we just published at heritage that i offered called a common-sense principles for detainee policy, which is available outside or on the web. we also believe that the mandatory military custody provision as you and i have discussed is very problematic in

practice and that the executive, whoever the executive is, shall have all tools available to him or her in the fight against terrorist organizations and affiliated organizations. one thing we covered in our paper that you did not touch on, and i will put this question to you, is, there is a proposal, there are proposals on the hill regarding reaffirming, and some would say extending, the authorization for use of military force, which was passed on september 18, 2001. could you spent in little time with us, giving us your thoughts on that topic, whether it makes sense, how it works or does not work in practice? >> sure. i have a couple thoughts about that.

there is in the house authorization bill a provision to essentially renew the aomf and makes reference to taliban, al qaeda, and a seceded forces. the senate version of the defense authorization bill renews the aumf in respect of the tensions only, not to imply that it is not hubble and other respects. the senate bill makes an express reference to detention authority. i was asked about this in march by the house armed services committee, and i testified then and continue to believe that the

authorities we have now in the department of defense are adequate, given our interpretation of those authorities to address the threats that i have had occasion to evaluate, and i think that is almost exactly what i said, word for word. having said that, i do think that -- i think the provisions, particularly the house provisions, have become very controversial. there is a lot of debate about the house provisions on the house floor, as part of the authorization bill. a lot of people in the beat interpret beat-- in debate interpreted that language as an effort to prolong the operations in afghanistan.

that -- that is not an effort to make some sort of global war on terror indefinite, and in that respect i think the political debate has become somewhat overheated. my understanding of the intent of the draftsman provision is to codify what they believe are our existing interpretation of our authorities. i think the reason that we in this administration have concerns about efforts to do that is because at the end of the political process, what i do not want to end up with is something less than what we thought we already had by way of legal authorities, three the authorities on the books, and our interpretation of our stories on the books.

the courts have largely accepted our interpretations. at the end of this process, at the end of this legislative season, and i have been very plame about this with those involved in this that we did not want to end up with less than what we thought we already had. i am sure that this will work its way through once the authorization bill gets to the senate floor, once they get to conference, but those are my thoughts. >> we have received a couple questions via twitter, but i want honor the people who are live here, and then go to the tweeters. the gentleman in the backs with the red tie? yes, and the dark here. please identify yourself, your organization, and then actually pose a question to the general counsel. >> i am an attorney at a firm,

and thank you for coming here. i question is about a slightly different topic which is the administration cost of you and your thoughts on the targeting of u.s. citizens who are participating in the conflict against us. using drones or other legal means. could you share in response on that and explain your views and the administration's views on the subject. >> nice to see you again. let me know when you are ready to leave your private practice, anyway. >> is that a job offer? >> not quite. in general, and the courts have said this, the supreme court has said this, those who are part

of the congressional lee declared enemy -- congressional declared enemy did not have rights as u.s. citizens. in a previous case and in a recent case,mhomdi, 2004, the courts essentially endorsed detention, and in a case the prosecution of the military commission of someone who is a u.s. citizen. there are special considerations, i believe, when it comes to u.s. citizens, and particular care that should be taken if we encounter somebody who as u.s. citizenship. i am satisfied that the military is conducting itself in

full compliance with domestic legal authorities and international law. and i believe we will at some point have more to say on the top. >> while you are standing, medicine, since no one is watching them on this little tidbit between -- -- tiff between you and the state department lawyer on this >> well, i think that frankly the so called tiff between harold and myself is largely exaggerated. journalists like to find controversy, difference of

opinion within the executive branch. and frankly i am sure that harold would agree, it is really exaggerated. the particular context that you are referring to, i think harold and i both agree that when it comes to al qaeda and the concept of associated forces a group can become an associated force provided that there are two things. sufficient contact, connections and affiliations of the core group and an element with the core group in the fight against the united states and its coalition partners. harold and i both agree on that proposition. so, frankly, i do think that

the supposed disagreement is exaggerated. on the other hand, you know, if lawyers agree on everything within the executive branch and within the federal government maybe we are not thinking hard about these subjects and having a robust debate to get to the right answers. and i know from sitting around my conference table that i want disagreement and debate within the office of general council and there are one or two lawyers that typically come down on one side and a couple more that come down on the other side. and they state their views and stake their positions and i ask for their legal support for their positions. we get to what i believe is a healthy, sustainable conclusion. it is when you do not have those discussions and lapse

into group think that i think can lead to dangerous results. >> your answer reminds me of a question from a reporter who shall be nameless, who is here in the audience today on september 6th, 2006, it included in the closure three, common article 3. this reporter, male or female said i understand there was actually a debate in the administration about whether or not to include this. i said yeah. there was a robust debate. at the end of the day that is better for the system than not. all right. ben. >> how are you? you take sharp issue, and i certainly agree with your criticisms of various

legislative provisions, but you also described the objective for the administration as a stable, legally sustainable legal framework and presumably the role of congress in the development of that framework is non-zero. if congress wanted to be constructive in helping to build that framework, what is the positive agenda that it should be thinking about rather than these lists of restrictions on things that you guys think you should have flexibility on? >> well, first of all, congress has an oversight role. i believe in that oversight role. on a regular basis i am meeting with the council for the house and senate armed services committee, talking to them about what we are doing, my latest interpretation of our legal authority. i want them to know how we are applying the authority that

they have given us. and i believe strongly in congress' oversight role. i hope that the congress would consider working with us to help us build that sustainable framework and a perfect example of that was the military commissions act of 2009. we had the 2006 act. we had the supreme court decision that followed. there is a fair amount of controversy and debate in the run-up to the 2006 law. when i came into office we started to think about ways to reform the system. and right at about the same time my colleagues on the hill and in the house and senate armed services committee were thinking along the same lines. we worked together on a bipartisan basis. there is still bipartisanship that occurs on the hill, i find. there is a fair amount of it

around the armed services committees. so i generally work with democrats and republicans in both committees, and that was an effort to help sustain and solidify our legal authority for reform military commissions in a way that we all believed was more sustainable and more incredible. took out some of the more controversial aspects of the 2006 law. so, to me that is a good example. i think, as i said in my prepared remarks that we have to be careful that congress not try to legislate certain options be taken off the table completely because the future can be uncertain. and, you know, things can go in unanticipated directions. so i hope i answered your question, ben.

>> you did a good job sort of answering the questions. perhaps others will press you. >> kate martin, thank you and actually it is a follow-up somewhat to that question. it seems to me that the administration has been very clear that your authority to use military force both in the targeting context and the authority to detain people militarily is tied to the use for military force, a position which we appreciate. and i also understand that it is the administration's position that you have the authority you need to go after new associated groups at least like al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. and i would assume that the

legal analysis says that with the deployment of u.s. military force comes targeting authority and detention of authority. so my question is, not as a matter of legal requirement but as a matter of constitutional good practice, does it make sense 10 years later to go back to congress and say, yes, you had in mind invading afghanistan. since then the war has bled over to pakistan. now, we need to exercise, use our military assets against aqap and we want specific congressional authorization to use military force there. and with that we will go law of war, targeting authority and et cetera. should there be another such group that the administration again return to congress and

tell congress the contour of the authority that it needs rather than leaving it up to congress to say you can have it for the whole world whenever you want. >> ok. a couple of things. one, what i said was that i thought that our authorities were adequate to dress the -- address the threats i had occasion to evaluate. without getting into specific groups, the concern that we have is that the congressional legislative process is a sausage making process. we have two competing versions of that effort in the house and senate that look very, very different from each other. so, i become very nervous when congress decides to undertake to rewrite the authorities that i believe that i have now.

and i do not know how it will look at the end of this process. you know, if in the abstract i can be king of the legislative branch and i could write my own laws, but i can't. this is not a monarchy. then i would take more comfort in the principle that you articulated. in the pending legislation now there are new concepts built in by captured in the course of hostilities in the senate bill, which is a phrase that is not tested in court. so, that is our concern. >> i may have been the reporter he was talking about there.

my question is sort of following along the queries that we had today. you talked about the categorization problems that you had in recent days, that certain individuals might be covered by military commissions but they might not have the other authorities. you have been critical of the use of the affiliated entity that is -- so, how should congress clarify what the -- who you have jurisdiction over, and two, do you think for clarity going forward do you believe that guantaunmo could

take another captured detainee or is that off of the table now? >> let me answer the last question first. it is the firm policy of this administration to not add to the guantaunmo population. the president pledged to close guantaunmo. and we continue to be committed to that goal. so, we do not intend to add to the guantaunmo population. military commissions jurisdiction is different from detention authority. our detention authority for guantaunmo detainees is the march 13th, 2009 definition that i and others in this room helped to write. and that is somewhat different from commissions jurisdiction and very different from the jurisdiction to prosecute someone under title 18. the united states code in civilian courts.

my remarks should not be interpreted as an invitation to expand the jurisdiction or in some way to expand our detention authority. as a said before i think we have to be careful about expanding the role of the u.s. military in our society. i do believe that if an individual does not fit within our detention authority or commissions jurisdiction than we have to look seriously about whether or not that person can be prosecuted in a federal criminal court, which has a number of different ways to prosecute that individual for material support for terrorism, other acts that result in very, very very lengthy prison sentences. i used to think that when i was a prosecutor narcotics prison sentences were long. but they pale in comparison to

what the federal sentencing guidelines and the federal law calls for when it comes to acts of terrorism. >> this will be a quick question. this is a tweet. this is from carol rosenberg at the "miami herald." is the pga looking -- pentagon looking for -- >> like i said we remain committed to closing guantaunmo. we have from time to time looked at other locations. that is involved over the last two and a half years looking here and there. so, i think that is probably about all that i want to say.

>> ok. there was a question from this lady here. identify yourself and is your question. >> i was wondering if you could comment on what the impact or lack of impact could be if congress is unable to pass an authorization bill for 2012. any particular areas complicated by that? >> yes. that is a complication for us. there are authorities that in fact i am looking at right now that expire at the end of this fiscal year. authorizations, not appropriations that expire at the end of this fiscal year that are extremely valuable to us in what we are doing overseas and unless the congress acts to pass a new authorization bill or expressly

deals with something in the new appropriations bill or the c.o.r., we have real problems. so tis the case that every time the congress instead of passing a full years appropriations bill passes a c.r., there are authorities that get left behind. we have to scramble to figure out how to cope with. so all of us hope what we have seen over the last year or two does not become the norm. >> typically we give our speakers a heritage tie. i am afraid if i gave him one he might not be allowed in the white house and i want him to stay in his job. because the general is not here. because he is written along

with other the heritage guide to the constitution. on behalf of the heritage foundation we provide you this and is you to come back. let's all give him a warm round of applause.

>> the federal reserve chairman said monetary policy is too blunt of a tool. he said regulation is better suited to prevent a financial meltdown like the one three years ago. he spoke at the federal reserve

bank of boston today for about a half-hour. >> welcome back from lunch everybody. as i started the morning, i highlighted that research did a very good job of forecasting the appropriate topic for this conference. however there was a second question that i asked besides what the topic should be. that was whether the chairman would be able to watch a baseball game here in boston for the conference. that forecast unfortunately did not work out as anybody who is a red sox fan knows. however in the first session that we did learn that we should not be too quick to dismiss historical patterns and that is unfortunately true for the red sox. this conference is intendeded to examine whether there may be

long-term changes both in behaviors and in institutions from the great recesson. in a question earlier this morning talked about the monetary policy response and how relative that was. i would argue monetary policy has been quite responsive to the concerns that are the topic of this conference. and the federal reserve has been appropriately aggressive and usually creative under the leadership of chairman ber nankee. chairman tend to get known for the crises that they have to deal with. breaking the back of inflation and will probably always be known for that. chairman bernanke will be known for what was done with related to the great recession. he is an ideal person to talk

about how the central bank changed as a result of what we have been experiencing and whether or not they will be long-term or short-term effects. chairman bernanke. [applause] [applause] >> that was a major disappointment about the baseball game. sorry to hear that. glad to be here and thank you for inviting me. the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 together with the associated recession was an historic event. historic in the sense that it is the economic consequences that are enormous. and also as documented, that the crisis seemed certain to have profound and long lasting effects on our economy, society and politics. more subtle, but possibly great importantance in the long run will be the effects of the

crisis on our intellectual frameworks including the way economists analyze. the crisis already influenced the theory and practice of modern central banking and no doubt will continue to do so. although it is too early to know the full implications for central bank doctrine and operations i thought it would be appropriate to highlight the changes and the continuities that are already evident. my remarks will focus on how central banks respond to the monetary policy and financial stability and how, as a result of that experience, the analysis and execution of these two functions may well change. during the two decades preceding the crisis they achieved a substantial agree of consensus on the intellectual and institutional framework for monetary policy.

this framework was characterized by a strong commitment to price stability and a high degree of transparency about central bank's policy objectives and economic forecasts. the adoption of the approach helped central banks anchor long-term expectations which in turn increased the monetary policy to stabilize output and employment in the short run. this broad framework is called flexible framework targeting as it combines commitment to objective with the complexibility to respond to economic shots as needed to moderate deviations and employment from full employment levels. the combination of short run policy flexibility with the discipline imposed by medium term inflation objectives has been characterized as framework of constrained -- many consider

themselves to be inflation targeters. prominent examples are in australia, brazil, canada, mexico, new zealand, norway, united kingdom and others. although they differ in details to their policy strategies and policy tools and communication practices, today virtually all inflation targeting central banks interpret flexibley, and treat employment and output in the short run as an important policy objective even as they seek to hit inflation targets over the medium term. several others such as the european central bank and swiss national bank do not label themselves as inflation targeters but they incorporated key features of that framework.

how does the federal reserve fit into the range of policy frameworks? the federal reserve is a cannibal to the congress for two objectives, maximum employment and price stability on an equal footing. and it does not have a formal numerical inflation target. as a practical matter the framework has many of the elements of flexible inflation targeting. in particular the federal market committee is committed to stabilizing inflation over the medium term by retaining the flexibility to offset flucuations in employment. and also over time the federal reserve has become much more transparent about its outlook, objectives and policy strategy. for example since early 2009 the federal reserve's summary of economic projections

included the longer run projections representing the committee participants assessment of the rates to which economic growth, unemployment and inflation will converge over time. these projections are conditions on the assumptions of appropriate monetary policy and no further shocks to the economy. consequently the longer run projections for inflation can be interpreted as indicating the reality of inflation that participants judge the most consistent over time with the federal reserve's mandate to foster maximum employment and stable prices. so, to what extent fat all, has the crisis consensus framework for monetary policy been changed by recent events?

in part because they recognize the benefits of continuity during a period of up heavele. central banks generally retain their established approaches during the crisis and in many respects the existing framework proves effective. well anchored inflation expectations moderated inflation and deflation risks as price centers and market centers remain confident in the ability of central banks to keep inflation near target in the medium term. in particular they were able to avoid significant policy tightening in mid-2008 and early 2011 when sharp increases in commodity pricing temporarily drove it above target levels. finally for central banks with

policy rates influencing the public's expectations about future policy actions became a critical tool as i will discuss shortly. the commitment to a policy framework that is transparent about objectives and forecasts was helpful in many instances in managing those expectations and thus in making monetary policy more predictable and more effective during the past few years than it otherwise might have been. although that framework helps to produce a long period of macro economic stability it, by itself, wasn't sufficient to insure financial stability. some observers argued that the failure should lead to modifications or replacement of the inflation targeting approach. since financial excesses tend

to develop over a longer period time frame and can have significant effects on inflation when they ultimately unwind it is suggested that monetary policy be conducted with reference to take appropriate account of financial stability concerns. my own guess is that the current framework for monetary policy with innovations to further improve the ability of central banks to communicate with the public will remain the standard approach. however central banks are heeding the broader lesson that the maintenance of financial stability is an equally critical responsibility. central blanks did not ignore issues of financial stability in the decades before the recent crisis. but financial stability policy was often viewed as a junior partner to monetary policy. one of the most important legacies of the crisis will be the restoration of the

stability policy to coequal status with monetary policy. while central banks may have left their monetary policy frameworks unchanged through the great recession they widened the set of tools used to implement the frameworks. following the crisis of the downturn of the global economy that started in 2008 central banks responded with a forceful application of their usual policy tools, most notably sharp reductions in short-term policy interest rates. and then, as the policy rates approached the zero lower bound central banks employed a wagering of unconventional tools including forward policy guidance and operations to alter the scale and composition of their balance sheet. forward guidance about the future path of policy rates already use before the crisis took on greater importantance as policy rates came close to

zero. a prominent example was the bank of canada's commitment in april 2009 to keep its policy rate unchanged at a fourth percent until the second quarter of 2010 depending on the outlook for inflation. it was successful in clarifying the bank's views on the likely path of policy rates and it appears to reduce long-term interest rates and provide additional policy accommodation in canada. basis of the price stability no problem will be identified including the cumulation of balances.

very simple promises. some central banks provide for a guidance by releasing projections. this has been adopted by the reserve bank of new zealand in 1997 and swedish bank in 2007. each of the central banks use the projections to indicate there is likely to keep rates at a low level for least one year. in united states, the introduced language in march 2009 statement indicating that the rates will remain there for an extended time. they would remain low through mid 2013. they continue to explore ways to increase transparency about the forecast.

they use changes. in particular, the federal reserve has increased the holdings and brought in the portfolio to include agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. these actions served to improve the functioning of some stress markets. especially 2008 and 2009. other central banks have also used their balance sheets more actively than before the crisis. some differences in motivation.

there a medium and long-term security. it expanded the size of the program earlier this month. the bank of japan has acquired a ride range of assets including government corporate bonds. including equity issued back corporations. they issued a privately issue private bonds to improve liquidity in key markets. the announced plans to resume such purchases in november. the ecb have bought the sovereign bonds of some countries to ensure debt and high liquidities which are it

dysfunctional. did the monetary effects have been sterilized. in most cases, the use of policy is has reflected the constraints on more policies. in more normal times, i expect the balance sheet policies will be rarely used. by contrast, other forms of human vacation about policy can be by a vote even when it is not relevant. i expect to see increasing use of such tools. even as central banks are innovative, they were forced to be equally innovative in restoring and maintaining financial stability. serving as a lender of last resort and ready in a crisis,

the need for an institution that could serve this function was a primary motivation for the creation of the federal reserve. the discount window is an example of a facility that operates in normal towns and provide short-term liquidity to depository institutions. most such a banks have facilities with features that are aimed at banks that find himself a temporary the quiddity need spir. they acted forcefully to channel liquidity to markets by lengthening in terms of their lending. and expanding the counterparties with which they would undertake operations. to help stabilize the financial system and bacillus state of the

flow credit, the federal reserve responds it in funding how markets by increasing the amount of funding that it provided to banks, establishing new lending facility for non-banks. they introduce similar facilities or expanded existing ones to boost the provision of liquidity. the type of facilities have very to across the country. in your area or the banking sector plays a large role, the ecb focused on banks. they allowed them to exchange a liquid mortgage-backed security for u.k. treasury bills.

they established bilateral currency slots with 14 central banks. they allow them to bar dollars from the federal reserve. they can exchange euros for there to currencies. a central bank worked to contain episodes of financial instability. recent events have shown the importance of diffusing threats to financial stability before they can inflict damage on the

financial system and the economy. it illustrated the sombanks. among these benefits are the information sharing between supervisors and the suppliers. the ability to avoid substantial overlap in making a financial stability policy. it is about economic and financial conditions. appreciation of these benefits can lead to larger roles. the bank of england received expanded powers and responsibilities for financial responsibility. it will identify risks.

the newly created risk borne includes the governors of the european central banks. in united states, the federal reserve has room oriented the supervisory operations to incorporate a broader system in focus. it has been assigned new responsibilities including the supervisory authority over institutions that have been designated as systemically important. in the decade prior to the crisis, monetary policies can be viewed as the principal function of central banks. their role was not ignored but

downplayed to some extent. the financial crisis as change that. policies to enhance stability are seen as code = -- co-equal responsibilities. at the institutional level, and the two functions are highly complementary. they all benefit from the sharing of information . at the federal reserve, macro economist helped the dying stress test scenario. supervisors provide information about credit situations. they are thoroughly discussed at meetings. an important debate for the future concerns the extent to

which it is useful for them to make a distinction between their monetary and financial responsibilities including designated separate policy tills reach objectives -- for each objective. it orients changes in the policy toward achieving price stability. the idea that policy is more effective was separate tools is consistent with the principle that economists note. the distinction between macroeconomics and financial stability will always be blurry. monetary policy actions that emperor the outlook tend to improve the condition of the financial firm. actions to support the normal

function can help achieve the monetary policy objectives by improving credit flows. the debate about whether it is possible to dedicated to the financial stability objective is a useful one that raises an important question. a leading example is the question whether it should lean against movement in asset prices. in my view, the issue is not whether central bankers should ignore and balances. a rather what is the right tool for the job. the evolving consensus is that monetary policy is routinely used for and balances.

this is it should remain focused on objectives. they should be used to address risks to financial stability. the toes can be structural or cyclical in nature. examples of a structural tolls are measures to ensure adequate levels of capital liquidity or to increase the resiliency of the infrastructure. a examples of simple tools include varying caps on loan to value ratios. dynamic provision has been employed. capital requirements is set up. structural and cyclical tools can both the dampen and balances and boasts the resilience to

decline at in asset prices. the first tools of reregulation together with appropriate systems should be the first line of defense against the threat of financial instability. the effectiveness of such policies is not yet proven. the possibility that it could be used directly to support financial stability goals option not be ruled out. the financial crisis of 2008 and nine is going to leave a lasting imprint on this practice. the basic principles of targeting and the flexibility has an emphasis on communications on transparency. they seemed destined to survive.

following an older tradition, it has reminded us their responsibility to protect financial stability. it is important to ease monetary policies effectively in pursued a macro economic objectives. the consensus holds that they can dedicate separate tickets to achieving their financial stability. this consensus must be viewed as provisional. these appear to better stocked today. mike terry policy tools are necessary. it encompasses -- financial policy tools are necessary. it encompasses tools that are buried.

supported by enhanced analysis of potential risk. understanding and applying the lessons of the crisis will take some time. practitioners will see how it worked out for them. thank you very much. cracks i cannot say to hear the afternoon session. i see is going into social psychology now. i will be heading back to washington. i want to thank them for inviting me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up in about 45 minutes, timothy geithner testifies before the small business committee about the job creation efforts. over on c-span to, the senate, and security committee talked about by a terrorism. right now, a town hall meeting with steny hoyer. >> this weekend, six republican candidates travel to des moines. what our live coverage as well as gov. rick perry starting at

7:00 a.m. eastern. >> we want to welcome back the president of cio. movement. douglas stone has a piece in the "wall street journal," talking about a recent poll talking to 200 protesters. our research shows that it ds not represent unemployed america. guest: of like to see the research because i was -- i would like to see the research because i was at new york. you had people from all walks of life who were angry at what was going on. they also had a touch of sadness, quite frankly, that the

system was not working for the 99% of us out there. it is working really well for the top 1% but not for them. i saw nor heard of any violence at all. these people were trying to express themselves. this is sprung up in over 1000 towns and cities across the country. u.s. retirees and active people. we figured that when this started catch on and people started coming tother to say, look, wall street destroyed the economy. they should have something to do with putting the economy back on track, because they are back to business than usual and we are left behind with unemployment. we thought they would try to marginalize them. the last visitor that you had on. host: jonah goldbg. guest: he tried his best to marginalizes prepared this party -- to marginalize this

group. he admitted when the tea party started that it was funded by the koch brotrs. when they allow a -- when the supreme urt allowed corporate money to flood into politics, they do not think that they can express themselves. we applaud them and support them. it is a shining example of what docracy is all about. host: hit some would want to express their frustrations through violence, what would you say to them? guest: we would condemn it and try to stop it. host: would you cut your tie with the movement that with that direction? guest: with that part of the movement. 1% of corporate americans, every day you look in the paper, and a corporate ceo foreign official gets convicted of something. should we cut our ties with corporate america because they are all criminals?

no, it is a small group of people, may be a fringe group, and they may even have been sent in to foment it. we have stated in the past. -- we have seen it in the past. many people believe that this economy is now working, that we need to do better. and the republicans in particular have stopped the government from responding to a jobs crisis in this country. host: what is afl-cio's involvement in this group for ?mar guest: we have given them water and aims, but not money. we're supporting them to get the message out. the different places that i have been, pittsburg or new york, one

message is that, wall street caused this and they should invest in creating jobs. they're sitting on $2 trillion in assets, they have been parked in accounts that they are not spending to create jobs. the banks have $1.6 trillion in accounts with the federal reserve. they should be lending to small businesses to create jobs. the second thing is this writedown of mortgages. many people are under water. if we would write them down, we would put $70 billion back into the economy that could be used for job creation. and the third one, the one they probably wall street recoils the most to and comes out the most to marginalize, a tiny financial transaction tax, 0.1% of a

penny, to stop the financial speculations and go out and drop it down. people like us that have a 401(k), they're not turning their accounts and buying 50 times a day, we would not have to pay for that. host: was cut to jobs. and thent obama o democrats have decided to pass the jobs bill in little packages. the first one would have to do with that teachers. it is about $35 billion. would you make of that strategy by the senate democrats? guest: another example of the republicans saying they will not do anything to help create jobs. think about . george bush was president for

eight years. at the end of those eight years, there were fewer jobs in this country than when he started. they are proposing to do everything that gege bush did during those eight years, cut more of a budget, cut taxes for the rich, to all those things that did not create jobs, created last jobs, and so they do not have a plan predation it vote on it all together. we have a crisis in this country. if they truly care about reducing the deficit, they should of voted for the jobs bill. putting people back to work will reduce in the deficit in the future. that is the law -- the way to get rid of it. they did not have any choice but to break it up. in each one of the pieces, the republicans have supported in the past at one time or another. i think president obama said it right, they opposed it because he proposed it.

what is their plan? cut more taxes for the rich? host: what about the senate democrats that oppose the president's plan when it was up four of those in the senate? the word two of them. guest: they were wrong. host: will the afl-cio campaign against them? guest: we do not make those decisions. the people in those states, montana and nebraska, will make that decision. it will be one of e things that is voted on. their whole record will be out there. they voted this way, this way, this way on job creation, and this way on taxes. they voted like this on a number of different issues. i'm sure that it will be major because jobs, jobs, jobs are the top three issues on everyone's mind. host: let's get the phone calls.

caller: how are you? host: what is your comment for richard trka? caller: i have seen where it is reported that the labor unions are contributed money and some of these protesters had been brout in from other areas. but i think the labor unions have a huge part in what is going on in this cntry and the problems we are having. to me coming unions are basicallcorrupt. not the members, but those at the top. it is scary when you have such a powerful group that the president is in their pocket, and we all know that. host: let me ask you about the corruption charge for what is corrupt about the the leadership of the union? guest: they forced people to pay dues and give it to candidates that they really do not support and they are forced to do that. in some states, you can iet a

job unless you are a member of the union. guest: i am tempted to say that i will pray for you. many of the overgeneralizations that you said are just that, the armed myths. i cannot believe you are blaming the working people in this country for the problems caused by corporate america or all street 3 workers did not cause the last recession, wall street did. as far as talking about union officials, you should know this -- we are more regulated than any group out there, far more regulated than ceo's. everything we do is scrutinized by the federal government. it haseen this way since 1959. i heard a ceo complaining that der sarbanes-oxley, they now have to sign a paper thawould hold them rponsible for the finances if they were not correct.

labor leaders have had to do that since 1959. so we are far more regulated. if you look in the paper, and you will see a number of corporate officials on a daily basis that find their way on the wrong side of the law. it is a shame that you would make generalizations like that. that you would say, all labor people aread. it is like saying all catholics are bad or all black pple are dead. those kind of generalizations are not good for this country toward democracy and do not help the debate. host: a democrat in virginia. collor ran up previous callers said that he thought that corporations are basically good and the problems were with government. have you read "retirement eist?"t tax c

the author has spoken on in now like to know if you could invite her on and allow people to ask her questions? host: thank you for the suggestion. guest: that was a question for the network. ossian connecticut, an independent scholacaller. caller: car really feel that organized labor has to stop working with the democratic party. work for the living wage. guest: thank you for the comment. what we're trying to do right now is make ourselves more independent, the labor movement. we have revamped our political program to do that. maebelle take 30 seconds to describe it. it used to be that we would set

our pitical program nine months before the ection. the day of the election, we dismantle it. now our program will be 12 months a year. we will keep it going so that we can transition from electorial politics to advocacy and accountability. we will not tear down, we will continue to build in between. and it will not talking to our members but all workers, getting their feedback so that we can actually give them someoice in political action as well. we will be building our structure, and there is truth to what he said. when we build in the party structure, whether democrats or republicans or independents or anybody else, when we build that structure, we give them the power. we build our own structure and keep the power and working people's hands and it s as a counterbalance the and it acts

as a counterbalance. 're determined to remain independent as much as we can. quite frankly, we would like to be able to support more republicans. but republicans do not support working people. it is more difficult. not all -- many of them. host: will the afl-cio endorsed and campaign for president obama in 2012? guest: that decision has not been made. host: when it is generally made? host: it will be made next year. i would anticipate that we will endorse the president, but the decision has not been made yet. that will be made by our executive council. everyone gets a voice in that. host: your political action committee raised $1.8 million. guest:1.7 million?

host: according to an open secret. guest: love the name. most of our money is spent on educating our members. now more will be spent educating workers, not just union members, but workers themselves. we will do what we have to do and hopefully we will have enough resources to spread the word and get it out. host: in august, you announced the intention to create a union- driven super pac. what is the goal behind that? guest: that allows us to speak beyond our membership. we are only allowed to use union money to talk to our own members. in many states, we talk to our members. the super pac will allow us to talk to workers in general.

host: so you could do issue s. guest: not just issued adds, we can go into neighborhoods and give them information on issues that they think are of interest to them. we find out what they're concerned about and we will give them information. host: where will the money come from from the super pac? guest: is giving contributions from members, from outside donors, it can actually be some of our pac money as well. host: how far along are you in this process? guest: it is developing. host: scott, you are next, republican. caller: i was with the union won an% until i saw you on the steps of the capital hand-in-hand wi the american communist party.

guest: i beg your pardon chris mark caller: on c-span, at their rally. guest: who are you talking about, sir? caller: after glenn beg, you had your rally in washington and you had the american communist party and yo're standing on the capitol steps with them hand in hand. can you explain the affiliation? guest: i have no affiliation with the american communist party. i am a proud american and have been all my time. the american labor movement does not have any affiliation with them. yet you would like people to believe that that is what this is all about, to marginalize this occupy wall street movement and the american labor movement. look, we have more people that defended this country anticipated in the armed

services than any other group out there. we do more training of veterans than anybody else out there. i'll put are bonafide spent an hour americanism ainst anybody. we resent the fact that the city unions are bad, you associated us with groups that are somehow less savory or unacceptable. the people in that communist party under this constitution have a right to be there. they do not represent us. you should not indicate that they do. host: of democratic caller, south carolina. guest: you should not dismiss the communist party or socialist party so easily. you basically said there and said you are afraid to say that hand of someone who is a communist party leader. who cares? guest: ihink i just said that. under this constitution, people have the right to believe what

th want to believe. we fought for the right for people to stand up and say they believe in this or that. the entire spectrum is out there. the more that we encourage people to participate, the more those rights are protected. host: florida, an independent caller. caller: thank you for c-span taking my calls and the afl-cio. [unintellible] i do not think this country is going to go anywhere unless they bailout main street first. guest: i think what you're saying, and what you believe in, many people believe in. we have a jobs crisis in this country. wall street has been taken care of.

significantly. now they're back to business as usual. main street is still 14 million jobs them. we are -- 14 million jobs down. they sit on trillions in profits that they are not investing to create jobs, and the banks said on $1.6 trillion in federal reserve accounts that they are not investing, they should be doing something about it. i think that is what this movement is all about, saying that if you want to solve the problems of the country, put 25 million people back to work. you not have e problems of this deficit and a number of other problems. you do not have to worry about unemployment compensation because people will be giving back rather than taking. that is what they wanted to. the americans that i have been around, they want to work, if it won an opportunity to have a job to support their family. that is really what defines as,

work defines the sink and nexus with one upon a -- defines us and connects us with one another. you cannot be onis show today without west rginia coal miners producing electricity to keep you on the air. he is right, we need to focus on jobs and get people back to work and everyone is better off. host: talk about the free-trade agreements recently approved for south korea, panama, and colombia. here is what the president said over the weekend. >> this week congress passed landmark trade agreements with countries like korea and assistant for american workers that will be a big win for our economy. they will support tens of thousands of american jobs, and we will sell more fords, chevy, and chrysler's are broad. -- abroad.

it is good to see congress act in a bipartisan way on something they will help create jobs at a time when millions of americans are still out of work and need them now. host: promising jobs and a big windr americans in this free trade agreement. guest: i think is totally wrong. there were initiated by george bush. he madthe caribbean agreement a little better but it is still not acceptable. by all standards, it will cost as 159,000 jobs. 159,000 jobs. -- us one under 59,000 jobs. the colombian trade agreement will cost us jobs. last year, 51 trade unionist were assassinated in colombia,

not killed, assassinated because they were trying to bring their family out of grinding poverty. they put an agreement and called the labor action plan, and since it was put into effect, 15 trade unionists have been assassinated. it will cost us jobs and it will not be good for us. i think the vast majority of americans believe that the trade regime as we currently have that has not been good for the country. it is encouraging of soaring -- jobs to go offshore. i think the president himself when he was running looked at these agreements said that they were antiquated and do not meet the needs of the country. he was right then and is wrong now. host: you said that they are likely -- that the afl-cio is likely to endorse president obama third if you told reuters

he would work against any elected leader who supports pending trade patrick -- free trade agreements. any elected leader. guest: that would be one of the of the things that will be put out there. as i told you before, there is no litmus test. there are a number of issues and this will be one of them. the jobs vote will be weighted heavily. the trade agreements will be weighted heavily. will the president's support of those bills make it more difficult to get all of our members to come out and support him? the answer is yes, it will. that does not mean that because he has been a friend on 90 other issues that he is not a friend overall. host: north carolina, a republican. caller: thank you for accepting our calls. earlierrd you speak about blaming george bush with

the jobs, half less jobs when he left office. i want you to explain why that president obama at the senate and house of representatives the first two years he was in office, and the lostore jobs than george bush did. guest: i did not hear is first and encouragement -- his first name. caller: cecil. guest: first of all, you're an actor. the economy was losing about 750,000 jobs a month when the president came into office. george bush had last jobs at the end of his eight years than at the beginning. their reasoning things did not get done was a little thing called the filibuster. democrats never had 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, so the

republican senate filibustered everything, including his appointees. he has fewer people confirmed right now than any other president before him, because the senate and these republicans will not confirm people for him. they use the filibuster to stop anythi from happening. mitch mcconnell said that their number one job was to make sure that obama will does not correct -- does i get elected. that is not the way things used to be. we need to look at this country and do what is best for the country. it did not matter whether your democratic republican, i something was going to create jobs, we ought to be behind it and supporting it. if we can people back to work, that is a good thing this country. the fact that we only make 50% of things did it for national- security because of ba policy,

we should see that that is not good for the country. we ought to change that and come together. we like to work with everyone we cano put 25 million people back to work, that everyone has health care, that everyone has a decent pension when they retire if they work hard along the way. that is what people ask right now. their version of the american dream is not that everyone becomes a millionaire, but just to have a job to raise their family on in a little bit of security when they retire, a decent pension to live on, and that they can be a short or at least believe and have the opportunity for their children to do better than they did. that has always been the american dream and we ought to work together for that. host: this tweet want to talk about the and the structure bank and the president jobs bill. guest: first of all, let's talk

about infrastructure. according to the american society of civil engineers, we have a $2.20 trillion infrastructure deficit. we have not been investing in this country since the great generation. most of our bridges, highways command bases were built in the 1950's and we have been living off the gift that generation give us. we also have a $2 trillion deficit with a new generation stuff, smart grade, and electrical distribution, high- speed rail. these are all things that would bring this into the 21st century. our competitors have this. in order for us to compete, we need to invest in infrastructure. in the past, this has always been a no-brainer, always a bipartisan issue.

ever ready comes together, boom, it is out of the way. the faa, clean water act, clean air act. but all of those things were bipartisan. we need get back to that. a big portion of the jobs bill is in infrastructure. it creates about four jobs out there. it is a multiplier of about four. it puts a lot of people back to work >> not just the construction workers. guest: that's right. transportation worker, the person who makes the pictorial -- the material. it is a buy american provision. we have a couple of things in this country right now that real do functn like an infrastructure bank. there is a one-act where we have the same kind of lending

mechanism that can put people back to work. it has worked exceptionally well. it needs a buy american provision. we have gotten a fight on that. most people say it is exactly right and here's why. take the wind mill, for instance. if you by the wind mill overseas, 64 cents out of every tax $1 goes to stimulate their economy, not ours. we should not be using american tax dollars to put their people to work when our people are out of work. we would have a buy america provision and a prevailing wage. what that means is that on any of the project in the area, the wage that prevails is the wage paid on the project, whether it is union or not. the federal government should not be used to drive down wages in the economy. that is what happens if they

come in and say every job on the construction site needs to be minimum-wage. it would drive down wages and hurt the entire community. remember. our economy a 72% driven by consumer spending. consumers do not have money, they cannot spend it. host: democratic column from here, pennsylvania. caller: i have been a union member for a long time. i was a teacher at a community college and we went union. now we wonder why not because we are all much better off because we had a union. it gives real little bit of power. whenever you have a boss, there's always a temptation for the boss to take advantage, so it was a chance for the people to make their on the positions heard, so thank you.

what i am wondering today is what your position is on war in general, because i've would like to bring the troops home and end the war, but that might be an economic problem because you have more people unemployed. guest: first of all, we would like to see the troops come home and we generally oppose the war right now as it is. if people came home, i do not think it would put more people out of work. we are spending a considerable amount on the war's end enough to judge whether or not is being well spent or not, but that money could easily be spent on job creation for those people coming back and other people back to work as well. i also want to comment about what she said about unions and how it made things better. this is the way li to explain unionism. in capsulizes a lot of it.

my son was two or three years old of the time it became to me one day in my office and said he wanted to do something. i was busy with something else and i looked at him and i just said no. he was upset, but he did not have any recourse. he did not have a way to change my mind. the next day, my wife comes in and says she wants to get a car. i can guantee you it was a different response. we sat down and we talked about it and are actually worked through it because she and i are equal in marriage. that is what happens when you get a union. you are more like a husband and wife, equal making decisions. without a union your like a child, no recourse and no power. i think that explains this as

well as we can. host: off of twitter -- guest: we are for secret ballots. i was elected by the union and came through in a secret ballot election. host: maybe he met why are you for them. guest: that is what we have done here. i guess that is what he is talking about here. host: i think he means just in the union. guest: that is the system. the system is so antiquated and skewed against workers. really, you do not get to vote even with a secret ballot because as soon as we announce a union drive, they start threatening people come up firing people. 25,000 people get fired per year for trying to join a union. those are just t ones that get caught.

host: so you need a secret llot? guest: in some instances yes, in some know. they drag out the process for years to get tracy cabal and by then they have threatened some many people that it is nothing. there was an alternative method that said people signed a card that said, "i want to be in a union" and 51% did then there would be a union. you go to the lions club or the catholic church. i sign a card and say i am a part of the lions club. but you do not need to vote on it. host: independence in virginia, your next for richard trumka. go ahead. i think we lost that caller. we move on to annapolis. call: i would like to ask why

so many companies have less this country. they were union companies and went abroad. the union would not agree to come to an agreement to keep the jobs here. the people leave the country, and run it themselves. they know all the jobs there. all they need is the financial backing. guest: you make interesting points about taking ove factories at the end or buying them now. it has been done a number of situations. since the year 2000, literally 54,000 factories in this country have shut down and closed their doors. the majority of them were not union but it is because the policies in this country. we were bored people for taking jobs offshore. we give them tax breaks and other things. all of these policies together

needs to be holistic. the trade policies, tax policies, manufacturing policies. if we brought them all together to encourage people to build here and we would reward them for manufacturing here and producing here, the jobs would come. but what we have is a system their rewards people for going overseas. you have a corporation that has just built a number of factories in china. we have a bill up here that would stop the chinese from illegally manipulating their currencies. those multi-national corporations that are doing business in china are lobbying against that bill because they make more money that way but for china cheating on their trade agreement. they also do not comply with child labor laws, prison labor laws, health and safety laws,

and a minimum wage laws. that is another trade violation and still you have multinational corporations that lobby against any effort to stop that from happening in disadvantaging the producers here in this country. we have hundreds of small and mid-sized producers that agree with us and we come in coalition together. we think there ought to be rewards for people who produce things here. i do like your thought about if a company just up and moves if we can take it over. in some instances you can come and in some it is not economically possible because you do not have a market to sell things with. they take the market or presume out so it is a little more difficult. we do it where feasible and we have done a number of times. we will continue to do it, but i appreciate your thought. host: 80 minutes left with richard trumka, the president of

the afl-cio. caller: mr. trumka, my name is joe and i retired union minor. i would like your opinion and i would like to ask a follow-up question. are you in favor of preserving blair mountain as a state or natialark that creates a preservation of the middle class? we fought a war. i like your opinion and to ask a follow-up. guest: i would be in favor of supporting that just like i would be in favor of preserving the gettysburg battlefield or any of our other historic events. once that history is lost, is lost forever. i think that is an important part of west virginia culture. you will recall that is where the term "redneck" first originative because miners, in order to -recognize themselves

wore a red neckerchiefs around their neck. that is all that it was. the answer is we need to preserve o history and heritage because it is so important to all of us. host: are you still there? caller: since blair mountain is currtly scheduled for mountaintop removal mining and somewhere between 18-22 side to reports that say blair mountain -- that mountaintop removal is a problem scientifically for america. would you be in favor of movg away from mountaintop removal and having more people and more jobs underground mining which would create more jobs and does a better job for the people of west virginia? host: richard trumka?

guest: i am in favor of anything that creates jobs. we he 25 million people who are underemployed are -- or out of work. i make third-generation miner. most of my uncles, cousins, they were all or are currently coal miners, so why would be in favor of making sure that heritage could continue. host: fitzgerald, ga., republican. caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to ask mr. trumka what he thinks about a closed union shop. i was in the railroad industry for 40 years and i was forced to be in a union. i would like to ask mr. trump that if he agrees with that. guest: let me give you an example. what you have right now is a

union comes in and there is a vote and everyone is in the shop, but not so in a right to work sates. -- states. fors say we had a vote governor and i did not like to vote and i did not have to listen to that governor. i did not have to comply with the governor or go along with anything that governor does. that is essentially what a right work state does. after there's a vote in the majority of people vote for a union, the majority gets to say they do care. -- they do not care. they do not want any of the responsibility. that weakens the voice against the employer and it weakens what i would call democracy. the are people who did not agree with barack obama or any governor in any state said they governor in any state said they would