then fill kerpen joins us. and then jake tapper joins us to talk about the mad about unit. live calls on "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. today in new hampshire, president obama was interrupted by protesters during a speech on jobs. that is coming up next on c- span. a number of conservative organizations talk about not reducing taxes for the federal deficit. and later, u.s. comptroller general david walker ways and on the failure of the joint deficit-reduction committee to reach an agreement.

>> there was a flood in fort wayne. people were down there desperately filling sandbags. air force one stopped, reagan took a motorcade down to the flooded area. he took off his jacket. my guess is he filled three sandbags and said hello to everyone and got back in the car and got back on the plane. but that night, wet fill the eric -- what filled the airwaves was re in filling sandbags with his shirt off. >> it talk about the legacy of ronald wagon. -- ronald reagan. they discuss the american dream. and astronauts are awarded the congressional gold medal. for the entire thanksgiving day schedule, go to c-span.org.

>> president obama promoter of his jobs bill earlier at central high school in manchester new hampshire. at the beginning of his remarks, the president is interrupted by a group of protesters. new hampshire will hold its first primary on january 10, 2012. this is 40 minutes. [applause] orix hello, new hampshire. it is good to be here today. it is good to be back in new

hampshire. although, i have to say i feel a little winter coming on around here. [laughter] that is what happens when you fly north. it is wonderful to be here. i had a chance to see backstage principal mayott and he reminded me what i said to him almost four years ago to the day that i was here. surprisingly enough, there was a snowstorm in new hampshire. [laughter] we had to leave a bit early and we were not able to do everything we wanted. we were worried that folks were born to be disappointed. i promised him that i would be back. [cheers] i kept my promise. we are back. in addition, i want to

acknowledge the superintendent, tom brennan, who is here with his lovely wife, wendy. give them a round of applause. [applause] happy thanksgiving a little bit early, everybody. i understand we have the senior class here at central high. [cheers] >> you guys are pretty excited about being seniors, aren't you? [cheers] i want to thank also someone who is doing outstanding work each

and every day, was doing it up here as a wonderful governor and now is one of your most outstanding senators in the country, jean chretien -- gene sheheen is in the house. before i came to school today, i had coffee -- >> [unintelligible] >> over 4000 protesters have been arrested. [unintelligible chanting] [crowd boos]

>> that is okay. >> [unintelligible chanting] >> ok, guys. i will be talking about a range of things today, and i appreciate you guys making your point. let me go ahead and make my. i will listen to you and you will listen to me, all right? [cheers] what i was saying is that i'm having coffee -- i was having coffee with some of your neighbors and one of them was the corburys. he is a math teacher here at central high.

he did want me to remind all his students that you still have homework to do. [laughter] but as chris said, he is also a colonel, recently retired after 26 years in the military. he had tours of duty in iraq, kuwait, haiti, and i could not thank him enough for his service because obviously we know our service members, our veterans, they are the ones who keep us safe and are preserving our freedom. it is an enormous sacrifice. [cheers and applause] in fact, this holiday season will be a season of homecomings across america because by the end of next month all of our troops will be out of iraq.

[cheers and applause over coffee, we were -- [cheers and applause] over coffee, we were talking about how he is trying to save for his two friends college education. they are doing the best they can in tough times. families like bears, families like yours, young people like the ones here today, including those who were just chanting at me, you are the reason i ran for office in the first place. [cheers and applause) and it is folks like you why i spend so much time appear in a dead of winter four years ago because we were going through a difficult decade for the middle class for

margaret jobs and manufacturing that was leaving our shores. -- more good jobs and manufacturing that was leaving our shores. homes that were not properly financed and families watching their incomes fall, and wages flat line, and the cost of everything from college to health care kept going up. then the financial crisis hit. that was the closing week of the campaign, and that made things even tougher. today, many americans have spent months looking for work, and others are doing the best they can to get by. there are a lot of folks out there who just cannot do the night's out any more because they have to save on gas or make mortgage. there are families putting off retirement to make sure that their kids can go to college. and yet people who have gone to college and gotten a bunch of

debt, find themselves without opportunity. a lot of the folks that have been in new york and across the movement, the occupiey there is a profound sense of frustration about the fact that -- the essence of the american dream, which is if you work hard, if you stick to it, then you can make it -- it feels like that is slipping away. that is not how things are supposed to be here, not in america. [applause] this is a place where your hard work and a responsibility is supposed to pay off. it is supposed to be a big, compassionate country wherever one who works hard should have a chance to get ahead, not just the men and women who own the factory, but the men and women

who work on the factory floor. [applause] we stay true to a fundamental idea, the idea that we are all in this together. that is what we are fighting for. that is what is at stake right now. we have been taking some tough punches, but one thing i know about folks in manchester and folks in new hampshire and across the country is we are tough. we are fighting back. we are moving forward, and we are going to get this right so that every single american has opportunity in this country. [cheers and applause] we are not going to have an

america in which only a sliver of folks have opportunity. we will have an america where everybody has opportunity, and that is going to take some time. our economic problems were not caused overnight and they will not be solved overnight. it will take an economy where hard work is valued and responsibility is rewarded. it will take time to rebuild an economy that restores security for the middle class and opportunity for folks trying to reach the middle class. it will take time to rebuild an economy that is not based on outsourcing or tax loopholes or a risky financial deal, but one that is built to last where we invest in education and small business and manufacturing and making things the rest of the world is willing to buy. [applause] we're going to get it done. we will get there. and right now, we have got to do everything we can to put our

friends and neighbors back to work and help people like the corburys back to work. two months ago i sent congress the american jobs bill. it will put more people back to work and put more money in the pockets of americans. it is full of the kinds of ideas that in the past have been supported by democrats and republicans. and it is paid for by asking our wealthiest citizens to pay their fair share. [cheers and applause] independent economists said it would create nearly 2 million jobs, grow the economy by an extra 2%. that is not my opinion, my team's opinion, but the opinion of folks who evaluate these things for a living.

some folks in washington do not seem to get the message that people care right now about putting folks back to work and giving young people opportunity. when this bill came up for a vote, republicans in the senate got together and blocked it. they refused to even debate it. 100% of republicans opposed it. not one republican in washington was willing to say it was the right thing to do, not one. what we have done is, we have refused to quit. i have said i will do everything in my power to act on behalf of the american people, with or without congress. [cheers and applause] over the past several weeks we have taken steps on our own to

give working americans a leg up in a tough economy. we announced on our own a new policy that will help refinance mortgages and save thousands of dollars. a lot of young people who work in new york and around the country, they are worried about student loans. it's on our own without congress, we reformed the student loan process to make it easier for more students to pay off their debt. [cheers and applause] by the way, that was building on top of legislation that we passed a year ago that said, instead of sending $60 billion to banks to manage the student loan program, let's give it directly to students so millions more young people can afford a college education. [cheers and applause]

we enacted several new initiatives to help returning veterans find jobs. the kind of outstanding young men and women that chris was talking about, who come home -- i was up in minnesota and met a young man who had been an emergency medic in iraq saving lives under the most severe circumstances. he came home and he was having to take nursing a glass all over again, even -- nursing classes all over again even though he had been saving lives in the field for the past two years and did not get credit for it. if you are qualified -- we are making changes so that if you are qualified to save a life on the battlefield, you are qualified to say they live in an ambulance. [cheers and applause] and yesterday, i signed into law two new tax breaks for businesses that hire.

nobody that fights for america's overseas should have to fight for a job when they come home. [cheers and applause] i proposed the tax breaks in september as part of my jobs bill and thanks to folks like gene shaheen and some republicans, we finally got this part of the bill passed. we finally got them to say yes to taking action. but there's a lot more we have to do if we are going to get folks back to work and rebuild an economy that works for everybody. next week, congress will have another chance to do the right thing. congress will have another chance to say yes to helping working families like the cor burys. last year, we came together to cut payroll taxes by $1,000 this

year. it helps -- it has been showing up in your paycheck each week. you may not know it, but it is showing up because of the action we took. by the way, one of the folks from the other side coming in and talking about raising taxes, you just remind them that since i got into office i have lowered your taxes, not raise them. [applause] this payroll tax is set to expire at the end of the year. this tax cut and. -- this tax cut will end. if congress refuses to act, middle class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. the for the average family, your taxes will go up by $1,000 if we do not act by the end of the

month. we cannot have that, not right now. it would be bad for the economy, bad for employment. that is why my jobs bill expands the tax cut. instead of a $1,000 per year tax cut next year, the average working family would get a tax cut of $1,500. that is $1,500 that would be taken out of your paycheck that will, instead, be taken out -- be put into your pocket. the american jobs act would also cut payroll taxes in half for small business owners. say you have 50 employees making $50,000 apiece. you get a tax cut of $80,000. that is real money you can use to hire new workers or buy more equipment. the republicans in the senate voted no on my jobs built and

those tax cuts. but in the spirit of thanksgiving -- [laughter] we will give them another chance. [cheers and applause] next week, they will get to take a simple vote. if they vote no again, the typical family's taxes will go up $1,000 next year. if they vote yes, the typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut. i just want it to be clear for everybody. no, on your taxes go up. yes, you get a tax cut. which way do you think congress should vote? it is pretty simple. we have set up a tax calculator at whitehouse.gov so you can see

what will happen to your money. the question they will have to answer when they get back from thanksgiving is this, are they willing to break their rope to never raise taxes and raise taxes -- they're both too never raise taxes and raise taxes on the middle-class just to break point? i sure hope not. this is not about who wins or loses in washington. this is about delivering for the american people. [applause] guay $1,500 tax cut for middle- class families, that is -- a $1,500 tax cut for middle-class families, that is a big deal for people. how many business owners can see

their customers taking $1,000 less next year? that is $1,000 less to spend. how many of you could use an extra $1,500 in your pocket? [cheers] this is a big deal if you are in new hampshire and all across america. and keep in mind, we will do it responsibly, because unlike other tax-cut instituted in the past several years, we will make sure it does not add to our deficit. we are asking the wealthiest americans, the folks that got the biggest tax cuts in the past decade, the folks that made it through the recession better than most, folks who have seen their incomes go up much more quickly than anybody else over the last three decades -- exponentially -- we are asking them to contribute a little bit more to get our economy working for everybody.

[cheers and applause] we are asking people like me to pay our fair share, so middle- class families can get a tax cut. i believe that most americans are willing to do their part. the truth of the matter is, i cannot tell you how many well- to-do americans that i need say to me, look, i want to do more because i know that the only reason i am doing well is because somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a good education. somewhere along the line, someone gave me a college scholarship. somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a chance and i want to do the same for those coming up now. that is what america is all about. [applause]

congress has a very simple choice next week. do you want to cut taxes for the middle-class and those trying to get into the middle class? or do you want to protect massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, many of will want to actually help? do you want to help this economy get back on solid ground for all of us, or do you want to vote to raise taxes on nearly 160 million americans during the holidays? when push comes to shove, are you willing to fight as hard for working families as you are for the wealthiest americans. what is it going to be? that is the choice. as i look around this room, i see these young people, but i also see their parents.

and i am thinking, you know, the folks in manchester, you work hard. you play by the rules. you are meeting your responsibilities. [applause] and if you are working hard and needing your responsibilities, at the very least, you should expect congress to do the same. they should be doing everything in their power to make our economy stronger, not weaker. they should be doing everything we can -- they can to protect the middle class from tax hikes, not hide your taxes. and this is where you can help. congress works for you. you have an outstanding senator here. she is already on the program. [applause] but to everyone who is here, or watching at home or on line, if your members of congress are not delivering, you have got to send a message. make sure they listen. tell them, do not be a branch --

grinch. [laughter] put the country before party. put money back in the pockets of working families. do your job. past our jobs bill. it is time for the folks here are running around talking about what is wrong with america to spend some time rolling up their sleeves to help us rebuild america and rebuild the middle class and give young people the opportunity -- [cheers and applause] there is nothing wrong with this country that we cannot fix. i was just traveling in asia the last week. this is the fastest-growing region of the world. but what was amazing was how everybody still looked to america.

they took a poll in asia that said, what do you think about america compared to china, and in eight out of nine countries in asia they said, america is the country we look to. they understand that this experiment in democracy, this belief that everybody can make it if they try, this belief in a broad middle class that lifts everybody up, not just some, they know that idea of america is more powerful than anything else. but we've got to have folks in washington who have the same belief that same sense that when this economy is going well, it is because it is going well for

everybody. and when it goes well for everybody, it is good for folks at the top as well as the bottom. and it is certainly good for folks in the middle. [applause] those values that built this country, those values that all of you represent, that is what we are fighting for. that is what the american jobs act is all about. that is what the debate in washington are all about. we have to constantly remind ourselves of who we are and what we believe in. we are americans, and our story has never been about doing things easy. it is about rising to the moment when the mormon -- the moment is hard. it is about doing what is right. it is about making sure that gruba has a chance, not just a few. let's do it right. let's meet the moment. let's prove that the best days of the united states of america

are still ahead of us. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪ >> on tomorrow's "washington journal", a discussion on the gop presidential candidates and national security. former nato supreme allied

commander general wesley clark joins us. and then phil kerpen about the failure of viet debt committee to reach agreement. -- of the super committee to reach an agreement on the debt. >> one of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth. i say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. >> for most of his life, george wallace was an ardent supporter of segregation, outspoken against the civil rights movement. the four-term governor of alabama ran for president and loss. one of those efforts cut short by an assassination attempt.

this week on "the contenders" george wallace, live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and friday. >> the joint deficit reduction committee failed to reach an agreement before its deadline. this news conference is 45 minutes.

>> let me read my statement first. after reading my statement, there will be remarks by tony perkins, kalla by tim phillips, jenny beth martin, and david percy and mr. mcintosh. we have a microphone coming around. wait for the microphone to be passed. ladies and gentleman, today, we applaud the republicans on the super committee for not giving in to and a disastrous taxes. we applaud those who made it clear to republicans in congress that raising taxes is absolutely unacceptable. we do not need more star chambers. do we do not need more super committees. we need to lower the debt and spending that will get the job done. simply put, no more gimmicks. we need a responsible budget for once. some of the media and the white

house want you to believe that the white -- that the super committee failed. but in a very real way, that is untrue. the deaths of the negotiations that would have led to higher taxes on the american people is a clear victory. there's no question, liberals killed any meaningful debt reduction because they will not admit spending is the real problem. only in washington do we think it is a real problem -- to rethink it is a real option to raise taxes and do not considered a spending problem. the democrats are not the only ones to blame here. since obama has taken office, he has added $4 trillion to the national debt, and republicans have done next to nothing to stop this runaway spending train. it is their debt, too. americans are simply demanding that washington and this it's --

end its drunken spending spree. but the super committees or no support committees, we must be ever vigilant, given how members of congress from both parties are known to break their congresses and cut back room deals. this is not the last time the gop will be pushed into a corner and pressures to raise taxes. if republicans ultimately caved into liberal demands and support tax increases, 2012 will be devastating. gwenn republicans' campaign and govern as conservatives, distinguishing themselves from liberal democrats, they always win. but when the campaign as conservatives and then governor -- and then govern as democrats like, then they always lose. our organization formed just one year ago, has over 8.1 million

very engaged members organized not by party, but by a common belief in conservative, ltd., a liberal -- limited to constitutional government. we want government to quit robbing our children and grandchildren. yesterday, nearly 100 different conservative organizations were gathered and on this issue, there is unanimous agreement. newt gingrich's was right when he proclaimed the super committee aide, idea. -- a dumb idea. there's a reason americans are holding both parties responsible. approval ratings are at an all- time low. we are mindful that even though american people have been scared a tax increase for the moment, supposedly they can magically resurrect themselves. we must hold congress's feet to

the fire to make sure that no one caves in. if republicans vote to raise taxes, they will be the the accomplices to an economic train wrecks just run the corner. in 1991, we held a press conference after george h. w. bush signaled he was caving in on tax increases. even though his approval rating was in the high 70's, we concluded he would lose because of this tax vote. some of you in the press actually laughed during that press conference. in 1992, we decided to endorse president bush's campaign. i stated that we made the worst anderson of the year, given there was nothing we could do to save his campaign now. if republicans vote for tax increases, they will suffer the

same fate. they will be out next november. this coalition of groups along with millions of americans will issue a stern warning to our representatives, create -- to our representatives. create a budget that cut spending and do not raise taxes. i do it now. >> the task before the subic committee was to find $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. that comes up to $120 billion a year. to put that in perspective, this would be like the average family with an media -- with a median income of $46,000, cutting $14,000 from their annual budget.

many families have had to do that in the last couple of years, and much more than that. this succeeded in showing americans the vast ideological divide that stands between the two main political parties in this town. on the one hand, there's a party that believes we can sustain spending levels that have doubled in the last decade. in 2001, the national budget was $1.8 trillion. in 2011 it was $3.6 trillion. members have said no to increased tax spending and have voted to change the tax structure and cut bloated spending. i applaud the six members of that committee.

for refusing to agree to raise taxes as a part of the solution. some might ask why the family research council is weighing in on the topic of the budget, the deficit, and the economy. first, we have been for some time. not only does this impact families, not only are they impacted by bloated government driven by out-of-control spending, the family is the key to getting our economy back on track. if we ever hope to shrink the size and scope of government, we must first strengthen the american family, not more with more government funded programs, but public policies that promote a brighter than discourage family formation and family stability. this is not the time to declare victory, nor defeat. it is time to go back and -- it

is time for congress to go back and do what it should have done in the first place. and that is, allowing the public to have input in the process. and a warning for our nation's security, the military must not become a part of political gamesmanship. it is time for congress to cap the budget, cap spending, pass a balanced budget amendment, in a meaningful balance budget amendment, and to bury obamacare once and for all, which will provide stability and growth to our nation's economy. the future for the republican majority rests upon it acting responsibly, and not governing as the democratic party but like to do, by raising taxes on american families -- would like to do, by raising taxes on american families. >> thank you. tim phillips, americans for

prosperity. >> last november, republicans across this great country promised throughout their campaigns to two key things in pursuit of economic recovery and job creation. never one was to not raise taxes, in fact, to push -- #one was to push for -- nu mber one was to not raise taxes, in fact, to push for cuts in taxes. and to push for generating economic prosperity. they made these two promises last fall and millions of americans believed them. now they face a moment of truth. we will find out whether they are born to keep their promise not to increase taxes -- going

to keep their promise not to increase taxes, and are they going to cut spending? sadly, we know where the president and nancy pelosi and harry reid stand. they want to raise taxes. it is time for americans to call on republicans and warned them easterly to keep their word -- warn them sternly to keep their word to not raise taxes. it is disconcerting to see tax increase offers on the table. that is not the way to prosperity. and last week, this congress with the support of many republicans in the house and senate, passed a spending bill that blew through the budget numbers on every front. early indications on the spending front are not good. if republicans are to avoid the

fate they had this past decade of promising spending cuts and fiscal responsibility, and then dramatically failing in that responsibility, if they are going to avoid that and avoid the fate that they have been turned off by the american people, they have to stand up and take this message of prosperity to the country. secondly, they have to be serious about cutting spending. no more gimmicks. let's cut spending. folks talk about the $1.2 trillion over the next decade, but in reality, that is less than 3% of the expenditures over a decade. what family out there has not had to make those cuts? surely, republicans and democrats can make those the same cuts. i will close with this. about two months ago with americans for prosperity, i

stood in washington state at the home of the congressional stupor committee. -- home of the chair of the congressional super committee. we travel across the country holding events, pushing on activism, and hundreds of thousands of americans responded to that call, contract in congress, signing petitions and sang, hold the line on tax increases. -- contacting congress, signing petitions, and saying, hold the line on tax increases. over the next month, genuinely promote job creation and economic recovery by holding the line on taxes and cut spending. that is the way to prosperity. thank you. >> thank you. gynnae beth morton, the head of the largest tv party

organization in america, the tea party patriot. >> our modern tea party movement started because people were fed up with the out-of-control government spending, and it still has not stopped. in fact, it has gotten worse in the past two and a half years. the elections last year had one overwhelming message. that is, it is time for congress to quit spending so much money, and they have not listened. and they are not listening. they set up this so-called super committee, knowing it would not work just to be a distraction so they could continue to increase taxes. and the crazy thing is, only in washington d.c. do they say it is a spending cut when, really, they are raising spending. and because they are so addictive to the spending, they are still considering raising

our taxes. we say, enough is enough. it is time to stop. cut the spending now. we challenge both the house and senate to cut $one trillion dollars of real spending during that process. -- $1 trillion of real spending during the process. progress cannot make -- take more money out of our paychecks -- congress cannot take more money out of our paychecks because they cannot get control of their overspending. we say, do not raise taxes, cut the spending, and cut it now. >> thank you. david, the head of citizens united. >> thank you all very much. i am the president of citizens united. i want to thank brett for this conference. i want to associate myself with

his comments. elections have consequences. the over 500,000 members of citizens united are tired of the games. we are tired of the republican and democrat games. we are in the midst of an obama recession, and president obama and the democrats in congress just want to continue the failed status quo. that is unacceptable to the american people. the status quo is more spending and more taxes and more debt. america needs lou -- new leadership to chart us back to fiscal sanity. by following the same old policies, president obama has failed the american people. just last year, you have to remember that even president obama said you cannot raise taxes during a recession.

last week, 72 republicans to a common sense step in sending a letter to the now defunct super committee, urging them to not raise taxes on their fellow americans. of that number, 43 of the 72 were supported by the citizens united political victory fund. i am happy with those 43, and i'm happy with the 72. my question is, where is the other 170? where's the rest of the republican caucus? where is the republican leadership? we have to have elected members of the house and senate who will buckle leadership on these important issues of the day. as some of my colleagues have said today come out if we do not do that, we will be tossed out -- have said today, if we do not do that, we will be tossed out next year. nothing has changed.

federal spending will still increase by $145 billion this year. an increase in spending of $145 billion in fiscal year 2011. that is not cutting. that is not doing anything, but continuing with the status quo. leaders on both sides of the aisle have failed the american people. i think newt gingrich had it right. i think it was brett who said this super -- who said that he had said this was a bad idea, the super committee. they are just kicking the can down the road. now president obama has said he will veto any way to get around it. we are handing the democrats a

campaign issue that i do not think they ought to have. we need to come together as a movement. the conservative movement must leave this party down the road to fiscal sanity. thank you. >> thank you. dave mcintosh. >> i want to share with you -- there's a group of us that pulled together economists from different perspectives to form there is a better way than tax increases to solve the debt and deficit problem. it is a pro-growth prosperity agenda. we saw it in the 1980's when president reagan came in in a severe recession and cut taxes and had regulatory reform, stable money. we saw it when president clinton came in in the 1990's after a recession and we had the contract with america with lower taxes, less regulation, pro-growth initiatives.

that is what we need to put on the table now is a better way of a prosperity agenda that will take our gross domestic product from $15 trillion to $20 trillion. it has happened in the past during the reagan administration. there were 17 million new jobs created and in the clinton administration, there were 23 million new jobs. in the last decade, we have only seen 3 million new jobs. we need that growth agenda. there is a lot of great ideas so let's let them compete in some of them are tax reforms that do not punish investment and job creation, stable money and currency, torte reform and regulatory reform. the phoenix group said you could cut 10% of federal regulations, that would create over 1 million new jobs and approximately $150 billion of economic growth. there's a better way and we will form this prosperity committee and we will send the leadership of the house and the son of these ideas so they can start moving in that direction.

thank you for including me and thank you for holding this conference. >> finally, a couple of words from general ed meese from the heritage confederation. >> the news today is that economic growth during the third quarter has been scaled back to%. the reason that mimic growth which is so different from the recovery in the 1980's under president reagan is that we are constantly facing the specter of tax increases, regulatory increases, and increased spending. until we get this under control, we will not get -- have economic growth and will continue the unemployment we are facing at the present time. it is critical to look at history and see where we had economic growth. we have to look good when we have lower taxes and less spending and control the budget and we have less deficit.

that is the only remedy that will do anything to improve the economy. as long as we face the threat of tax increases, we will have this continued unemployment and a continued problem we face today. the message that should come out of this conference today for which i thanked brent for organizing his last command those members of the congress who have stood against tax increases and let's make sure that we go ahead into the future with a firm commitment against raising taxes and a real effort to control spending and two overall lower the debt, thank you. >> we will open up for questions and be mindful that we have to pass around the microphone. would you like to state who you would like to ask this of? >> this is for most of the members who have spoken. i am from "the washington post." the message is that we need to cut taxes -- make sure that tax increases don't happen and we cut spending. would you agree that we should

extend to the payroll tax extension? >> speaking for myself, i think it was a disastrous idea and an unbelievably stupid idea to go along with a provision that would cripple our military during a war. we know our leaders would not show leadership. something has to be done and done quickly. we cannot penalize the military. we cannot penalize the military during a time of war. that said, there is so much that could be done and should be done and has been promised to be done.

how many times have we heard promises to cut the abortion portion of planned parenthood. nothing has been done leadership promised to x out the unnecessary spending pbs. nothing has been done. promises were made and promises have not been kept. let harry reid stand up and say that he will fight to keep the abortion mills of plan power to open. -- a planned parenthood open. republicans would win a landslide but republicans don't take a stand here and don't take very strong stand saying that they are very serious about cuts and they put it on paper, then the public will not distinguish between parties come november. it will be guaranteed that republicans will lose.

>> what about the reversal of some of the spending cuts in the military? >> it would be hypocritical for democrats or republicans will cut a debt limit do just this past summer and turn around and say we were just kidding about the spending side. the dollar levels have to be there.

that is the deal they made. it was the wrong deal. we supported cuts, cap, and balance. to turnaround would be wrong. >> can i address the tax question? i would suggest that the leaders in congress take the deal that led to the payroll tax holiday and make the whole deal permanent so permanently expend that and extend the bush tax cuts, the lower rates. you would then see greater certainty and huge investment in the economy where you might get another 2% growth go up to 3%. the discipline would help us pay down the debt. if you're going to talk about the tax side, i would suggest they consider making permanent the temporary deal they did and that would create more certainty and get you more bang for the bulk of the economic side. >> one of the primary responsibilities of the federal government is to defend the nation. i think it was stupid to put military cuts in the amount they were into the sequester idea and in effect told the military

hostage for the excess of spending on the domestic side which has gone on for far too long and to now say that this administration has tried to hold military hostage for tax increases is absolutely wrong. at the same time, there is ample room for cutting spending. you have heard examples here. it is entirely possible to take the spending cuts that are necessary without endangering the military capability to defend the country. the idea that the military -- cuts in nonmilitary spending would be demanded in order to try to raise taxes is as unpatriotic and contrary to the needs of this country as anything i have seen. >> tea party patriots have a problem with the premise of your question which is that we truly don't think they will cut ne spending. those spending cuts do not go into effect until 2013 and gives this congress plenty of time to go back and change they will make a back room deals and the behavior we have seen from them indicates that is what they will do.

the fact that they have military spending on the table or medicare spending on the table, we don't believe that they mean that. american people are fed up with congress. they lie. they said that spending increases are cuts and may play stupid games saying that they will cut this over the course of stupid games but the cuts don't go into effect until after the next election is time to do something now. >> next question? >> i am with cns news - you applauded the house

republicans for not caving to the democratic request to raise taxes i guess that is the main reason why the super committee did not reach an agreement. at the end of 2012, taxes will go up automatically any way regardless of this continues and there is no deal on anything. how does that problem gets solved? what should happen and how you get it through the -- have you get the democrats to go along with it?

>> there are two ways -- one to persuade congress to extend today's tax laws and make them permanent. if they are not willing to do that, the other way to elect a congress in january of 2013 who will come in and do exactly that. >> understand what we are saying -- what the business community is looking for is stability. they simply do not trust the federal government. they don't trust the government to raise their taxes and cripple their businesses. the best thing this congress could do is to stabilize the situation. i would stabilize the taxes. for starters, the bush tax cuts are paul. they have been in place for 11 years. mess with them and is called a tax increase. they should be made policy. they need to remain that way. you should extend the payroll tax cuts.

i think republicans should be looking at a tax cut deal. they need to encourage investment. they need to lower the corporate tax rate. every presidential candidate is in favor of that. i cannot understand why the congress does not do that what the speaker should have done and where he has made a critical mistake and needs to address it, they were all for cuts, cap, and balances a program. the congress voted for it and as soon as harry reid said he would not consider it, the republicans left and came up with the john boehner plan which is not nearly as good. they should go back to cut, cap, and balanced and take that to the american people in 2012. i guarantee you if they had a plan like that with the growth provision, just as a guarantee you they will lose if they don't, i guarantee you they will win a landslide if they do. anybody?

>> it is not an over a tax problem, is an overspending problem. wiest keep starting the promise of a conversation -- we keep starting the premise of the conversation of what you will do to raise taxes. it should not be on the table. we have to go back to the cap, cut, and the balance toward we have to get back to the basics. we are overspending. only warren buffett thinks he is a are under-taxed. everyone else in america is in agreement they are over-taxed. we need to address the spending first and foremost.

i would consider, the members of citizens united, will consider that allowing the bush tax increase to go away -- the bush tax cuts -- would be a tax increase and those that vote for it will be held accountable. >> yes, ma'am? do you have a microphone? >> we are seeing the occupy wall street movement which is opposed to spending cuts and may want higher taxes to continue to grow across america. what is your response to that? >> that they should get jobs and that would increase the tax base of america. >> i think the occupy wall street movement is doing us a favor. it is good for the american people to have a crystal clear choice between competing visions. that is a good thing and when you see not just policy

proposals of raising taxes and breaking our country, bankrupting our country, the same old tax and class warfare and envy and hatred, the american people are rejecting that. when you see the manner in which they are operating and breaking ball law and violence just a few weeks ago, they are doing us a favor. is a good thing to have a tea party movement that is non- violent, broad based, literally millions upon millions of americans acting responsibly. >> i am not speaking for anyone but i get offended when the members of the tea party who came out of the woodwork over the last couple of years and took to the streets and organized in their local communities and came together to fight for hope, growth, and opportunity for all americans -- that they get put into the same category or compared to this occupy wall street socialist movement that they want to destroy america.

i wish they would all wake up one day and get a job because that is one way they could actually change america. they could increase our tax base by paying taxes instead of living off all of us in this room and all of you watching on tv. this is a crystal clear moment for the american people to see the difference between the left and the right. do not be mistaken -- this is an organized effort on the left. they will not sleep until i have

one. -- until they have one. >> they are reporting that city governments have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for cleanup and police in overtime and everything else. wouldn't that be nice if we could supply -- which -- if we could apply that to the national debt? yes, ma'am? >> i am wondering what you think of where congressional republicans are headed right now in the super committee talks, the plan that was put forward included some new tax revenue and on the house side, when the house voted on a balanced budget amendment last week, the members of the republican conference chose the more moderate version. on both of those issues, what do you see as the direction the republicans are headed? >> both are bad ideas. the week balanced budget amendment did nothing but help ensure the re-election of 25 democrats. all it would have done was take a pathway to a tax increase. what we propose is a strong balanced budget amendment the caps spending and has a 2/3

provision on tax spending or they would have to get a 2/3 majority to get a tax increase. republicans should have taken that bill and passed it and challenged the democrats in the senate given that we have 47 republicans in the senate, all of whom was said they would reported, they should have challenged the democrats. we would have had a huge success. it was a bad idea by the republican leadership. we have to be careful, we don't know exactly who said what to home. there is a lot of conjecture out there. it was a bad idea. the problem is a runaway spending train wreck. the problem is not taxes, it is spending. everybody on the republican side to take a position that we will

address spending and nothing but spending. >> my recommendation to the republicans would be to pivot to a pro-growth agenda and say now is the time where we have tax reform that creates jobs where we have stable money, regulatory relief, and other programs that are out there that will increase the gdp and create jobs. if they get out of this box they have created for themselves on the super committee and say we will be for growth and prosperity and create jobs, that is the solution for them in the coming years. i think is the answer to the tea party and the occupied movement. fundamentally, they want a country that is healthy again with a good economy and good job opportunities. it answers the question, too. >> the balanced budget amendment

last week was the ga anotherme. they knew it was going to fail using the weak one instead of a strong one that would actually constrain congress. it is more games and we see through it. further, we have people who support the tea party patriots and the tea party move and across this country who say congress is not even abiding by the current constitution and the question whether amending it will make a difference. that is not good. the constitution has rule of law and our land and our congress and the people in d.c. to be abiding by it. our people need to have faith in that document. if they are going to amend it, they don't need to play games with amending such an important document. our entire country is based on

this. they were playing games and if they are going to vote on something, it -- it better vote on something that is strong enough that does not allow congress to continue to spend out of control and automatically trigger tax increases. that is what they did last week and it was wrong. >> earlier this year, april or the spring, the house republicans did something that was politically courageous. all but four of them voted to pass the paul ryan budget consideration. it was not perfect but it brought the most far-reaching

medicare and medicaid reform in american history and it took some gumption to do that. many americans respected that and they knew they would be demagogued by president obama on left. they wer but they stood up. one reason why it is more disappointing to see this spending bill last week, the spending levels for several of the appropriations for the agencies were well beyond the paul ryan budget resolution numbers. 133 house republicans and 17 senate republicans voted for this spending bill. you pass a 10-year budget resolution and you blow for the spending caps in the very first year. what will happen in the years 2, 3, 4? not many people took notice but it was a really bad sign for the republicans and for the country because if you can't meet spending resolution limits for the first year, when you just voted earlier this year, you will not going to down the road. while we applaud what they did with the paul ryan budget, last week was not a disastrous vote. >> any other questions? yes, sir?

>> i am from cnn -- as the historian of the group, we have had pledges in the past of no new taxes only to find out that we need to raise taxes. how do you reassure those that would favor tax increases that there will not have to come back with more taxes? >> one way was included in a strong version of the balanced budget amendment and that would be a requirement of 2/3 votes in both houses to raise taxes. that would be a good start. the other thing, right now, would be to make the current tax situation which includes those reductions that president bush

was able to achieve and make them permanent. that is the least we can do in order to assure people we will not have this continual specter that our current president refers to every chance he gets that he wants to raise taxes. we need some way to assure the people and these are two ways that would go a long way in order to assure the people that the specter of increased taxes will not be something they have to fear. it is the basic threshold beyond which we will not have economic growth. >> thank you. any other questions? i'm sorry, >> just a quick follow-up -- if it came down to, in the months from now, a stand-alone a vote on the payroll tax extension, what would you advise members to do? ideally it would be great if this worked into a larger tax package but of it came down to this one provision -- >> it is time to extend it. it is not the time to raise taxes. absolutely extend it.

if you want to see a broader package, absolutely extend it. >> our folks do not want tax increases. they want fundamental tax reform and if there is tax reform, they ultimately want no tax increases. >> any other questions? ok, thank you so much for coming out, thanks to everybody here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> and number of occupied wall street protesters arrived at the nation's capital earlier. they had a rally.

>> i am sara. >> in jason. >> we are citizens. >> what do you explain the microphone check. >> the people's microphone works. when i speak and the crowd speaks after me. we use these people's microphone to ensure that everyone is

engaged to encourage active listening and to ensure that every person who wants to speak has a microphone in their hands. [applause] >> we want to thank everyone for being here. new york city. washington d.c. thank you. [cheers] >> all the occupation, all the community outreach, all the support vehicles, all the media coverage, thank you. thank you for all the donated food. thank you. we want to clarify that this is

our, the marcher's, general assembly offering, nobody else's. generous enough in solidarity that let us come here and do this. thank you. all right. so now, kelly will run through a list of agenda items that we will be talking about right now. first, we will do a crash course in direct democracy and the decision making process.

code of will have a dod conduct of non-violence with bullies. then we will mobve into marching groups report back. they will share their stories. then we will have a q & a. we ask that media and reporters raise their hands. we will put them on stack and we will answer your questions. there are individuals to answer your question. all right. next, i will explain the hand signals that we use during the general assembly.

we use hand signals to ensure that everyone with thoughts will be recognized and that we will not be speaking over one another. the first goes like this. it means that you feel good about, that you agree with, the proposal that is being made. the second hand the bill goes like this. it means that you are unsure or that you do not know whether you agree with the proposal being made. the third goes like this. it means that you are not in a grants with the proposal 0-- in

a grievance -- in aggreeance with the proposal being made. when you put your finger in the air you are getting information. if someone says the meeting is at 2 and you know it is at 3, you go like this, a facilitator calls on you and you say it is at 3:00. this is a point of process. it means the general assembly has gone off course and need to be redirected/ for example, if we are discussing a proposal to buy chairs and someone says i need an umbrella, you hold up the

point of process to remind them of where the conversation should be going. we're grateful you are here standing in the rain. we apologize for being late. it was imperative that we went to the university of maryland and touched base with some students that are really inspired by the march. we have held four public assembly is to bring this

process outside of the occupation. we ask the respect this and perhaps learn from this. it your all learning all the time. >> this means come to a point. there will be a question and answer for the press. you.nk >> the 5:00 news is it going to wait. >> come on. >> the faster we get to this process, we will have a q and a. iit will be about 50

minutes. us.ase bear with the spiri >> the one thing i know now is that we're crippled by poverty. along the way, i was blessed to help to homeless. the first was in philly. a woman named kia asked me to buy her wendy's. while i was buying her the food, i found out she was three months pregnant. i asked her to go to a church and get help. the second man on our way to baltimore.

and he as what we are doing. -- he asked what we were doing. we gave him water and the fear that we had. what little we had. he was so happy that someone cared. we need to care more. about ourselves and ecaach other. i am done. >> we love you. >> no. my first began this march, two weeks ago, i was drawn to the act of using our bodies in political protest is to draw a connection between wall street and washington, a d.c.. in my mind there have two

populist movements in this country. they both speak to the alienation that americans feel from their government and financial institution. this idea became less of strapped and more complete. as an example, as we're pushing into filly, about a week ago, i spoke with a man who told me he wished he could join us. he couldn't. he had a 10 month daughter that he had to take care of. i asked him why he wanted to join us. he said because the wall street bankers play games with other

people's money. i love my job. cares more dc about those cats. i march for him and people that are sick of the money by the money for the money. people are occupying and marching so that the government of the people, by the people,. fo rhtr the people, shall not perish from this earth. >> i am mike. this march came through my hometown. i was obligated as a citizen

of the us, as a supporter of the autonomy and individuality. each one of these martyrs has their own view, they're on faith -- own faith. we came here together. there was a s uper committee that failed us. i will march to make this point that the u.s. made.

>> i am from new jersey. i was asked to be the first post of the original 25 of the wall street. there was fear and the household that people from occupy was coming to my home. because of rumors stating that everybody is living in their own feces.

thank you very much. >> my name is sophia. i am a college student. i am supposed to be in class right now. i am a thousand dollars in debt -- $80,000 in debt and was so inspired i had to march with them. when we were on mile 30, i wanted to cry. they gave me so much love and show me that we are still human. even in this age of technology,

we crave human contact. these people are my heroes. >> are there any more marching group report back stacs? >> i came from philadelphia. one week ago. onfirst met these people i march occupy a philadelphia. as we marched back, i got to know them more and hang out with some 424 hours. when i went back home, i was not sure if i wanted to join them.

i met them on the train. they were homeless and jobless. they just came from looking for jobs all day. from mcdonald's and anywhere they could find. i knew i had to join. the? de a pack up all my stuff -- the next day i packed up all my stuff. i set out on this march. >> we have one more story for you.

>> i come from hawaii. i am an author of six books on economics. where is a man like me supposed to take something they want to share dax all the media's here but you will not listen. the only place i could think to come where i could be heard is right here. revolution seems best suited for spring and the young. i was neither. i was in crutches.

the super humans why now call my friends carried themselves and their themes and me. for miles. there more than family. they're my heroes. why is this a difficult for us as a country to come together? why can we not share a few steps together and a few words together? we have become so buffered by the technology. they have shown us how easy it is to be americans, to stand together. thank you.

>> i am from washington d.c. i come from the worst neighborhood. people told us not to go in there, that it was dangerous. we still did. one thing we noticed is that it is horrible. all you have our liquor stores. where are the public schools? they were unbelievable.

they're all over the place. this government is not putting them home. the occupation will put them at home. >> microphone check. we ask you to move back about 3 1/4 feet. thank you. we all have a group of people. come forward to answer questions from the press. raise your hand.

we will come around and take your name and bring it to the staff takers. they will call on you. these people will answer your questions. >> the stack is not of them. please, raise your hand.

>> how many people are right here today? what are you doing and when tomorrow? >> between 35-55. >> i would say around 70 people. >> on when and where we do protest tomorrow? we're interested in covering them. do you know when it is taking place? >> they will be author of the city, no particular place. >> do you have a location where you will begin. >> we will discuss this tonight at 7:00 p.m.. it viau be is>> we will issue twitter.

>> which website? >> twitter. >> no. next. what are you going to do today? go to the congress? >> we're visiting the other parks. then we're going to march out toward the capital. >> [inaudible] >> he was hit by a car as we were crossing an off ramp. >> respiratory infection.

>> we got 100 good coming. >> i've been here for a while. knowing that the government believes that our hands are full. have to fight this. are you going to keep this march or we have more more people joining? >> we will continue this march.

>> i just wanted to say thank you. thank you. >> how did you plan your route? you obviously did not go down 95. >> a lot of it was researching the internet to plan its. we wanted to average about 20 miles a day. we found the closest major cities were. whenever there were discrepancies about the route, we sometimes relied on the help of locals. there were various different methods. >> they were pretty helpful.

and he decided to cut three major college campus. we split up into groups. our group went through the catholic university of america. we decided to divert our route to include those communities. >> we will do that from now on. thank you. >> if you can microphone check your questions. did the group would repeat them. >> microphone check. >> i am from working america. we have 3 million members all over the country. we delivered the tips to the libraries here.

when you get a chance, please look in the library. we have 6000 solidarity letters. it is from people all over the country who cannot make it appear to be with you. their children to take care of, medical problems or are disabled or are losing their homes. that is its. good to the library when you get a chance. >> that is also the reason people are holding up the triangles. right now we are at a q & a and that is an announcement. we did not allow for them. thank you for that information.

>> when you guys started out, there was a congressional super committee considering deficit cuts to the budget. what do you think about that this committee has now collapsed and some are saying the politicians are more reluctant to deal with cuts in social security and welfare programs? does that have anything to do with the issues you are raising? >> it is not a voice for one political party or candidates.

>> anybody can have a voice would occupy wall street or washington. there's so many issues going on. they all need to be raised. we feel threatened by the fact that this is another comment from our congress. we do not want to do appear we're going to take it down the rows. -- road. they are going to be the same people dealing with this. they are not going to do with the problem. they're not blind to deal with this issue. they're not blind to swallow their pride to go against whatever ideology that they have. this committee was set up to fail. it was set up to say if you do not come up with $1.50 trillion

there will be an automatic $1.20 trillion. all you had to do was stall the entire time unleaded fell and go and do not have to raise taxes on anybody. we need to continue to raise these issues. clearly they are not doing it. they are not responsible enough to take care of it. we need to start taking care of these problems are sell. >> are they taking notice now? >> we would like to start closing back. this is a last call. frazier hands -- please raise your hands to be put on stack. everyone on the list will still

as their questions. >> tonight there is a debate between the republicans on national security. i suggest as the occupy movement to occupy [inaudible] stack is n n catherine. >> mic check. >> do you already know where you will sleep tonight? >> i do believe there were

accommodations made for us. i cannot remember if it is here or freedom. there are accommodations for us, yes. thank you. >> next on stack is sebastian. >> what do you think the marching from new york city to washington, d.c. says about this movement? >> i believe that the march shows we are a strong movement dedicated to our believes. -- beliefs.

when the media likes to plant us a pot smoking, alcoholic hippies, this is to the contrary. >> there was a gentle man that did not have the courage to get here. we are here. what does that say about us? >> people said we were lazy. i would like to point out that nobody who marches to hundred 50 miles or 150 miles or 100 miles is any form of >> ok. how do you guys feel about the

part shutting down? you just marched from there. >> [inaudible] >> what are some of your thoughts? >> it was really terrifying to be in philadelphia and watch over as our home was destroyed. faces asr friend's they were terrified by what was happening. it was really sad to see that mayor bloomberg, who has $17 billion, at in such a cowardly way it by keeping the media away from what was happening. if you want to be a man and you

want to be an adult, you show them exactly what you are doing. if you have nothing to hide, you show it. and they could not do that. we had to march the next day knowing that our friends were being heard, they were in jail -- hurt, they were in jail, 5000 books were destroyed from our library. >> the medical tent was cut down by chainsaws. the medical tent was right next to the bemis safety center. there is surprising that they would -- the women's safety center. very surprising they would do it. we thought it was going to be a stupid thing to do. all of you are going to do is galvanized a bunch of people living in the part anyway. now the sense of unity is that it is stronger than ever. if they thought they were going

to freeze us out for the winter, they just lost that opportunity. i have a feeling this is going to go on for a long time. it was a really bad decision on the merits behalf. behalf.r's >> i would also like to add brendan was arrested. he was one of the marchers that left new york with us. he returned from philadelphia when he heard the tragic news. our thoughts and prayers are with him. >> microphone check. the stock is now closed on 29. >> -- q &a. >> our road to the white house coverage continues tonight. we will start with mitt romney

at 8:00. paul.ron that is here on c-span. >> of the european union agreed with new sanctions against iran, which were announced yesterday. coming up later on c-span, a discussion on iran's nuclear program, it includes remarks from national security adviser. next, a former u.s. comptroller general david walker on the failure of a joint deficit reduction committee to reach an agreement. this segment is 40 minutes.

guest: i think it is the greatest political figure in modern history. this committee was a fraud. it was set out to be able to go big and had a major reduction in our deficit. it wasted time and resources. it abused the public trust. everybody associated this should be ashamed. there needs to be an agreement of accountability brought to bear. it is another example of our politics have been taken over by these extremes, dominated by career politicians.

it is time for week, the people. host: what could happen to that did not happen? how do you deal with a $15 trillion debt? guest: i think what the president did last night was a positive thing. to threaten a veto if there was an attempt to undercut the $1.20 trillion sequestered. congress may want to go when to repackage that. it is imperative that we achieve at least the 1.2.

after the 2012 election, we could achieve a much bigger deal that would have involved social insurance reform and comprehensive tax reform that would have generated more revenue. that is what they should have done. they absolutely, totally failed. >> we have had a number of viewers and listeners making a similar point. this information from the irs. over 1400 houses with income in excess of a million dollars in 2009 paid zero federal income tax and about 18% of the average federal income tax rate of the wealthiest 400 americans. hedge fund managers pay on average 15% capital gains rate and no payroll taxes. guest: it is unacceptable.

our current tax system needs to be made simpler, more competitive, more equitable. we have to do something about that. the top one% of americans have a tax rate of 18.8%. despite the fact that our top tax rate is 35%. most of the wealthiest people make their money in capital gains. that is taxed at 15%. we need to engage in dramatic tax reform after the 2012 election. it is imperative that we do that.

the current system is an abomination. i say that being a certified public accountant. host: at the washington times had this editorial this morning -- guest: the democrats are right that we will need more revenues. they are wrong that we want to attack on higher marginal tax rates. we need comprehensive tax reform that will achieve the objective that i said. it eliminates a lot of deductions and exclusions, lower the top marginal tax rate to 25%, tax capital gains the same as ordinary incomes. that can be accomplished and it should be accomplished after the 2012 elections. on the other hand, the republicans are wrong to say that we do not need more revenue. the democrats are wrong to say

that we do not need to renegotiate the social insurance contract. we absolutely have to. the affordable care hacked -- the affordable care act is going to make our lives more difficult. host: doomsday for defense. the house armed services committee democrats and republicans have issued a chilling report on what happens if the sequester will be losing 60 ships from the navy. we will have 200,000 fewer troops than we did in 2010. how real is this threat? guest: there is no question that if you end up having to implement the $600 billion in cuts as quickly as they're talking about, it will have adverse consequences. we spend as much on defense as the next 14 nations combined. a lot of those are allies. the defense department is a

bloated bureaucracy. we are spending way too much money on overhead and not enough -- on overhead. health care costs are eating the pentagon's lines. -- lunch. we do need to reduce defense spending without compromising national security. there is an intelligent way to do it. hopefully, we will get on with that. >> we talked to senator tom coburn last week. he puts on the table one example of defense spending. he said there was a px and the commissary run by two different organizations. his suggestion, you combine the two and streamlined the operation. that was just one small example of how the pentagon can save big. guest: absolutely. it is one small example.

we still have a military personnel delivering mail. we are providing a very lucrative benefits to members of the reserve who are not on active duty. congress did that. there is tremendous waste and the pentagon. we need to have a very disciplined approach to go through the current operations and practices of that we can separate the wheat from the chaff. eliminate a lot of overhead and outdated practices. that should be a top priority. >> david walker is joining us from new york. our phone lines are open. you can also send us an e-mail. mr. walker, you had been mentioned as a potential candidate for the senate and connecticut. you declined. why? guest: family considerations. i have already given 15 years to

my country and was hesitant to give many more years. secondly, the senate, frankly, has become a dysfunctional place. the result of the super committee just serves to reinforce that fact. there are ways that i can contribute other than serving in elected office. i have done a lot of things through the come back america initiative. if we get a president who is very serious about putting our finances in order and wanting to transform government, i would be willing to do some more time in public service. we may or may not get that. host: the editorial from the the wall street journal. mr. walker, please talk about the grover norquist pleiads. guest: the only pledge that people ought to make it to the united states of america. there should not be any special

interest pledge. i think that anybody who is taking those pledges should resent those pledges. in many cases, those pledges were taken back in 1998, 1999, 2000. would we have surpluses. we are in a very different situation. it is not just the right. it is also the left. the left is in denial about the need to reform social insurance programs to make them affordable and sustainable. we will have to do things on both sides of the ledger. we better start soon. host: a democrat with david walker who is in new york. good morning. caller: this is my first time calling, so i am a little nervous. what i wanted to say basically was the problem with everything is we cannot have a one size

fits all approach. you know, you have one side saying we have to raise taxes. you have the other side saying, we have to spend. the problem is, we are not punishing these guys for the failures that they had. that is the biggest problem that i see. when you have this committee sets up and they're saying, okay, this person is not doing that. i am just -- i think that is just silly. we will have to take the leadership and the voters -- if they could use something like a concept of the flash mob, the concept, everybody could pull together when they are voting on this. you know?

we could take congress back. >> thank you for the call. a first-time caller, you did a good job. do not be a stranger. guest: i think he is right. the first three words of the constitution have to come alive. we, the people. we are responsible and accountable for what does or does not happen. we need to have more people who were looking out for the public interest, rather than the special interests. people will want to do temporary public service rather than a career politician. you will not get different results and in the same people back over and over again. 2012 is going to be a very interesting election. hopefully, at the people will hold both parties accountable. both parties are responsible for

where we are today. both sides are being unreasonable. it is going to take more bipartisanship, and more constructive compromise. the truth is, it is about the three parts spending reduction and one part revenue increases. we will need transformational reforms and a whole range of government areas, including social insurance programs, defense, and taxes. we better do it within the next two or three years. host: this headline -- no deal, much blame. our next call is from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: i hope you do not cut me off. i am a republican. i am thinking very seriously about changing. i get so sick and tired of my party talking about kicking the can down the road.

it takes both sides. what is wrong with the american people when we know we did not have this deficit problem when the democrats, bill clinton, was the president. as soon as our president to -- george bush came into office, he rolled back the taxes and caused the problem. don't we know how to fix it? guest: let me provide you some perspective. the united states was in tough shape in 1992 and ross perot ran for president. he did not win, but he helped to set the agenda during the clinton administration. we made great progress, we had a

divided congress we made great congress from the early 1990's until 2000. the last 11 years a been the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the united states. we have had a congress controlled by both parties and we had a white house controlled by both parties. they are both to blame. the government has grown too big, promised to much, waited too long to restructure. we need to recapture their revenues from the tax cuts. we need to do is throw fundamental tax reform, not going back to the old system. we need to broaden the base, reduce the top marginal tax rates, eliminate the difference between capital gains, and do a number of things that will help to promote growth, but create more equity within the tax system. keeping us competitive in a global economy and trade --

economy. host: you brought up the name of ross perot. he is one of 14 contenders that c-span is featuring each weekend. this week we will turn our attention to george wallace, the former governor of alabama. next week, and george mcgovern. the series will wrap up with our look at ross perot. we hope you'll tune in every friday evening at 8:00. thus, -- guest: we are currently benefiting from the instability in europe. we are a temporary safe haven and that is the reason our interest on our debt is so low right now.

people are trying to preserve principal. as we have seen in greece, italy, portugal, and elsewhere, once you lose confidence of investors, things can change quickly. once you lose that, interest rates go up dramatically. it forces you to do dramatic and draconian things on both the spending side and the tax side. in my view, when you recognize that the united states is #28 at of 34 countries in the world in fiscal responsibility, italy is 27, mexico is 18. the fact is, if we do not start making tangible steps to demonstrate to the markets and the american people that we will put our finances in order, which could see a debt crisis in the united states within the next two to three years. if that happens, it will be a global depression. we must not allow that to happen. it does not need to happen.

we need more leadership. host: from the wall street journal. let me ask you about medicare and medicaid. what is the fiscal future? guest: there is absolutely no question that we need to have some level of universal health care in the united states. we are able to country and health care is a very important thing that every american needs. we also have to recognize that we need universal health care that is appropriate, affordable, and sustainable. we have waited over promised in the area of health care. we need to do more with preventive and wellness and catastrophic protection. we need to have a budget on how much to allocate to health care. we need to pay more for results rather than activities. we need to reform our mouth practice system. we need to get out of the business of providing a very large subsidies to wealthy

people to voluntarily sign up for voluntary programs. we need to rationalize our tax system so that we are not rewarding lucrative cadillac plans. we need to also recognize that the government always is going to have a greater role with regard to the indigent, the disabled, as well as those who wore the american uniform. we need dramatic and fundamental change in the health care area. the latest health care bill was just more of the same from washington. let's make more promises will we have already promised more than we can afford to keep. guest: -- host: photograph of president obama. david walker is joining us from new york. gary is on at the phone from new york, independent line. caller: i served my country for 15 years. i was in the army.

i worked most of my life -- i earned my social security and my veterans benefits. i do not see why they have to cut all that. why don't they just cut the welfare checks? caller: there are two things that are guaranteed under the constitution under the 14th amendment. first is bondholders of u.s. debt. the second is military pensions. nothing else is protected by the constitution. let's understand. in the case of social security, we can reform that program to make it solvent and secure, phasing in changes to wear every generation will get more than they think they will get. people are not talking about

cutting people who are in pay status now. they're talking about restructuring the benefits of that we can deliver on promises that were made. we need to do that. with regard to other aspects and benefits, there is no question that health care benefits in the military are going to have to be restructured. there is no way that we can end up affording those benefits over time and we need to get on with it sooner rather than later to figure out an equitable way to do that. host: what is the message of the organization? guest: the comeback american initiative is a nonprofit based in connecticut. it is focused on educating and engaging the public on the facts with regard to our fiscal condition. it is talking about non-partisan solutions to restore fiscal

sanity at the federal, state, and local level. all three levels face serious problems. host: he points out that in california alone, over the last four election cycles, only one seat changed hands between the parties. what does that tell you about american politics? guest: we have a republic that is not representative of the public and not responsive to the republic. a vast majority of house seats are the gerrymandered by state legislatures in order to protect

their party and in order to entrench incumbents. we need a number of political reforms. we need redistricting reforms. the objective of which is to maximize the number of competitive districts consistent with the voting rights act. no democratic and republican primaries. one primaries. we need campaign finance reform. while there are pros and cons, we need 12 to 18-year term limits. the founding fathers never intended for people to make a career out of public office. it has fueled the disconnect between the governed and the governing. the good news for california is in 2010, they passed changes in law that will bring integrated and open primaries. hopefully, they will have a positive impact and other states

will follow their lead. this is one this is from one of our viewers. the affordable care act will add to our problems, but when i go to the cbo web site, i read the following. if the affordable care act will produce a net reduction in federal deficit, why do you say that to help care reform is going to add to our problems? what am i missing? guest: thank you very much for that question. first, the joint committee on taxation and the cbo are required to make certain

assumptions, including that congress will do things tables -- it says it will do despite evidence that it has not in the past. i, frankly, look to what the chief actuary of medicare says. he is an independent professional. he has professional responsibilities as an actuary. his latest opinion on medicare gave us an adverse opinion on medicare reform, the assumptions that were used or unreasonable and unsustainable and estimating that the cost of the affordable care apt to medicare alone would be $12 trillion higher than the politicians asserted. personally, i'd go with the professionals. i spent 15 years in this town. i been a presidential appointee of reagan, bush, and clinton. i know how they keep score.

host: talking about money and politics. this is a tweet from a viewer. that is an issue of the first amendment as well. guest: there is no question that we need campaign finance reform. there is no question that it will take a constitutional amendment. some ideas might be things like, there ought to be in a limit as to how much money people can raise four people who cannot vote for it. how about the novel idea of saying the people that can only contribute to political campaigns are people who can actually vote? news flash, corporations and unions cannot vote what about some type of limit about how much individuals can finance to their own campaign? they might be able to finance 50% of their own campaign, but

there has to be a market test. these are a few ideas. some sort of public financing can make sense if it is properly designed. we also need to limit the duration of campaign. is that rage is how long people have to listen to this political rhetoric -- it is outrageous how long people have to listen to this political rhetoric. other countries have a tougher campaign finance laws and the duration of campaigns and have them focus much more on substance rather than on rhetoric. host: we are talking to david walker. he is discussing the inability of the super committed to reach an agreement yesterday. angela is joining us on the phone from south carolina. caller: good morning, mr. walker. i have followed your career for years. thank you for your service. you are right when you talk about a week, the people.

this country has become more about politics than it has about governing. the people seem to have forgotten how our system of government works. the president cannot go in and make demands on the congress. the congress cannot make demands on the president. there is too much ideology in this. i am a recipient of government help. i receive medicare and medicaid. i am disabled, i am 57 years old. i can see the waste in medicare and medicaid. from firsthand knowledge. something as simple as diabetic shoes. if you buy them in the store, their $50. total cost $65. the government is getting bills

four and $500 for one pair of shoes. the law says i can receive a pair of shoes one pair per year. as far as the dead committee, predicted that -- debt committee, it was never going to work. host: thank you for the call from south carolina. this is essentially along the same lines. it is just like congress to blame the president for their failures. guest: there was a leadership failure on multiple levels. first, the chairs of the super committing share a lot of the responsibility. there was a total failure of leadership. the leaders of congress who ended up appointing all the members of the committee share

part of the responsibility. they failed to pick the right kind of people. the president is the chief executive officer of the united states. the president is the only person that had a so-called bully pulpit pack and go directly to the american people and make the case. he has yet to do that with regard to the fact that our financial condition is deteriorating rapidly. if we do not start making tough choices, we could find the position of the united states declining. the domestic tranquillity and r streets being a real problem. it is not -- in our streets being a real problem. it is how we're going to prepare for the better tomorrow. only the president can do that. there is a leadership problem from -- there is a leadership failure from both parties. that is the biggest deficit we have in this country right now,

the leadership deficits. host: my earlier question about your decision not to run for the senate in your home state of connecticut. guest: that is part of the problem. we need more people who want to go into office for temporary public service. in order to get things done rather than a career. we have too many people today, and there are some exceptions, better more concerned with keeping their jobs than doing their jobs. if congress was paid for performance, they would owe us money. host: louisiana, welcome to the program. you are calling on the republican line. caller: this is the first time i had ever been able to get on c- span. about the super committee, this

super committee was said to fail to start with. if they were serious, they would have taken the commission and implemented what they wanted to do. they do not want to do that. the only one that did that was paul brian. i think he came up with a pretty good plant -- paul ryan. i think he came up with a pretty good plan. even in these third-world companies -- countries, -- as far as bill clinton and the surplus, when he was in office, they had a republican congress and senate. they balance the budget, not to bill clinton. he cut every branch of the military.

every catastrophe just comes back to john f. kennedy. they started this catastrophe back to john f. kennedy. i am so sick of hearing about that. he started spending the general fund. host: thank you for calling. what was different with a democratic president in the 1990's and republican house of representatives to this president? guest: let me address two points. the super committee, i think, was set up to fail. look at the competition. you had to people who voted against the deficit increase. you had four people that voted against simpson bulls -- bowles.

that is hardly a prescription for doing a grand bargain. let's analyze the fact that, this is not a partisan issue, when you look at the early 1990's through 2011, you have had four presidents -- the first two presidents, 41 and 42, had been some comment. they opposed tough budget controls that kept congress from making more promises. they constrained defense and other spending. they did not expand entitlement programs. they broke campaign promises on tax is one assault they had made irresponsible promises. they did the right thing for the country. those things combined with the

tech boom took us to projected surpluses. fast-forward to george bush 43 and barack obama. a strike -- a strike out. bush is gone. president obama can change course. the question is, will he? both political parties had acted irresponsibly. presidents from both parties had acted irresponsibly. we need -- we do not have enough people were fiscally responsible and we do not have a political party that is at the present time. host: let's move this a year from now. for the sake of argument, let's assume the republicans keep the house, they pick up the u.s. senate, and republican wins the white house. what will we be talking about a year from now? what is there a agenda?

guest: in a matter who wins the house, the senate, and the white house, one thing is critically important. we have to engage the public with the truth on the top tauruses. we need a ross perot-style public education and engagement effort without having a third party president. the truth is, the american people are headed the politicians. there are a lot smarter than the politicians. they understand that you cannot spend at the rate we are. you cannot accumulate this much dead without having a day of reckoning. they see what is happening in europe and a note can happen here. they have adjusted their behavior, but the politicians have not adjusted theirs. that has to happen. the political price associated with continuing to do nothing, which washington is a very good

at, will be greater than the political process of making tough choices on social insurance programs and taxes. host: if i could follow up on the point of a divided government versus one party having control of the white house. if the republicans have controlled -- is that a recipe for getting something done? what could change? guest: the last time that we had a republican in the white house and we had a republican congress, one of the years was 2003. that was the first year that the statutory budget controls expired.

we got three things in 2003. a second round of tax cuts. we could afford the first, but not the second. we invaded a sovereign nation without declaring war and without paying for. medicare was expanded to add prescription drugs, added $8 trillion when medicare was already underfunded $19 trillion. this was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. let's get past these party labels. they are part of the problem. we need people who are trying to do the right thing. we need progress over partisanship. we need to mobilize the 70% of americans who are in the sensible center. 70% are in the sensible center. that is where the solutions are.

host: welcome to "washington journal." caller: the only way to change the government is to have term limits. there is a term limit for the president and there should be term limits for the congress. when term and you're gone. each state should set a limit on their own. the military defense should be cut in half. the military machines are outdated. keep the troops and get rid of the junk. best known i didn't -- guest: i do believe we need term limits. in my view, we need 12 to 18- year term limits. that is plenty to get expertise. we should not have the system

where people are staying in the same job for decades. that is not conducive towards transformation of change. that is not conducive towards making tough choices. it is clearly something that the prose of term limits alway the cons. we should also alleged to have the house every two years and give them a four-year years. host: one study indicating that each sitting member of the house needs to raise $10,000 a week for his or her reelection. this tweet -- our last call is on the republican line from sarasota, florida. caller: i have a comment and a custom. -- question.

i have been watching c-span and you guys have been playing a lot of the really good history from 1995. it pretty much showed us that the republicans were the ones that were standing strong to say we are stopping the spending. the democrats were having a hard time with it. beyond that, i am over the democrat-republican issue. i have been a republican all my life. i still consider myself a republican. i would never vote for a democrat, at least one who wants to raise taxes. in the last couple of years, i've come to the conclusion that both parties are corrupt. both parties are into perpetual spending and taxing. republicans do not want taxes,

but they are not cutting taxes in reality. they're making it better for the rich. guest: both parties have been acting as fiscally irresponsible. in the last 11 years, we had republicans control the house on the senate, democrats controlled part of the time. we have had a republican white house and a democrat and the white house. think about this. the so-called super committee was supposed to help us make progress. they failed. they did nothing. it was a total waste of time. what are people talking about now? they want to send a sequestered. they want to extend the tax cuts. they want to extend unemployment. they want to extend the payroll tax cuts. they want to spend more money on a jobs program. guess what? all those things make the deficit worse.

not better. host: david walker, the former comptroller general. he is joining us from new york. we appreciate your time and perspective. guest: happy to be with you, thank you. >> on tomorrows "washington journal, a discussion on the gop presidential candidate and national security. wesley clark joins us. phil kerpen talks about the failure of the joint deficit reduction committee. an update from jake tapper of abc news on his recent trip to afghanistan. >> the newly designed c-span website has 11 video choices, making it easy for you to watch today's events live and

recorded. it is also easier for you to get our schedule with new features. even receive an e-mail alerts when your program is scheduled to air. there is a section to access our most popular series and programs. a channel finder so you can quickly find work to watch our three networks on cable or satellite systems across the country. >> monday, the obama administration announced a round of sanctions against iran. following a u.n. report on its nuclear program. a discussion on the role and effectiveness of sanctions. from the brookings institution, this is 90 minutes.

it is a joint production of my -- the center for the u.s. and europe. i am delighted to have you all here today. we're also delighted to see that the united states european union was willing to comply with our request to announce the sanctions the day before. did he go down the street, they will tell you that the brookings institute controls this administration. we insist on the opposite, but it is nice when u.s. government does comply. we do have exclusive timing today. this is an important issue that

is made even more so by the recent announcement. our first panel is intended to cover the iran side of the story. obviously, there are many sides to this story. for all of us, it does start with iran. they are forging ahead with their program. we want to start by getting a sense of the light of the land. what they are up to, what's the thinking is, what it might take to stop them, how things are working. it will lead us to conversations about what it is that we might do about it all. we have a sensational paddled to start things off this morning. you all had the bios in front of you. just to give you a kind of a quick order of play, immediately to my left, it is dr. charles ferguson. i will ask charles to start

things off and talk a little bit about what we know about the program today. obviously, this is a program that has evolved over time. getting a sense of where the program is as best we understand it is both difficult and very important. after charles, we have kevin harris. kevin is peace scholar at the u.s. institute of peace. we will turn to a cabin to talk about the impact of sanctions themselves -- to kevin to talk about the impact of sanctions themselves. there are arguments on both sides as to whether they have succeeded in accomplishing other goals. whether we are just around the corner from success. we will ask him to bring us up- to-date on where things are and talk a little bit about the

impact of sanctions on iran. finally, on my far left, all of your note is a senior fellow. we will ask him to. inside the black box of the irani and leadership and talk about what is going on -- the iranian leadership and talk about what is going on there as we understand it. all the stuff that captures our attention without ever being able to know what to make of it all. alaskan to give us a sense of what we should make of it all -- we will ask him to give us a sense of what we should make of it all. charles, tell us where the program stands. >> it is a great treasure -- pleasure to be here. it is a great turnout. this is such a hot issue. maybe it was a bit of a freudian slip. when e-mails the panelists yesterday, he called me craig

ferguson. >> you are trying to find some humor in the subject of the nuclear issue. it is very hard to do because we know it is a very serious subjects. trying to raid the intentions of iran. -- read the intention of iran. i look forward to hearing my colleague's remarks on those points. ken asked me to cover some of the basics from what we know of the technical standpoint. we know that there has been a lot going on, as reported in the latest iea report.

i've will do a bit of good news, bad news type of reporting. to try to get you up to speed on most of the relevant points. we know that iran continues to defy the u.n. security council and the board of governors' resolution to suspend certain activities. the iranian -- the iranian -- the uranium enrichment activities, in particular. the focus is on the uranium enrichment program. the board of governors and the u.s. security council called on iran to apply the additional protocol and a modified code. i will dig into those in just a few minutes. let's cover what we know in terms of the latest news.

we know that -- here is the bad news, we know that iran continues to build up its stockpile of uranium. 19.75% interest uranium. that is close to the dividing line between lowly enriched and highly enriched bread -- and rich. it is going to take a few hundred kilos of that amount of material to have enough for one bomb. iran has something like 80 kilograms. they have also amassed 4,900 kilograms of about 3.5% low enriched uranium. if they went for broke and a completely converted back into weapons-grade material, you might get three or four bombs.

the so much good news is that there is not enough material to provide iran with a troop break out capability. although it is worrisome. some other good news is that sanctions, export controls, have slowed down the nuclear program. this is good news from the the west standpoint. i am sure that is obvious. the computer virus that attacked some nuclear facilities apparently destroyed about 1000 of the iranian subterfuges. that was a bit of a setback. right now, iran has something like 8000 centrifuges that are in operation. so far, the ones in operation are these models from the first generation.

despite the sanctions, iran is proceeding with its nuclear program. it still appears determined to pursue its right to a nuclear program. this program has become a national issue. it is going to be difficult for the leaders in iran to give it up. some further bad news is that iran is continuing to proceed in developing more designs, although that is tempered with some good news. they are having trouble developing some of the centrifuges because the problem is getting access to high- quality materials. some further bad news, though, is that as i mentioned, they continue to defy the board of governors and the security council resolutions to apply more stricter safeguards than

they have been applying. there is the issue of the additional protocol. the additional protocol requires states to go beyond the declared facilities. it requires inspectors to assess whether there are any undeclared facilities. the modified code is -- it sounds like jargon. let's break it down. a state is required to let the iae know in advance design information about any facilities and wants to construct. it does not have to report the facility and tilt it is within six months of introducing

nuclear facilities. that is not sufficient because save cards work best when you have safeguards by design. the best way to do that is to get advanced design information for the state to work cooperatively. iran has said it wants to build another 10 enrichment facilities and it may have selected five new sites for these facilities. that is some bad news, apparently. recent good news is that iran will probably not need further facilities for at least another two years. iran has not provided adequate information in that area. some other bad news, the research reactor is still being constructed. this is despite the u.n. security council resolutions.

it does not have any comment about accounting for any undeclared materials or facilities. looking at what i think is the best news so far, iran still benefits from staying inside the non-proliferation treaty. iran has an interest in not simulating its neighboring states. what we need to do is to find ways to keep iran in that system and to have it apply and go beyond that in places for we can have more confident as to what is going on with the program. if iran says this is a truly peaceful program, it is in their interest to show that it is a peaceful program by becoming more transparent and giving proper access.

what we stop at that point. we can go back to military dimension later. >> we will die for me come back to that. that is a terrific base line. -- we will definitely come back to that. that is a terrific baseline. >> thank you for inviting me, by the way. i am an academic, a sociologist. it is nice to be on the panel. i am the only one on the panel that travels to iran often. i want to talk about what is like inside the country, the recent changes. it is clear now that sanctions e having an impact. not only the naming of particular enterprises and people but also the outcome is a

trickle down sanctioned. they affect the ability of particular banks to procure other goods on international markets. it has an effect on small and medium enterprises. they require lots of credit. they raises unemployment to a standard. many of the labor process are due to non-payment of oasis. it is not the only reason. in that sense, if one wanted to

describe this, of the targeting is not less, smart as we think. there is not a lot of people who identified this as the biggest problem. i was talking to people who work in the construction sector and build all these high-rises. they knew things were affecting them. they were second pressing of a once. that was not the only thing on their mind. there were lots of other things on their mind. i wanted to discuss this a bit. as these intensify, it will exhaust peexacerbate it.

many of the agency's get targeted. there has been a privatisation of state banks. this has been somewhat a results of things. also shipping and import/export businesses. there is a game going on where they privatized enterprises. it allows them until the u.s. treasury touches off. there is a real centralization of networks through the state. as it becomes more difficult to enter act, the state has to monitor a control. they have been trying to reregulate particular sectors of the economy.

i want to say some things that my shot people. this is not a military takeover of the economy that people proclaimed. i tend to work a bit on this subject. i said it shows this notion of a military takeover is a mess. the state is heavily involved. many people are in the middle. on the other hand, a free but that china and brazil and india, often the military is involved, too. we need to be careful when looking at iran.

things that might seem to the killer -- seem peculiar to applicable to the rest of the world. it is more of a general trend in a particular outcome of recent years. i will leave it at that. we will talk more later. >> i'll take that into account. >> makes sense of this for us. >> he might have a couple of minutes to spare. >> the way i would describe this position internally and an externally is impasse. there is a domestic and pass

with the nuclear issue. it takes place at two levels. they are within the institutions themselves. the parliament wants to micromanage the ministry. there's some degree of institutional officers. that is not particularly new. it is portrayed as a power struggle. there's sometimes pandemic. if you look at the confrontations with and impeachment of his ministry's, apprehension of the allies, he complained about

all these things. the supreme leader wants to have a head of political power. as long as these coexist, there'll be some degree of tension. that is within the system. part to go early in the aftermath of the 2009 election. some of that was even obvious before that. this can be said for the first time in the history of the islamic republic where these swath of the population no

longer looks up participation. -- as a useful means of changing the system. that was the case as early as 2009. i think it can be reported that they participated. that is an affirmation of the system. in a large number participated in the political process. they perceived it as an effective means of mentioned during their voices in deliberations. they broaden the contours'. there is an impasse taking place between a government that is resistant to the popular will

and a popular wealth that is having a similar complex. that is domestic. there is an international and pests and a wide variety of motivation. there are deterrents and power protection. i realize there is a protection. it is my belief that the nuclear program is driven by domestic and political factors. it is not the political factors that people tend to allude to. it is an indication of scientific achievements and stimulate a surge of nationalism. i do not believe that is true. i believe that the islamic republic can no longer incur its legitimacy on popular protection.

the consciously define themselves in contrast to the history of nationalism. there is paganism and monarchies were centuries of corruption and pillaging and so forth. i do not necessarily believe that the program is used to reconnect with the population if you except these bonds have been severed. i think if your members, the program offers you a path away back to the global society and economy. we all need to get commercial

contracts and the system. if you look at other cases of proliferation, after denunciations, the argument becomes that this country is too dangerous to be left alone to nurturers grievances. the best way of dealing with the new reality is to reintegrated into the security system. if you look at it, the program makes sense. there is a an attempt.

it makes sense as a pathway back to legitimacy. that is a person carious -- a precarious activity. in order for them to get it, and must be prepared to do three things. the have hardship. you require having to be bombed to become a nuclear club. it may be beyond diplomatic investigations. it is designed to extract tributes.

it is important to see the program. >> that is an insightful and provocative. i did a little different into these issues. we will open it up to questions. they have a position on the table. help us sort out what it is. if you want to flesh it out with what others think may be going on. it is unfair to get some of the ground experience.

how do the oil sanctions play out of? isn't there something that could have the impact that might change bit? you have the ultimate aims. you have the middle ground a little bit. none of us knows what to make of it. the air rest of these various american spy rings.

how should we understand an iranian foreign policy? charles? whatt's remind ourselves are the three pillars of a program. they have to get a workable farm. what is a state need? this has enriched the uranium to 35.

this is coming out of the reactor. this was not enough. they also need something that if you send a signal it puts it into a semi critical state. we know that they have done some work in that area and every season documents. the third element is a delivery vehicle. improbably ballistic missiles. that is a very symbolic weapon. even if they get a nuclear bomb and get something that is a row

what them, they probably will not use it. i would argue that it is the ideal weapon. they published this title. it says it all. we know they have been doing a lot of work on a ballistic missiles. they are developing a long-range intercontinental capability is. capabilities. a could threaten the greater middle eastern region

do they have a mandate to investigate the activities? they wrote a very interesting and provocative piece arguing no. there are those that say yes. i am not a lawyer. i'm not going to pretend to be. i read the article. i tried to look at it from a plain text point of view and not some sort of orwellian doublespeak. they say a non live here -- a non-nuclear weapon one should receive assistance. tonight they receive assistance.

they have received such assistance. it is about the nuclear weapons. they have been doing some investigations in terms of firing mechanism technique. they have gotten some assistance from scientists. he is saying he denies this. is also been investigating these technologies. all these issues have this. is anything really new? you can read through 15 pages of

material. there's not a lot of new stuff in there. this is consistent with 2007. there are strong indications of the weapons program. there are some other activities that work going into 2004. they say they're maybe additional activities beyond 2004. >> how can we give them to

change the behavior? there is a multilateral sanctions with europe on board. this is something they've been preparing for for quite a while. they do discuss this a bit. you get the bad news. this what they have for 20 years.

this is when they needed the most. >> it is a blockade in a way. napoleon had convinced them to block them. this probably will have them. unless they can sustain this. it will be a game between them.

there have been china and india getting the good deals. what is the end the logic of a ramping up sanctions and increasing punitive measures? he said he wants it has the nuclear options. it is of the collapse of the economy? it does not like where you get a full global efforts.

if you look at post revolutionary states, the end of blasting a long time. china, algeria, cuba. in last long time. what causes these states for their political ones to go here? in most of the world, this was not the outline. factionalism is normal. it is not odd. it does not seem like it is historically correct. it is not money or recesses -- resources. it is fair.

they have a sense of working together. if you do want them to get a long, they might take it. i have not seen that. factionalism dies down. this leads to the next obvious question. surpass legitimacy. it seems like it provided different path. they do not perceive as open.

they can give the political sanctions. >> a thinker foreign policy may be belligerent. you see this play itself out. this is for the leadership time. this is interesting in many respects. what we have come to know about the terrace portfolio over the past 30 years is that it has evolved. this chapter wind down.

they have geographically contracted this. there have been opportunities made available. this has gone on to some extent with complications to israel. it was the intensification of that terrorism activity. if this incident is true, it suggests two things. the previous lines have been revisited. one of them was that iran would not target the americas.

this appears to have been revisited. the second one is that they will meet pressure with pressure. it has the resources to retaliate one of the pieces of the pressure policy is to deal with the compliance and concessions. it indicates that they're willing to get into some sort of a excretory dynamic. we're and a new as the tory posture. it plays itself out.

they're moving into a fairly high predictability. it would suggest that it is becoming more acutely aggressive para i do love the place in the region is advantage to some extent. it is simply because the international focus the switch to taking place been a visa. in the long run, ben did not think they can remain an oasis in a region of popular empowerment. >> thank you. i think that is a great start. for those of you in the back,

and there are a number of seats in the middle. i welcome you to come down and sit. perhaps it will be more comfortable. if you have questions, please put your hands up. give the panel a chance to respond so we can have a confluence of conversation. there should be a microphone coming around. please identify yourself even if i call on you by now. .-- by name >> it seems of a the past decade during the negotiations to deal diplomatically with the nuclear program, i use a typical bargaining analogy.

it is how valuable their goods are. is there any way to deal with this problem? weather just to lower the temperature -- whether it is just to lower the temperature are not? >> thank you. i am garrett mitchell. the first part is if one could say our level of anxiety and concern about a run -- i ran and israel is a 10, what is the

assessment of the level of intensity in genuine fear about the foreign-policy. are there just to a bus that lose sleep at night? are we making -- i'm trying to get some sense of whether the level of anxiety and times bentz in the public policy arena is typical american overreaction to the new hiller of the year.

the second comes to the point about their been sent. -- their intent. they might be worse than they think. what is their endgame? what are they gaining if they knocked off a diplomat 1 mile from the white house backs what is it that they are seeking? why would they risk more? i would like to get a sense of the reality. >> you mentioned the

legislation and whether they can expect a collapse. i was wondering if you could engage in that cost-benefit analysis. it looks like the amendments that are up. what would be the impact? >> when i hear the words collapsed, my own experience drops. do we want to cause the collapse? is that positive? it is a different case. we can answer whatever par un like. >> i will stick with the part

about bargaining. i will take on what appears to be a narrower target. this is the issue of the entrenchment -- enrichment activities. we go back to 2009 we had barack obama and to others. at least i got a name. we appear to have a real serious offer that the west would provide nuclear fuel that is useful for the reactor.

it have been converted some years ago. this is a reactor that provides medical isotopes. this is not any kind of aspect of the weapons program. this is used for medical treatment. maybe we're trying to be too clever. we are creating this bargain where we only provide material if they were to take out the equivalent amount. two years ago it seemed like a pretty good deal. the point was to get out of it to delay the onset. it wound up getting rather complicated.

they got involved in 2010. that muddied the water. washington was not pleased. then the deal fell apart. that gave them a green light. we're going to forge ahead with the 20's term. -- 20%. we have gotten to the point where they say that this time we are serious. we really do need that material. we're going to try to go ahead on our come. we might be able to do it. they are struggling. the point is that we have another opportunity to create a

positive opening. let's take the leaders at their word. we do not have much to lose. we can say we can offer it with no conditions. this is a humanitarian gesture. this is a case where we did not question whether they were up to no good. people were in need. they were hurting. it was an opportunity to have a track engagement. there are more sanctions.

>> be in one sense, it is the collapse of the state. one of the wonderful things is that we are aware that they have fluor's -- lures. it is our blessing to a certain extent. they have been there before. the prices been quite low.

it was extremely constraining. this happens. this is not planned. the economy does have a high level of internal autonomy. there are some assumptions that they lead to collapse. the kind of sanctions that lead to collapse is going on before

that. it is something like the kirk amendment that they will push for. it is the same degree of sensitivity and urgency. there is the way the europeans have gradually accepted the argument in the united states. there will be critical of the united states. they reviewed the economic engagement as timbering the

engagement. i do not see that as being positive of the european state. that july they announced the sanctions that are quite aggressive. there has been that severance of the linkages. there was disagreement about the utility of force. -- this agreement about the utility of force. about the russian and chinese foreign policy. it does seem to me that they have to consider the relationship in the larger context in the national system. they make it up accordingly. they tried to do it both ways.

at the same time, they renegotiate the international resolutions at the means of putting some degree of blame while reserving their commercial activities. we will see how that policy plays out. you have to make your decisions and choices. they may opt for that. i do not know. i cannot decipher the saudi assassination. it defies the limitations of my faculty. only explanation i can offer is if they were trying to reestablish the plausibility. i cannot unpacked that.

that goes there a level of mental acuity. >> at least not that your second cup of coffee. >> we're going to have a second panel. why don't we start to write down here? -- right down here? >> it seems that u.s. political leadership is painting himself into a corner. it seems that we're heading toward one option.

my question is do they understand this? >> why don't we go right over there? >> the status quo -- israel has a vision bombs and deployed some on submarines. the u.s. has about 60 much more powerful thermonuclear weapons. mix,ey're taken out of the we have a nuclear-free middle east. our pressure on iran would be an attempt to preserve the status quo. right now are pressure is perceived by the rest of the world as an effort to preserve

the nuclear weapons monopoly of the u.s. and israel. why do we never hear any talk about the u.s.? that is a factor that should be considered. >> i was wondering in the review conference last year, the i iranians agreed reluctantly with the final document which included the holding of a conference to prepare for the nuclear weapons free zone. part to the preparation was going on yesterday and today. there was a weapon about nuclear weapons free zones. i am wondering if any of you

could shed any light on that and what it might mean for the 2012 conference on the subject? >> we will take this one to the left. >> hello. we have heard some interesting comments about how challenging it is to affect policy in iran. where are the opportunities to influence the society that is not monolithic? where the opportunities for the u.s. and others to make an impact to? -- impact? >> what we take it to the panel. we take it to the panel? >> there is a larger issue of weapons of mass destruction.

the resolution coming out of the conference last year is there anything real their? -- real there? do they have anything in terms of the review conference but we're not serious? we should take it seriously. often talk about israel or u.s. weapons in the region. this is a great opportunity for us to not shy away for it. one thing i'm thinking of developing is getting experts together and assessing what are the options. how can you do with the challenging issues of verification and the security concerns of various states? and not to make excuses for why israel got the bomb.

it is one the worst kept secret in the middle east. i do not want to spend the holiday talking about that. they felt the need that when they develop the problem that they were under the existential threat. are they still under existential threat? we have to realize that nuclear weapons possessions is still limited in terms of what a state can achieve. we looked at what israel is in terms of weapons back in 2006. it does not help resolve the palestinian issue. if they stay possess nuclear weapons like libya, and and for

chalet gaddafi did not, -- and unfortunately, gaddafi did not comment there can be an uprising. we have to realize that they seem to be on a glorify pedestal. >> four questions was my limits. >> the first thing they should do is listen to the opinions coming from those people who are involved in democratic opposition. it could be harmful to the internal dynamics of the society. this is a black box. there have been a lot of changes. there will continue to be changes. i'm part of this youth generation.

i will not say my age. this has had an impact. it is not monolithic. it will not be the same and 20 years. let's think again about the logic. if the political leaders will not change, are we expecting them to speak up? this is not happen in the history. i was reading this book by a princeton professor about breaking out of the soviet union society."settlencivil in 1982, of the opposition was

in the west. they opened up by the mid-80's. the internal dynamics had space to fight it out. they were able to counter the conservatives. that allowed for dissolution of the soviet union. the terms of the dynamics are important. it does not mean we can expect particular geometry of international relations to work out. >> you have to discount an entire range of dissident activity. you discount that incorrectly.

let me discuss the question that was posed regarding the issue. it is an important argument. i hear a lot. i think the infractions has to be in fractions of themselves. it embraced certain obligations. it is in violation of them. there has to be some degree of penalties. these penalties cannot be disregarded. i think it to be much better. it action moves to double zeros.

the fact that these things are not happening at the pace that woman like to see, it does not mean that the fractions are not real. >> i am an intern. what have we learned from the economic sanctions? why have we not apply that knowledge? are the sanctions prevent? >> further back.

>> thank you. i want to go back to what he asked. how the influence the internal review how do you influence the internal dynamic -- how do you influence the internal dynamics to get them to do what you want in some of the path of legitimacy that might actually take them to the bomb? it seems inconceivable that there professing that their program is only peaceful than getting the bomb is the only way to international legitimacy.

>> thank you. you mentioned how all they are embedded in sanctions. could you speak on that? >> we will reverse the order. >> there are differences. i'm not quite sure it is the obvious diplomatic past. the diplomacy is making small incremental change. there's some sort of negotiated restraint.

they're having sanctions are out of the protest. some will cause a change in the regime. this is a regime that is quite vulnerable. it is probably the least relevant. this is the leadership that can manage the economy. it has vulnerability in the sense that it is increasingly isolated in the international community. it has other vulnerabilities. it is an intelligent population. it is an educated population.

the populace is quite sophisticated and intelligent. they have to live under the religious order. it is quite cosmopolitan in terms of their habits. it can precariously glide over the current of persian nationals. it has domestic and vulnerabilities that can be exploited. one of the pieces that has emerged is that we cannot resist the opposition because they did not ask for it. if you look at the history of the united states and you go back to assistance from french and italian political parties in

the 1940's, there is a confluence of interest. if you look at congress for cultural freedom, it was trying to mobilize the soviet intellectuals. you see the post-helsinki society. there is a confluence of interests between the united states and the buy iranian opposition. it is another area of vulnerability. >> no. answered your question. when the perceived threat is

highest, i was there in 2006. i would say every other person i asked have that fear. i'vefive that do not believe tht is on the table but certainly the population of people do sometimes believe that. so, yes. they think it is a possibility but they do not think it is likely. >> i appreciate his comment. i want to slightly disagree with him on the fusion of nationalism and the islamic republic and ism and the revolutionary ideology. the youth of pre-islamic

nationalism about persepolis and these things, it was used by the islamic republic as early as 1990. rafsanjani signed his book, and the lead changes, i am not say that they believe this, but the ride in a run -- the right in iran is rather crafted, they fuse and utilize symbols of pre- islamic and islamic nationalism. i am not saying that anyone is duped by this. but the state adapts, right? we are analyzing it and we should be honest about what is happening in the country. the state at that some changes and the society it adapts and changes. there is not solely -- there is

not always such a huge gap between them. one reason the green movement failed to a certain extent -- i was there and i saw it -- was that they did not win the battle of nationalism it was one particular vision of the nays and versus another one. one set all the guns, that is true, but the other side had some guns. there's a clash of nationalism in iran, and it is ongoing and will continue to go forward. the question is what in the u.s. to help one -- what can the u.s. do to help one over the other? >> can regimes come and go and physics is eternal. we have to go back to the future with a strategy. we have to go back to 1946. soon after the dawn of the nuclear age, soon after the manhattan project delivered two

types of atomic bombs to help end the war in the pacific, and some of the founders of my organization were involved in that activity. that form the federation of american scientists to advocate for international control of these technologies. go back to the report in 1946, what two political leaders names on it. robert oppenheimer was the lead drafter. he and those in the report realized from a engineering standpoint, a system of national ownership and control of nuclear technology is open for failure. it is almost bound to fail. there is only some much we can do to try to monitor and safeguard such a program.

ray is absolutely right, sanctions could help allay and buy some time, but they will not put a halt to the program. a question back there about lessons learned from sanctions on north korea, well, north korea, they have plutonium, they apparently now have a uranium enrichment program. it is small, but they have been able to weather that storm of sanctions. a very poor country. there is a time when stations got north korea's attention, especially when targeting banking and kim yong-il said, oh, my, so i will pay attention for a period of time. so there is a role for sanctions, but it will not be a cure all. back to the future is going back to the report, we need to find a way to have more international control on these dangerous new

venture to predict nuclear technologies of refinement and enrichment. we need to look at this issue of international controls, it seems like every five or 10 years, all whole new awakening and flurry of reports and studies on this. we do have some semblance of international control on some enrichment facilities. we see here in the united states a consortium building a plant in new mexico. that is an example of using black pot technology -- black box technology. a similar thing is going to be happening in ohio. there are examples where we can try to -- this is been mentioned before and i am not the first to say this, a great -- a lot of gray work being done at harvard and other places, looking at

ways to have multilateral ownership and control for iran to still have enrichment but have greater confidence that what they're doing could be detected if there is a break out in the weapons program. >> going back to the black- market, i am sorry i did not answer that. one of the arguments is that sanctions increases black market activity which might be referring to military networks. smuggling has been going on for a long time in iran. almost 90% of the cellphones in iran do not pay the tariff when they enter the border, means that they are coming in with the legal mechanisms, 50% of the clothing, that is smuggled in. a huge smuggling problem in iran, 20% of gdp, i think, do

not quote me on that. is that a result of sanction? it is the porous borders of the country and it used to be the pivot of history. it is embedded in this particular networks of trade that it will be very difficult for anyone to totally close of. you squeeze the balloon with water and gets bigger, somehow. >> one last question. >> thank you. from bloomberg news, can you address the debate over the timeline that we're looking at at this point, based on the information in the iaea report and what sort of milestones are coming up in the next two years?

how far we've from various milestones in the development of a nuclear program? and could you also addressed the question, what you think at this point is the minimum that the united states and its allies may offer iran that are run may find acceptable to pare its nuclear efforts? >> ok, thank you. george washington university, [unintelligible]

present obama's claimed the returned to asia-pacific region. i really think [unintelligible] theoretically speaking, if it appears to me that iran is causing a security dilemma. maybe we can only offer -- the proper way to get out is to let it go. there is also a claim that maybe there is some kind of [unintelligible] to get out of this dilemma, what is your comment? >> take one more from greg on the front. and we will have final comments. >> i just wanted it if we could get a comment on what you think

about the efficacy of assassinating iranian scientists, and whether or not that could slow down the program, and also about the effect of the iranian people increasing their willingness to constrain their nuclear program? >> start us off again. >> on the issue of china, the reluctance to offer any advice in an institution that features can. -- ken. gmt and we're going to have a whole panel on that. have ae're going to whole panel met. >> it assumes that the iranian scientists is a limited number of people.

since 1990, they have invested quite considerably in the scientific apparatus. the apparatus has made significant gains, if you look at it by the metrics of how many phd's they have produced in physics, chemistry, and so forth. chemistry is also the crown jewel of scientists. theoretical physics they are advanced on because it does not take a huge technological apparatus. there are a number of all third articles and internationally recognized scientific journals on this. this is a large scientific community. not all scientists are situated in university laboratories for they are also an industry like in the united states. -- they are also in industrial light in the united states.

charles and speak about how you make us successful scientific community. so essentially three sides is getting killed will not reverse the scientific knowledge that this country has accumulated. it may even create an esprit the corps and the scientific community. so it is of limited utility. i forget the other question. >> i forget the other question, too. but a good answer. that is not a pathway to disarmament or, for liberation. -- or counter proliferation. so the new minister of oil in iran is a rather burly fellow and he used to be head of the

revolutionary guard of corps of engineers. i just saw him give a speech in a lecture revolutionary patriot. he just gave a speech about two days ago to an engineering society in iran. it was about the need for investment in the country's oil and gas sector. this is a country that is heavily on invested in its own sector -- under invested in its own sector. he says that the country needs $100 billion of investment. the iranians as much as they say that to test the west, they're really like us. and they want our investments. they do not like the chinese investment. they always complain about the second great chinese capital and things like that. even though they are using the cellphones all the time. you have to increase the vision

of the future for iran has been able to exploit its resources in a way that is more productive than it is now. that is what is on their minds and that should be discussed much more openly in policy. jindal whole question about timeline and i might say a few words about the issue of targeting, assassinating iranian scientists, and then wrap up with the issue of time lines. i agree with re but i would add more than that. britain -- ray, but i would add more than that. in the early days of the cold war, when there was a movement starting and there was an exchange of views between the soviets and the american scientists to try to find ways of having a dialogue in trying to find a mutual resolution on

these issues, and there has been some of that outrage from the u.s. national council of scientists and a lot of gray work in that area. more needs to be done. just wanted to get that out in the open. in terms of timeline, the number of things that we need to pay attention to in terms of how to proceed gm now, there have been various assessments -- going forward, there been various assessments about how they break out into nuclear weapons. i have heard six months. i've heard a senior u.s. official very concerned that it is about a year, very long. what does that really mean? i mentioned in my opening remarks that according to the iaea, iran has stockpiled to under 49 kilos of this material -- 249 kilos of this material. that might be 3 or four bonds

worth of that material. is that enough? probably not, but i do not know. we need to do on my mind -- we need to the mind meld with experts to figure out the intention, the interplay between intentions and capabilities. but we know that iran continues to amass enriched materials. and we need to pay attention to the enrichment activities up to that 20% level. will they go beyond what is required to refuel the reactor. i would be a interesting signal if they surpass that point. that would mean there was probably something more than getting enough fuel to fuel the reactor. we need to see how they proceed in actually in manufacturing the field for the reactor. they may run into technical difficulties with that.

if they continue to enrich at that level, that is another signal as to their possible intentions. we also need to look how they are proceeding with the ballistic missile program. are they make it advances in terms of long-range missile capability, it true intercontinental ranges? that plays into the contentious debate going on in u.s.-nato- russia context as to missile defense. that has large implications as to where we go with the next round of nuclear arms reductions with the russians. there is a lot at play here in terms of the various time lines and technical activities are ron is doing. -- iran is doing. and i do not know if we solve the iranian nuclear program but we have mapped out all the more the incredible maes and complexities that make up the issue from the iranian side. i think that the ambiguities that we have left on the table is the exact perfect starting

place for our next panel which will begin at 10:45. meanwhile, refreshments outside. please join me in taking -- thinking this terrific panel. -- thanking this terrific panel. >> more now on the nuclear program from the brookings institution. coming up, we will hear from national security advisor tom donilon kirit this part of the event is 40 minutes. good afternoon, everybody. it is a great pleasure on behalf of all my colleagues at the brookings institution not just to welcome you but to welcome tom donilon. as you know, tom's responsibilities are global.

to wit, he has just come back and no doubt is fighting the jet lag still from a nine-day, three-country trip to asia during which he conducted, along with the president, of course, numerous bilateral conversations, i think, touching on the relations between the united states and 23 other countries. his title features the words national security. that means that there is particular focus coming from him and his office on the issue of how to prevent the proliferation of dangerous nuclear technology in general, and how to deal with the iranian threat in particular. now this is a set of issues that has received a great deal of attention, public, official, and

international, just in the last couple of weeks. the international atomic energy agency put out an important and in many ways to curbing report a couple of weeks ago. the iaea board passed an important resolution just late last week and new measures were announced by the united states, the united kingdom, and canada just yesterday. a number of you here in the room participated in the discussion with two excellent panels during the course of the morning. to tomre very grateful for finding time in his very busy schedule to come and give us an authoritative update on the view from the white house. he has very little time to be with us. he needs to get back to a series of pressing and, indeed urgent, meetings immediately after he

finishes talking. without further ado, i will turn the light turned over to him and thank him again for being with us this afternoon. [applause] >> it is terrific to see so many friends here. i do not get a lot of -- i do not get out a lot these days. [laughter] for all of you for whom i have not talked to were seen in a while, i apologize and i hope to see you on the way out and say hello. i am just back from the president's trip to asia, where it really was a landmark trip. we were engaged in -- all take this opportunity -- we are engaged in a fundamental strategic reorientation and rebalancing of our global policy. we were able to really execute on each and every element on it. on the diplomatic, on the economic, and on the securities

side. i love to talk about that as well. but it really was a terrific trip. thank you for your introduction in your friendship and your leadership and your years of distinguished public service as well. and steve, thank you for inviting me to your intent today. before getting to my speech, i want to reflect a minute or so on the role of places like brookings. from the perspective now of policy-making. fairly deep inside the administration, the sentiment i want to express is one of personal appreciation for it is absolutely critical. it is an essential relationship between policymakers and those who provide fresh, pragmatic, effective intellectual capital. it really could not be a more foreign thing. it is very easy with the press of business to get on a certain

policy tact. hi and not have the fresh thinking that is necessary and the work that you do, and i see really many people around the world on whose work i have relied, who have really had an impact on the thinking in the administration and had an impact on policy. one of the core policies that president obama has pursued, and i see joe and others here, has been in the proliferation and nuclear areas. the topic i will address today is pretty court to that, really of fundamental affirmative agenda of the obama administration. reducing reliance on the new weapons and to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons in the world today. today iran is our topic and it could not be more timely, that in recent weeks there have been no shorter -- shortage of reminders of the seriousness of

the threat posed by the iranian nuclear program, most recently the iaea report and how the choices made by the iranian regime has resulted in their deep global isolation. that is the topic i want to address today. i know that you have been through a number of technical topics and i like to pull back and say some things today that i know that people here today do not agree with entirely analytically but i want to lay out the overall impact of the result of u.s. policy along with international partners with respect to iran over the last three years. i like to put these developments in the context and as i said, specifically, i want to discuss how the policy of the industry's and the international community has succeeded in increasing pressure on iran for failure to meet its core of our project international obligations. and i also want to address how profoundly the regime has been weakened at home, in the region,

and globally. i will get that in some detail during the course of my top. i think it is important to reflect the reality that we in the obama administration faced in january 2009. tehran believed and frankly many in the region believed that iran was ascendant. internally they did not face the significant challenges to its legitimacy. that would change during the course of the year 2009 pretty substantially. recently its proxies actively threatening those across the region for the conversations that we have a with those in court -- when we came in office, there was a deep sense of that threat of iran as we came into office. in contrast, the international community was trying to deal with the nuclear program. multilateral diplomacy had stalled and american diplomacy

had seemingly been taken off the table. as i cut this is this, you'll find my checking set rigid myself checking myself on a few things. i really want to go through a carefully and test every assertion that i make for precision, frankly, because it is a board to speak about this with precision. during that time, iran went from having 100 centrifuges for enriching uranium in 2003 to more than 5000 when president obama took office. more troubling was the fact that many in the world had usually -- begun to get -- begun to give the benefit of the dow to iran and begun to blame the united states for the tensions. allowing iran to escape responsibility for its intransigence. this was a dangerous dynamic that we were determined to alter when we came into office. we've always been clear about the danger of their nuclear

program and it is important asset that out at the outset. it is a grave threat to the security of the united states and the world, and nuclear-arms to iran would not likely mean an arms race in the middle is, an area marked by conflict and a high degree of potential miscalculation. in nuclear-arms iran could emboldened terrorists and would constitute a threat to countries across the region, including our closest ally, the state of israel. it would pose a significant threat to the vital shipping lanes of the persian gulf and the strategic strait of hormuz. and iran armed with nuclear weapons with long-range missiles to deliver them what also pose a serious threat to nations outside the region, including our nato allies in europe. it would also pose an unprecedented challenge to the nuclear non-proliferation

treaty. this would raise fundamental questions about the ability of the international community to stop the spread of the world's most deadly weapons and likely lead to a spiral of additional proliferation. for all these reasons, president obama said, there should be no doubt that the analysis and the international community are determined to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. those of the words of the president of the united states toward surely taking office, we presented tehran with an unprecedented and genuine opportunity for dialogue. and this is in 13 the united states directly in our p5 plus 1 partners presented iran with a clear choice. that still your international obligations which will allow you to deepen your economic and political integration with the world, if achieved greater security and prosperity for iran and its people, and allow iran

to return to its rightful place and i sure hate prosperous past, or iran could continue down the path of flouting its responsibilities and enjoy even greater isolation. first, it was a sincere offer of dialogue. it was a modified offer to engage in a diplomatic approach. it had tangible benefits for iran, obviously. it would attempt to deal with the situation in a diplomatic fashion. and this has been accurately described by a lot of writers, and the washington quarterly recently described it. second, we knew that the offer was rejected, iran's failure to meet international obligations would be exposed to the entire world. the burden should it would shift. -- the burden would shift. the entire world will see that

iran wasn't -- was responsible for the impasse bring it would increase the ability of united states to mobilize support for holding a iran accountable for its behavior. over the past three years, that is exactly what has happened. we've gained tremendous more leverage to hold iran accountable with that sincere offer a diplomatic offer to address the issue. as we all know, the iranian government repeatedly rejected the opportunity for credible dialogue. it also rejected incentives. and we can go into the details at some point during the talks. it has forged ahead with its nuclear program and ignored its commitments and security council resolutions. moreover, the continued a record of deceit and deception for over 30 years. most recently with the secret missile facility which the

united states, the united kingdom, and france exposed and i think that was a critical step for us to have taken. in september 2009, you recall that we basically blew the whistle on a covert facility which did not allow iran to have that as an option, frankly, for proceeding to break out. indeed, and this is quite critical, iran is the only member of the npt that has not been able to convince the un security council and the international community generally that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. that is an important point to underscore. they are the only nation that has completely and utterly unable to convince the international community of a peaceful purpose of its program, despite its protestations about it being peaceful. and this deception continues to raise questions and doubts about this. this culminated in the iaea

reports that we talked about our leopard united states has done exactly what we said we would do. with the broad support of the international community, we have steadily increased pressure on the iranian regime and raised the cost of its intransigence. our approach has been multi faceted and includes five distinct yet mutually reinforcing lines of action. number one, we have led the way in organizing an unprecedented array of sanctions that imposes significant price on their behavior and succeeded in delaying the nuclear program. number two, we have a concerted effort to isolate iran diplomatically as never before, regionally and globally. third, we have worked with partners to counter their efforts to destabilize the region, especially during the arab spring. fourth, we have steadily and substantially invested in and deepened our defense partnerships in the region. building a robust regional

security architecture that blunts their ability to threaten its neighbors, especially our gulf cooperation partners. we have enhanced our significant and enduring u.s. force presence in the region and in addition we have worked to develop a network of air and missile defenses, shared early warning, improved maritime security, closer counterterrorism cooperation, and increase efforts to harden and protect our partners critical infrastructure. these efforts -- this is aside -- have reassert our partners in the region. i have been deeply involved with this and this is critically important terms of reassurance. the steps demonstrate unmistakably to tehran that any attempt to dominate the region will be futile and a show the united states is prepared for any contingency. i would add that our new missile defense program with our european allies, it is more

effectively geared to protecting our nato allies from the growing iranian missile threat then we face it -- that we face of the next decade. that is the topic of another seminar or session here. but it is precisely geared to the threat. we are successfully implementing in europe. at the lisbon, nato summit, all of the european countryside and, turkey most recently agreed to host a full work radar and it can be done in a timely way. and the final column of the approach, even as we keep the door open for diplomacy, president obama has said as recently as last week that we're not taking any options off the table in pursuit of our basic objective. taken together, this multi dimensional approach, simultaneous, and reinforcing approach has put this into a position where we can employ a full range of options as we

continue to ratchet up pressure on the iranian regime for its continued choice to continue to cloud its obligations. now with respect to the first element, increasing pressures for sanctions, we have succeeded in imposing the strongest sanctions on the iranian regime today. here in the united states, we worked with the congress to write and that congress sign that the act that combined with passed measures we now subject them to the toughest u.s. sanctions ever. we have used the fairest, authorities -- that various authority in a coalition to hold iran accountable. president obama personally and repeatedly engaged with his foreign counterparts including in russia and china in a lengthy bilateral meetings, and this paved the way for passage of

the un security council resolution 1929 which has the most comprehensive international sanctions on iran today. we have worked with allies and partners to build on those un sanctions. it is a multilayered ever that we put in a place with the un security council at the base. the european union has impose strong measures against their banking and insurance and energy sectors, as well as the year iranian revolutionary guards south korea and japan, major trading partners with iran, have taken steps to limit trading. other countries have opposed additional measures. -- imposed additional measures. and russia counseled the sale of a sophisticated missile defense system to render the effects of these sanctions has been clear. they have slowed the nuclear

efforts. the control efforts have made it more difficult for iran to acquire key materials and equipment for its enrichment program, an item that iran cannot produce for itself. stations are slowing their nuclear program. in 2007, the head of iran's atomic energy organization boasted that they were at 50,000 center fusions -- centrifuges installed within four years. near the end of 2011, they have installed 8000 with perhaps 6000 operational. not only is it harder for their -- for them to proceed, it would be far more economical and efficient for iran to purchase nuclear fuel on the international market than to develop an indigenous in richmond and fuel production capability. but they continue to make huge investments in this program,

most of them published. even as it cuts back on support and investment in its economy and its people. this is the larger context for the iaea report and i would be clear about this. we were not surprised by the report because it confirmed everything we had known since the first that the president took office. this report is entirely consistent with the facts and analysis that shaped our entire approach since january 2009. for a nap -- we are in it that they had an active -- we already knew they had an active program to develop activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. the facts are undeniable. despite decades of iranian denial and deceit and not withstanding the setbacks i described, is clear for all the world to see that under a civilian nuclear program, the government of iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability. put simply, the iranian regime

is not all the mentally altered its behavior but we have succeeded in slowing the program and the international community has the time, space, and means to effectively council iran's leaders who cannot avoid the choice is laid before them. we will therefore continue to use every tool in our disposal to continue the pressure on the regime and sharpen the choices being made. we need to be vigilant and we will be. we will work aggressively to detect any nuclear efforts and expose them and force iran to put them under international inspection. thus denying them the option of using the facilities to secretly produced enriched uranium. with the iaea inspectors still on the grand -- on the ground, in iranian effort to divert materials would be detected quickly before iran could use them to produce a significant quantity of highly enriched

uranium. we continue to increase the pressure, as you saw yesterday with secretary clinton and i there -- in geithner announcing new moves, and we're expanding energy sanctions to make it more difficult for iran to operate and modernize its oil and gas sector. and for the first time, we have designated the entire iranian banking sector has the jurisdiction of primary money laundering concerned, detailing extensive deceptive practices across the iranian financial sector, including by the central bank of iran. making clear the grave risk faced by governments or other financial institutions that continue to do business with the iranian banks, and we are not ruling out additional steps against the banking sector, including the central bank of

iran. again, as we do this, we are not taking any options off the table and no one should doubt that. this leads me to the larger point that i want to make today. it is something that i have wanted to discuss publicly for some time, the extraordinary isolation that iran finds itself in today. even as tehran refuses to engage in dangerous and destabilizing behavior, iran is fundamentally weaker, more isolated, more vulnerable, and badly discredited than ever. compared to when president obama took office, iran has greatly been diminished around the world as a result of the choices made by its leadership. discuss the situation domestically in iran. at home, iran is feeling tremendous pressure for it it is harder for banks that support there to nuclear program and terrorism to engage in international finance.

president ahmadinejad called the greatest assault on the country thate country's history, their banks cannot make international transactions anymore, it is become exceedingly difficult for iran to deal with euros or dollars anywhere in the world. it is increasingly important -- impossible for them to be a legitimate banking system in the war. we've made it harder for them to buy refined petroleum and goods to develop the oil and gas sector. according to the iranian oil the shortage will increasingly affect future revenues. other sectors are being affected as well. the international business community is shunning them. major companies had ended or drastically reduced business with iran, again as a result of the decisions made by the iranian leadership.

the impact of sanctions is compounded by rampant corruption in iran. the atomic revolutionary -- the revolutionary guard, at a time when iranian people are being squeezed, the irgc funds are being filled and passed on the violent movements. it only adds to the economic woes and the frustrations of the iranian people. their economy is increasingly bundled inflation that we estimate is around 20%, unemployment is consistently high, and contrary to what has been written on this, despite higher oil prices, they will have negligible look forward -- economic growth this year. these economic difficulties are one more challenge to the regime already seen its legitimacy suffer and really has come into

focus is the elections in 2009. the brutal response to the green movement revealed the hollowness of the government. it claims to draw its legitimacy from populism and islamic principles. but it offers nothing to its young people except intimidation and violence to remain in power, the same recipe for unrest that fueled the arab spring. it is increasingly divided and under extraordinary stress and increasingly in dramatically visible to the observers outside iran. the supreme leader and president ahmadinejad seem increasingly headed toward a confrontation. the supreme leader even talk about consolidating his power further by abolishing the presidency. we see fissures developing among the ruling class and the regime is focused exclusively on preserving its reign at all costs. just as the regime is

increasingly isolated and losing legitimacy at home, they are increasingly isolated in the region. a regional balance of power tipped against iran, and i know that there are those in this room that disagree with that assessment. next door, iran has failed in its efforts to fashion iraq into a client shape. iraqis are moving in the opposite direction. ken, i saw your testimony last week. i went to it carefully and i have some responses here. [laughter] just to give you a heads up on that. [laughter] but i am reading your testimony. [laughter] iran and iraq have very different issues. iraqis are moving in the opposite direction of any client state that iran may be trying to

establish their. they're building a sovereign democratic state and one recent poll found that just 14% of iraqis have available -- at a favorable opinion of a record there is really a nationalistic dynamic of work here. even the supporters of al sadr have an unfavorable opinion of iran by a margin of 3-1 according to this poll. even as we finish removing our forces from iran, and we will do so by the end of december 2011, we remain steadfastly committed to a long-term strategic partnership with iran, including robust security cooperation which will ensure that iran remains -- iraq remains a strong and independent country in the world. we will talk about the relationship with iraq. as a close partner in the

region and multiple dimensions from the diplomatic, education, to development of the oil sector, but really critically also robust security cooperation. iran has failed in its efforts to intimidate the gulf states into yielding to iranian dominance. indeed, i think iranian contact and i've spent a lot of time working on this has actually cause those countries to unify as never before in their resisting iran. reassured by regional defense and security architecture i described are aware, the gulf cooperation council states are more united than ever and more willing to challenge tehran. we have seen that. next, iran has failed in its efforts to take advantage of the arab spring and to put it mildly, the arab spring has been unkind to iran. you cannot imagine a narrative that contrasts more.

this season of change caught them flat footed and unprepared. the advance from tunis to domestic have made ally of iran's claimed that change can only come from violent resistance. meanwhile, their hypocrisy has been shown what they've reportedly celebrate these uprisings while the crash headed home. it has been a fundamental narrative challenge to al qaeda. their model of extremism and denial of human rights is being repudiated by the generation that takes to the streets across their region. they are not protesting in order to be more like iran. not surprisingly, polling consistently shows that iran's image has plummeted in the region. the favorability in the arab

nations stood at 80% generally before. it is now down to an average below 30% during the most common reasons given are at their crushing dissent at home, its meddling in the region, it's the minting of sectarian conflict, and its nuclear program. rather than looking to rap, they are looking in the opposite direction, toward universal rights and democracy. as they do so, present obama has placed the united states firmly on the right side of history, making it clear that the policy of the united states is to promote reform across the region and to support transitions to democracy. today, in the face of a region increasingly united against tehran, they are basically down to two principal remaining allies. i want to go through this in some detail. the assad group, and hezbollah. like iran, they too are

fundamentally at odds with the forces sweeping the region. assad regime, tehran's most important ally, is more and more isolated and increasingly condemned. their brutality has shown the extraordinary step of suspending syria's membership. in turkey, the government will spend a decade increasing its ties to syria said it would no longer be fooled by their promises. today, erdogan joined the international voices calling for assad to step down. there is on auctions, bashar assad has ensure that they will be left in the past and the courageous circassian in people -- syrian people will determine its future. analytically, what does this

mean? the end of the assad regime would be iran's greatest setback in the region, a strategic blow that would further shift the balance of power in the region. having the actively funding in very material ways the regime's brutality and killing of a some people, iran will be discredited in the eyes of the syrian people and any future government. tehran possibility to project violence and instability there is violence proxy's will be vastly diminished. that is our analytical judgment. finally, tehran is increasingly isolated from the international community. more nations than ever are looking -- iran is finding fewer business partners. they have taken an ancient nation and turned it into a pariah state. this is a tragedy.

three recent events in particularly -- first, in the wake of the iaea report, the iaea board of governors voted overwhelmingly that iran take steps to address the concerns raised in the report spurred 32 nations voted that they fulfill their obligations. only two countries sided with iran, cuba and ecuador. second, iran has been further isolated by the plot to basinet the saudi ambassador here in washington. i have to confess, i was initially struck by their reactions in some quarters, those who look to the plot and said is this really how iran operates? this does not sound like iran. this is not how they operate. there are those of you in this room they know so well, if you of all the history for the last 30 years, this is exactly how or on our operates -- iran

operates. from the bombing in beirut, to the attacking of embassies, and many others. it would take another whole speech to lay this out. the people in this room do not need this history lesson. nor was this the plot of some low-level figures are intermission confirmed that officials overseeing the plot or officials, officers, within the irgc-quds force. they have on been trained and funded terrorists in iran, to strike iraqi government, and american personnel. we're very familiar with this group. we deal with it every day. faced with these facts, the international community is taking action to hold iran accountable for the treasury department has imposed sanctions against the elements of the conspiracy. the arab league and the gulf

cooperation council has helped us. they deplore their behavior in the plot against the saudi ambassador in washington, d.c. 106 nations voted against them, a country's voting with them. most significantly, not a single muslim or arab nation voted with iran, not one. foreign islamic republic the once imagined itself as a leader of muslim majority nations, this is a repudiation that isolation could not be more complete. and at the united nations yesterday, member states voted overwhelmingly to condemn their human rights record. they are subject to human rights monitoring. weekend at home, a diminished in the region, and isolated in the world, this is a dramatic shift in iran's fortunes have occurred

over the last three years. in this sense, we have succeeded in changing the dynamic that was at work when president obama was in office -- came into office. three years ago, they were largely united. today they are wracked with division and i do not think that is an unfair assessment three years of -- an unfair assessment. three years ago, it was not certain whether additional pressure could be brought to bear on iran. today, they are under the strongest sanctions they have ever faced, contributing to their weakness. leaders and iran's leaders alone are responsible for the predicament that they find themselves in. they alone have the power to choose a different course. the onus is on iran. tehran has to seize the

diplomatic opportunities before and cooperate fully with the iaea investigators and comply with the resolutions that require them to suspend parts of its nuclear program. if it does not come of the pressures will grow. we will continue to increase sanctions and build a regional defense architecture that prevents iran from threatening its neighbors. we will continue to deepen their isolation regionally and globally, and even as the door to diplomacy remains open, we will take no option off the table. our focus and purpose is clear -- pressure is a means, not an end. we are determined to keep iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. as a prisoner obama has said, we stand with iranian people as they seek universal rights and iranians deserve a government that puts its daily ambitions and normal relationships with the rest of world, including the united states.

put simply, the iranian people deserve a future worthy of their past as a great civilization and that day will come sooner when the regime in tehran abandons its reckless pursuit of a nuclear weapons program that does nothing for is people but endangers the security of the war. thank you for your patience and i look forward to a couple of questions. [applause] >> if thank you very much for that. before bringing the session to close. as a success, -- as he suggests, i will put at two-part question did they reflect some of the thinking and curiosity in the room. you have made a very powerful statement that the coordinated policies of the united states and the international community have imposed a world of hurt, not to mention this credit and isolation, on iran but has not yet succeeded in getting iran to

use -- to alter its nuclear behavior appeared what you think the chances of the policy succeeding? and related, what will it take to get the necessary degree of support from the chinese and the report -- and the russians? you've had exposure to their leadership's recently. >> with respect to the chances for success, given the severity of the challenge and the threat, we in the international community 0 it to ourselves to pursue every option. and by laying out the reenforcing steps that we're taking, " we require is persistence coming unity, and we have put a very high premium on unity. indeed, we believe that that is something that the iranians need to see. they are more isolated than ever. these are multidimensional. and i think that we cannot take any options off the table, and

over time the goal would be to raise the price and enforce the choice. that is what we are going to do. with respect to the russians and chinese, we have had very good coordination and cooperation from them. they supported us on each of our international sanctions efforts at the un and have been forced those efforts faithfully. -- enforced those efforts faithfully did they have been very good partners as we build out this unified effort. >> thank you very much. we notice that you have put out two suggestions on issues that you might come back and talk to us about. one is general diplomatic engagement with the world and the other is missile defense. we will stay in touch. please, keep your seats while i help, out of the building so he can get out of -- back to the white house. white house.