>> appreciated. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> today in new hampshire, president obama was interrupted by protesters during a speech on jobs. that is next on c-span. a number of conservative organizations talk about their support for not raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. and later, the u.s. comptroller dr. david walker ways and on the failure of the joint deficit- reduction committee to reach an agreement.

>> tomorrow morning on washington journal, a look at the republican presidential debate focused on national security. we speak to general wesley clark. then fill kerpen joins us. he talks about the failure of the committee to reach an agreement by this week's deadline. and then jake tapper joins us to talk about the mad about unit. washington journal, each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c- span. president obama was speaking in manchester, new hampshire. president obama was interrupted by protesters during a speech on jobs. this is 40 minutes.

>> 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. talking to some of the students. we were worried that folks were born to be disappointed. -- were going to be disappointed. i promised him that i would be back. [cheers] 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 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. [cheers and applause] before i came to school today, i had coffee -- >> [unintelligible]

>> mr. president. >> over 4000 protesters have been arrested. >> [unintelligible chanting] [crowd boos] >> that is okay. that is ok. >> [unintelligible chanting] >> ok, guys. >> obama, obama, obama, obama, obama. >> ok. that is all right. 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.

-- mine, all right? i will listen to you and you will listen to me, all right? [cheers] [applause] 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. you may know, as he just said, he is a math teacher here at central high. even though a visit from may tends to disrupt things a little bit, 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. to themselves and their families. [cheers and applause] in fact, this holiday season will be a season of homecomings for folks all 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 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 theirs, 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] becauseit 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 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 country in the occupy movement, there is a profound sense of frustration about the fact that 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 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

saving lives in the field for the past two years and did not get credit for it. we are trying to make changes, to say, 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 corburys. last year, we came together to cut payroll taxes by $1,000 this year. 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. that is worth reminding you. [cheers and applause] [applause]

this payroll tax is set to expire at the end of the year. -- at the end of the next month. at the end of the year, 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 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. absolutely. [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? -- break their oath to never raise taxes?

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 grinch. [laughter] put the country before party. put money back in the pockets of working families. do your job. past our jobs bill. -- pass 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 -- that everybody has a chance, not just the 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] ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

>> our road to the white house coverage continues tomorrow. this is at 8:00 p.m. eastern. ron paul. that is all here on c-span. >> seymour video of the candidates at the c-span website for 2012. -- seymour of the videos of the

candidates. -- see more. the early caucus states, including iowa and new hampshire. all of that on c-span.org /campaign2012. >> there was a flood in fort wayne. people were trying to help. air force one stopped. my memory is he filled three sandbags. said hello to everyone, got back in the car and the plane. but that night, it was reagan filling sandbags with his shirt off. >> thanksgiving with sam donaldson, and former senator chris dodd, talking among the legacy of ronald reagan. michael bloomberg and ariana huffington discuss the american

dream and opportunities in the u.s., and astronauts are awarded the congressional gold medal. for the entire thanksgiving day schedules, go to c-span.org. >> the joint deficit reduction committee failed to reach an agreement before its deadline. we will hear from citizens united and others. this news conference is 45 minutes. half on the stage, i am joined by the general from the heritage foundation, a representative from the taxpayers alliance, the head of the tea party patriots. there is the head of americans for prosperity. tony perkins, the head of the family research council. dave, the head of citizens

united, and david mcintosh with the leadership project. let me read my statement first. after reading my statement, there will be remarks by tony perkins, jenny beth martin, and david percy and mr. mcintosh. then we will open it up for questions, and i am asked to tell you that 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. -- to any disaster is taxes. -- disaster is -- disaterous 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. 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 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 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 a budget that cut spending and do not raise taxes. i do it now. >> the task before the subic -- super 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. with the deficit spending of $1.60 trillion. members have said no to increased tax spending and have voted to change the tax structure and cut bloated spending. let me say, i applaud the six members of that committee. senator pat tierney, john kile,

and house members. -- pat toomey. 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. tony. 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. less than 3%. 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 chair of the -- co-hair of the -- the co-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, contacting congress, signing petitions, and saying, hold the line on tax increases. we wrapped up that call for all way along the east coast, and the message was the same. that is what we are calling on congress. 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 $1trillion of real spending during that process. 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 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 -- who will buck 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. we are saying we won't address these things and president

obama has come out and said he will veto any way to get around it. we are handing the democrats a campaign issue that i don't think they should have. we need to come together as a movement, the conservative movement must lead this republican party down the road to fiscal sanity, thank you. >> dave macintosh from the leadership project. >> i want to share with you that there is a group of us that pulled together economists from our different perspectives to form something we call a shadow super committee but it is a protest -- prosperity committee. 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%. -- to a bare 2%. the reason that mimic growth -- that in anemic 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? and stand by the military spending cuts now and the sequester? >> 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. -- abortion mills 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. let's take it to the american people on election day. 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? so long as they made bigger cuts elsewhere? >> 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. we were just kidding about that. the dollar levels have to be there. that is the deal they made. it was the wrong deal. we supported cuts, cap, and balance. it was something we worked very aggressively for across this

country. 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. we cannot afford a hollow military. 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 in any way 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 -- any of that 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 -- change it, make all sorts of 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. the fact of the matter is, 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 10 years, 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. -- our policy. 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 is not on the table. 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. and you have the opposite of that with this movement. >> 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. these people, i agree with brent, 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.

-- won. >> 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. but ford in 1995, instead of the more conservative version. -- put forward in 1995, instead of the more conservative 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. all you needed was four to come over with a strong balance budget amendment. 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. -- was another game. it is just more games. 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 don't have any other ideas other than continuing the spending spree. 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. think about this. 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.

frankly, i do not think there is every time, and barring national emergency or war, 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]

>> our road to the white house coverage continues tonight. we will start with republican candidate mitt romney will address employees at nationwide insurance at 8:00 eastern. then gop presidential candidates texas representative ron paul with the newspaper from the weekend. that is all here on c-span. the u.s., u.k., and canada announced this week about new sanctions on iran. coming up later on c-span, a discussion on iran's nuclear program. now, former u.s. comptroller

david walker weighs in on the federal debt and the failure of the joint deficit reduction committee to reach an agreement. this segment of "washington journal close code is 40 minutes. host: we want to welcome back david walker the former comptroller general, who is now the founder and ceo of the comeback america initiative. thank you for being with us. guest: great to be back with you. host: let me share with you a headline from "usa today" -- host: your reaction to what happened? guest: i think it was the greatest political failure in modern history, and the latest and greatest example of fraud, waste, and abuse in washington. the committee was a fraud, set up to go big, secondly it wasted time and resources, and

thirdly it abused the public trust. everyone associated with this should be ashamed and earnings to be a degree of accountability brought to bear. it is another example of how politics have been taken over by extremes, dominated by career politicians and special interests. it is time for the first three words of the constitution to come alive -- "we the people." host: how do deal with a debt, now $15 trillion, that needs to come down? guest: i think what the president did last night is a positive thing -- to threaten a veto if there is an attempt to under-cut the sequester. congress might want to repackage that, but it is an imperative that we achieve at least the 1.2 trillion dollars. we should have done a lot more

but we need to get at least that. if they did not want the sequester to happen, they could have agreed to half the sequester and come up with more than $600 billion of mandatory spending and revenues that could've gotten bipartisan support. they also could have and should have recognized this extraordinary process that gave them the ability to bring things to the floor for an up or down vote should have been extended with a different group of people because these 12 or not there right 12. after the 2012 election if -- the right 12th. after the 2012 election we could've reached tax reform that would have been called social insurance reform and comprehensive tax reform could generate more revenue. they absolutely failed. that is what they should have done. host: we have a number of viewers and listeners making a similar point. disinformation from the internal revenue service. -- this information from the internal revenue service.

guest: is not acceptable. the simple fact of the matter is our current tax system needs to be more simple, more fair, more competitive, more equitable, and to generate more revenue. if you look at the income tax alone, about 50% of americans pay no income taxes. they paid payroll taxes, but a lot are eligible for earned income tax credit. the get a rebate -- they get a we get -- rebate. 51% are on the wagon. some 49% are pulling the wagon. we have to do something about that. our top tax rate is 35%.

but the effective rate is 18%. that is because of some of the factors you mentioned. most of the wealthiest people make money in capital gains which is taxed at 50% and there is no payroll tax. -- 15%, and there is no payroll tax. we need to engage in tax reform after the 2012 election. it is imperative to do that because the current system is an abomination. i say that as a certified public accountant and someone who can prepare his own taxes. host: "the washington times" has this editorial this morning -- guest: democrats are right that we will need more revenue, but they are wrong that we want to tack on higher marginal tax rates. we need comprehensive tax reform that will eliminate a lot of the exemptions and exclusions, lower the marginal

tax rate, tax capital gains the same as ordinary income. taxing labor and capital the same. that could be accomplished and should be accomplished after the 2012 election. on the other hand, the republicans are wrong to say we do not need more revenue, democrats are wrong to saying we do not need to renegotiate the social security contract. we absolutely have to. healthcare is eating our lunch and the affordable care act will make our lives more difficult, not easier if it survives the supreme court challenge. host: from arthur herman --

host: how real is this threat? guest: there is absolutely no question that if you end up having to implement the $600 billion in cuts as quickly as they are talking about it will have adverse consequences. we spend as much money on defense as the next 14 nations combined. a lot of those our allies. the defense department is a bloated bureaucracy. we're spending too much money on overhead, and not enough on tooth. health-care costs are eating the pentagon's lunch. the all volunteer force might not be economically sustainable. we need to reduce defense spending without compromising national security and there is an intelligent way to do that. hopefully we will get on with that. host: we talked to senator tom coburn last week, the republican from oklahoma who was critical of the super committee and put on the table one example of defense spending, saying it was -- the px and the

commissary run by two different organizations, and his suggestion was you streamline the organization, combine the two, and save money. that was one small example. your thoughts? guest: absolutely. it is one small example. we still have military personnel delivering mail. we are providing the credit -- very lucrative benefits to members of the guard and reserves that are not on active duty. congress did that. there is tremendous waste in the pentagon. we need to have a very disciplined approach to go through the current operations and practices so we can separate the we from the chaff, maximize the ability for readiness, eliminate the overhead. that should be a top priority. host: david walker joins us. you can send us an e-mail, or

join the conversation online at twitter. if you have been mentioned as a potential candidate for the senate in connecticut. you declined. why? guest: several reasons. one, family considerations. i gave 15 years to my country and was hesitant to give many more. the senate has become a dysfunctional place. the result of the super committee reinforces that. there are ways i can contribute and make a difference other than serving in an elected office. i've done a lot of things with the comeback america initiative. i will continue to. if we get a president that is serious about putting finances in order and wants to transform government as we did at the gao, i would be willing to do more time in public service. we may or may not get that.

we will see. host: "the editorial read the editorial from "the watch -- wall street journal" -- and from twitter, please talk about the pledge. guest: there should not be any special interest pledges. anybody that is taking those kinds of pledges should rescind those pledges and reject them. in many cases they were taken in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 -- when we had surpluses. we are in a different situation. it is not just the right. the left is in denial about the need to reform the social insurance programs to make them affordable and sustainable. we will have to do things on both sides of the ledger.

we had better start soon. host: a democrat from montgomery county in maryland with david walker. good morning. caller: this is my first time calling, so i am a little nervous, but what i wanted to say is the problem with everything is we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. you have one side saying you have to raise taxes. the other side says we have to spend. the problem is we are not punishing the guys for the failure. that is the biggest problem. when you have this committee set up, and they say this person is not doing this, that person is not doing that, that is silly. we have to take the leadership as the voters, like with the

99% mentioned earlier. if they could use something like the concept of the flesh of -- not like the flesh mob, but the concept, that everyone can pull together. congress is run by the special interests and money. host: thank you for the call. as a first-time caller, do not be a stranger. david walker? guest: he is right that the first three words of the constitution need to come alive. we the people need to be responsible for what happens. washington has been irresponsible. -- dysfunctional. the super committee underscores that. we need to have more people that are looking out for the public interests rather than special interests, people that want to do temporary public service, rather than career politicians.

you will not did different results sending the same people back over and over again. who have put this in -- put us in this situation to begin with. 2012 will be an interesting election. hopefully, the people will hold both parties accountable because both parties are responsible for where we are today, and both sides are being unreasonable. it will take more bipartisanship and more constructive and principal-based compromise. it is about three parts spending reductions, and one part revenue increases. we will need reforms in a range of areas including social insurance programs, defense, and texas. -- as well as taxes. we had better do it in the next two-to-three years. we could have a debt crisis in the united states if we do not. host: our next call is john, fort lauderdale, florida. republican line.

good morning. caller: good morning. sir, i hope you do not cut me off. i am a republican. i'm thinking very seriously about changing. i get sick and tired about -- with my party talking about kicking the can down the road. it takes both sides. we definitely can see where the blame lies. what is wrong with american people when we know we did not have this deficit problem when the democrats, bill clinton was the president, and as soon as our president, george w. bush came into office, he rolled back the taxes and cause the problems we are having. don't we know how to fix it? but the taxes back to where bill clinton had them and you will not have any problems. host: thank you for the call.

guest: let me provide some perspective. the united states was in tough shape in 1992 and ross perot ran for president. he did not win, but how to set the agenda during the clinton administration. -- but helps to set the agenda during the clinton administration. we made great progress from the early-1990's, to the year 2000. we had a divided white house from the congress. the last 11 years have been the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the united states. we've had a white house controlled by both parties, and they're both to blame. government has grown too big, promised to much, and waited too long to restructure. we need to recapture the revenues but we need to do it through dramatic tax reform, not going back to the old system.

we need to broaden the base, reduce the top marginal tax rate, eliminate the difference between capital gains and ordinary income, and do a number of things that will help to promote growth and create more equity within the tax system at the same time, while keeping us competitive in a global economy that is increasingly competitive, and we are losing our competitive posture. host: if you brought the name ross perot. he is one of 14 contenders we're featuring every friday evening. this week we will turn our attention to george wallace. next week, and george mcgovern, and the series will wrap up with our look at ross perot. we hope you tune in every evening -- every friday evening, or check it out online at c-span.org. this twitter comment --

guest: we are currently benefiting from the instability in europe. we are a temporary safe haven, and that is the reason interest on our debt is so low. people are trying to preserve principal. as we have seen in greece, italy, portugal, and elsewhere, once you lose confidence of investors, things could change quickly. once you lose that, interest rates go up dramatically. it forces you to do dramatic and draconian things on both the spending and tax side. when you recognize the united states is 28 out of 34 countries in fiscal responsibility and responsibility -- italy is 27, mexico is 18 -- if we do not take steps to demonstrate to the markets and the american

people will put our finances in order, we could see a debt crisis and if that happens it will be a global depression. we must not lot -- allow that to happen. it does not need to happen, but we need more leadership. host: from "the wall street journal called this headline -- let me ask you about medicare and medicaid. what is its fiscal future? guest: we need some level of universal health care in the united states. we are a wealthy country. healthcare is something every american needs. at the same time, we need to recognize the needs to be affordable, corporate, and sustainable. we have over-promise. we need to do more with regard to preventive, wellness, and

catastrophic. we need to pay more for results rather than activities. we need to reform our malpractice system. we need to get out of the business of providing large subsidies to wealthy people who sign up for medicare's voluntary programs. we need to not reward lucrative cadillac plans and wealthy individuals while not providing enough to the poor, and we need to also recognize the government will always have a greater role with regard to the poor, disabled, and those that were the american uniform. we need dramatic and fundamental change in the health-care area, and frankly the latest health-care bill was more of the same from washington -- let's make more promises one we have already promised more than we can afford to keep. host: this photograph of president obama yesterday afternoon.

gary, go ahead. caller: i served my country for 15 years. i was in the army. i worked most of my life through farm work and stuff like that. i earned my social security and veterans' benefits, stuff like that. i do not see where why they have to cut all back, why don't they cut welfare checks and stuff like that? guest: two things are guaranteed under the 14th amendment. first is bond holders of u.s. debt. the second is military pensions. nothing else is protected by the constitution.

secondly, let's understand that in the case of social security we can reform the program to make it solvent, secure, and more savings-oriented, phasing in changes were every generation will get more than they think they're going to get. people are not talking about cutting people that are in pay status now, or close. they are talking about restructuring benefits to deliver on the promises that are made, if you will. we need to do that. with regard to other aspects of benefits, there is no question that health-care benefits in the military are going to have to be restructured. there is no way we can afford 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 comeback america initiative? guest: it is a non-profit based in bridgeport, connecticut, focus on educating and engage in the public on the facts regarding our fiscal conditions. it talks about non-partisan solutions to restore fiscal sanity at the federal, state, and local levels because all three face serious problems and all three have grown too big, promised to much, waited too long to restructure, and they need to get off on with it. host: let me get back to the peace i refer to in the last hour. here in california alone, over the last four election cycles, only one seat changed hands between the parties, essentially 99.5 of the democrats and republicans, all 53 were reelected or maintained power.

what does that tell you about american politics in your call for bipartisanship? 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 gerrymandered by state legislatures in order to protect their party and entrenched incumbents. we need a number of times of political reforms. first, we need redistricting reform, the objective of which is to maximize the number of competitive districts, not to minimize them, consistent with the voters' rights act. we need it to credit primaries. one primary, the two top vote getters run off in an election. we need campaign finance reform. we need 12-to-18-year term limits. the founding fathers never intended for a public career out of politics.

it is fueled a disconnect that has to be changed. the good news for california, in 2010 they passed changes in the law that will deal with redistricting and will bring integrated primaries, and hopefully they will have a positive impact and other states will follow their lead. host: a great part of this program is when viewers are able to follow what on earlier points, and one viewer says if i heard you correctly he said the affordable care effort will add to our problems --

guest: thank you for the question. the joint committee on taxation is required by their rules and by their protocols to make certain assumptions, including the congress will do things that it says it will do it despite clear and compelling evidence that it has not in the past and is unlikely to in the future. i look to what the chief actuary of medicare says. he is an independent professional. he has a responsibility as an actuary. he gave an adverse opinion on the medicare report saying the assumptions were unreasonable and unsustainable. the cost of the affordable care act to medicare alone would be

$12 trillion higher. than the politicians asserted. i go with the professionals rather than the politicians. i spent 15 years in this town. i've been a presidential appointee. reagan, bush 41, and clinton. i know how they keep score and how they keep score does not pass the straight face test. host: we have a tweet. that is an issue of the first amendment as well. guest: there is no question that we need campaign finance reform and that it will take a constitutional amendment given the recent supreme court decisions. some ideas might be things like there should be a limit as to how much money people can raise.

-- a limit as to how much money people can raise from people who cannot vote for them. how about the idea that say people can contribute campaigns are those who vote. corporations and unions cannot vote. what about a limit to how much individuals can finance of their own campaign. there has to be a market test to make sure they are just not buying office. some sort of public financing could make sense if it is properly implemented. we to limit the duration of campaigns. -- we need to limit the duration of campaigns. it is outrageous how long people have to listen to this political rhetoric. why can we use -- learn from other countries who are also democracies? they have tougher finance -- campaign finance laws. they limit the duration of political campaigns. and so you deal much more with

substance rather than political rhetoric. host: we're talking with david walker, the former comptroller general and he is talking about the inability of the super committee to reach agreement yesterday. angela joins us on the phone from south carolina. caller: good morning, mr. walker. i have followed your career for years. i thank you for your service. you are right when you talk about "we the people." this country is more about politics than a governing. the people seem to have forgotten how the system of government works. president cannot go in and make demands on the congress. the congress cannot make demands on the president. there's too much ideology in this. i'm a recipient of government help. i receive medicare and medicaid. i am a disabled. i am 57 years old. i can see the waste in medicare

and medicaid for may 1 hand knowledge. -- from firsthand knowledge. something as simple as diabetic shoes. if you buy them in this store, they are $50 and you pay $15 for inserts. total costs, $65. the government is being billed $400 and $500 for one pair of shoes. the law says that i can receive one pair of shoes per year. i have stopped it. it is a waste. as far as its debt committee, it was never going to work because of both sides went in entrenched in their own ideology. host: we have this from carly from minnesota, along the same lines. david walker.

guest: i think there was a leadership failure on multiple levels. the cochairs of this super committee share a lot of the responsibility. there was a total failure of leadership. the leaders of congress who appointed these members share part of the responsibility. they fail to pick the right kinds of people. the president is the chief executive officer of the united states. the president is the only person that has the so-called bully pulpit that can go directly to the american people and make the case. he has yet to do that. our financial situation is deteriorating rapidly. we define the position of the united states in the world declining. -- we could find the position of the united states and the world declining. our standard of living declining. and the domestic tranquillity in

our streets could be a real problem. it is not just living for today. it is how we're going to prepare for a better tomorrow. : the president can do that. i think there is a leadership failure on both sides. on both ends of pennsylvania avenue. that's probably the biggest deficit is the leadership deficit. host: about your decision not to run for the senate in connecticut. jim has this point. guest: that is part of the problem. we need more people who want to go into office for temper public service in order to get things done rather than -- 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, obviously, that are more concerned about keeping their

job been doing their job. if congress was paid for performance, they would owe us money. host: shreveport, louisiana, on the republican line. caller: this is the first time i was able to get on c-span. about these super committees -- they were set up to fail from the beginning. there would have implemented with the bowles-simpson commission wanted to do. this group in washington does not want to do that. only paul ryan wanted to do that and i think he came up with a pretty good plan. the way that house and senate is run, they're run worse than the third world countries. they set things on the shelf. they have the dictator in there that says what they are going to debate and not. even in the third world countries, the parliament has

something to say about that. as far as bill clinton, this country does a realize that when he was in office, there is a republican congress and senate and a balance the budget, not bill clinton. he cut every branch of the military 30%. before the republicans got in there. there was every to-treat you could think of -- there was every disaster you could think of. this goes back to john f. kennedy. i'm sick of hearing about john f. kennedy cutting taxes. in the general fund, they started spending. host: thank you for your call. what was different with a democratic president in the 1990's?

as far as this democratic president and the republican house? guest: let me address two points. the super committee was set up to fail. look at the composition. you had a quadruple that voted against simpson-bowles -- you that four republicans that voted against simpson-bowles. all six republicans had signed the americans for tax reform pledge. let's analyze the facts. this is not a partisan issue. if you look at the early 1990's,with that four presidents -- george herbert walker bush, william clinton, george walker,43, and barack obama. the first two presidents did three things in common. they kept congress from making more promises.

they did not expand into, programs. -- they did not expand entitlement programs. the most important thing that you can do. they broke campaign promises on taxes. batting 1.000. they did the right thing for the country. that took us from deficits to surpluses and projected surpluses. fast forward to forward43 and barack obama. z borrow for three -- 043. zreero for three. a strike out -- fast forward to bush 43 and barack obama. both political parties have acted irresponsibly. we don't have enough people who are fiscally responsible and we don't have a political party that is at the present time. host: let's move this a year

from now. let's assume that the republicans keep the house and pick up the u.s. senate and a republican wins the white house. what will we talk about a year from now? guest: no matter who wins the house, the senate and white house, one thing is critically important. we have to engage the public with the facts, the truth, and the tough choices. we need a ross perot's style public education effort, without necessarily having a third party president. the american people are head of the politicians. they are a lot smarter. they understand you cannot spend at the rate we are. you cannot run this level of deficits. there'll be a day of reckoning. they see what is happening in europe. they know it could happen here.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> if i may in con clureks i think there are some methods of contact and negotiation which still could be used to get slightly more efficiency to the system.

we could still do a slightly more efficiently the things -- but i think there are sometimes i feel that a number of you -- not participating in the -- are frustrated. i think we should keep that in mind and maybe make some provision to discuss with them not only bilateraly but as a group. also you have -- we discussed with them. we discussed with some players such as turkey or nigeria. south africa, brazil, whatever. when you are for example, thailand, you like also to --

malaysia, the worst part of story -- good to be able to talk a bit earlier with malaysia. i'm pretty sure that we should continue working on that. >> thank you very much, francois. your perspective? >> thank you very much for inviting us all to participate in this panel and for your very, very gracious introduction. there have already been questions on russia that were raised during the first panel. i may take a couple minutes longer to answer that, though, go beyond by seven to eight minutes. i always have to start out with a disclaimer. i am a u.s. government employee. my comments are my own. they don't represent the views

over the department of defense or the u.s. government. also what i'm trying to do this morning is not to debate the russian position but to lay it out to you as objectively as i can. so that you understand where russia is coming from and what the potentials are to move forward with russia in a unified way on this process dealing with the iranian nuclear issue. so, as i see it from moscow's perspective, international unity on iran has just gone through a rough patch that was both unnecessary and not of moscow's own making, but it is still salvageable. moscow was quite comfortable with the situation that has developed since the security council adopted the resolution in june, 2010. 1929's tough sanctions which moscow added to with its

breaking of the f-300 contract has gotten tehran's attention. after that, their no new sanction stand, which the foreign minister first pronounced in february of this year and moscow's step by step approach which was rolled out in july and moscow claimed to have coordinated with its p-5 plus one partners allowed moscow to do several things at one time. one, maintain pressure of resolution 1929 sanctions on iran. two, take the lead within the p-5 plus one this step by step overtures to iran and three, repair moscow's own bilateral relations with tehran, badly frayed since resolution 1929 and the f-300 decision. against background, their furious reactions over the

earlier release and the furious spin given the november 8 iaea report reflected a genuine annoyance and some anger. moscow calls for more sanctionses in the aftermath of the disclosure of the alleged iranian plot against the saudi ambassador in washington. in the aftermath of the chatter in israel over a military strike against iran's nuclear program and in the aftermath of the iaea report itself and its unusual, kind of premature disclosure, i don't think it was ever put out as early as it was this time. moscow really saw all of this as undermining moscow's lead on step by step and confronting russia with either support for

security council resolutions now or soon -- must strike on iran. now just to be clear on moscow's view of the iranian threat, although the russian foreign ministry accused the iaea report, what it said was juggling with information in order to create an impression that the iranian nuclear program allegedly has a military component, the russian leadership and most russian experts have no illusions on this score. in july 2010, for example, president medvedev quite clearly stated that it is obvious that iran is coming close to the potential that could be used to create nuclear weapons. just last friday, the russian defense minister told the press

that russia wants to continue leasing the cab ala radar and intends to upgrade it. enhancing it is useful and very important, in particular given the iranian missile program and the same day materials prepared for a report by the general, chief of the general staff, reportedly included the build-up of iran's nuclear potential among the developments that could draw russia's armed forces into a future conflict. nonetheless, from what i can tell, most russian experts don't believe the most recent i.a.e.a. report would need another round of sanctions against iran at this time. they don't need to be persuaded that iran has been engaged in

the program for some years but at the same time they believe it will still take more than several years for iran to be truly nuclear capable. on b.o.a. last thursday, for example, the oriental institute in moscow gave as good a guess on it as any. five to seven years for iran to marry a workable warhead with a capable missile as long as there were not any outside interference. of course there is always interference. one expert believes that iran will probably stop dealing with the iaea only when it has overcome all technical problems and has all the inputs necessary to produce a bomb and a delivery vehicle. in the meantime, the view of most russian experts is that continuing iaea control of iran's nuclear program, however imperfect this control, is more

important than how much uranium iran continues to enrich and that it is there have crucial for the international community not to do anything precipitous that might cause iran to bolt from the iaea and put an end for any chance to a negotiated solution. so for these reasons, moscow is pleased with the p-5 plus one decision not to go forward with another sanctions draft at this time. at the same time, given all the publicity in the run-up to the iaea meeting, moscow is concerned over the possibility of an israeli strike on iran. in their view, an israeli strike at this time could not put an end to the iran nuclear program but would for shr mean iranian abandonment of the m.e.t.

this matter of ruling out the threat of force against iran is an old issue for russia. russia doesn't have a problem with putting more pressure on iran as long as it is with engagement and not the threat of force and isolation. when the security council passed its first resolution on the iranian nuclear program, moscow made sure it excluded any chapter 7 article 42 threat of force. russia has been consistent on this point over the years and the subsequent resolutions on iran have all been bounded by the original resolution noninvokeation of article 42. nevertheless, russia has very little confidence keeping article 42 out of security council resolutions on iran and in the end restrain especially

israel if it decides to go ahead and strike iran. russia's help to iran and the security council has not deterred iran from inviting such a strike by continuing to move ahead with its nuclear and missile programs. on a different point and criticizing the iaea's report, the foreign minister claimed some movement by nirn recent weeks and -- iran in recent weeks and criticized the iaea for not mentioning it. this is to fend off pressure from the u.s. and other p-5 plus one powers. nevertheless, moscow can now tell tehran, we saved you this time from another round of security council sanctions, but you to move or we will not be inclined to do so again next

march. moscow for the record, has already criticized the energy sanctions that the united states and its allies are announcing this week as illegal and unacceptable. i suspect part of moscow does not really mind these unilateral sanctions up the ante on iran. adding pressure deciding not to do any business with iran that might run afoul of these sanctions. russian observers have concluded that sanctions in fact are having some impact while not necessarily directly on iran's nuclear program and though iran still has a lot of work around options that it can explore. on sanctions, finally, moscow's no new sanctions mantra, given their record over the years, iran can have absolutely no confidence that russia will not

vote for another round of angsts if iran continues to frustrate iaea inspectors. will putin's return to presidency change things? probably not. it was on putin's first watch that russia from 2002 to twix that the many -- 2006 iaea nuclear enrichment program that, russia in 2006 voted for referal of the issue by the iaea to the security council and that russia that same year supported the first of six separate security council resolutions on the iranian nuclear issue. as a dominant partner in russia's tandem since 2008,

putin has supported moscow's tougher stance toward iran since the advent of the -- between obama and medvedev administrations. putin has grown to distrust jadjad personally and tehran for using russia without giving anything in return. this is likely to remain in place. russian experts warned that moscow may tilt back towards iran in response to a serious -- in russian, relations. any roll back in russian support for sanction will department mostly on whether iran decides

to cooperate more fully with the iae nanch clarifying iran's nuclear program. on the significance of economic ties, although some observers assert that they will always draw russia back towards iran, bilateral trade has always been anemic relative to the size of these two partners. china's trade to iran is 10 times the size of russia's trade with iran. it is not much larger than russia's trade with israel. a much smaller country. everything else being equal, the united states and russia's european partners will always be more important to russia than iran. one last caution and thin i'll stop. moscow's -- even if they

intersebt on some major security points as they do now. historically, engagement has always been moscow's default setting for dealing with iran, especially on regional issues. right now, the arab spring has pushed forward challenges and opportunities to the positions of both countries in the middle east. the impending american recall from afghanistan means russia and iran may have to partner closme with regards to the taliban. thank you. >> thank you very much. that was an interesting point. china is also a much larger economic power than russia. i wonder how much trade is a factor in the relationship between china and perhaps you can touch on that as well. the other questions that were

already presented from the audience. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me here. some of the issues that i will cover include china's basic positions. the premiere reason for china's reluctantance on sanctions and then i'm going to talk about how is china going change its position on the multilateral franks is the sanctions. if you compare exine china's official -- on the tension over the nuclear issue, would be the official positions from the last round. you will discover that china's position and official statements have remained almost identical. china opposes nuclear proliferation and disaproves of the -- by any middle east

countries including iran. and second, on the revolution -- china strongly opposes the military option and is reluctant to accept a new sanction regime from the united nations. from beijing's point of view, china hopes the nuclear crisis could be settled through diplomatic dialogue and negotiation. this is always the case. there is plenty of analysis on why china is fixated on this. china has an interest in its economics relationship with iran, especially on the energy. according to the data from the chinese administration of customs, iran was the third largest exporter of crude oil to china, cribtsing about 10% to chin -- contributing about 10% to china's imports.

it has seen an increase this year. for example, the total volume of auto imports during this period of time increased by 49% and the l.p.g. import increased by 72%. china is very keen on expanding and diversifying its trade relations with iran focusing on the export of chinese machinery, cars, oil tanks and now infrastructure projects in iran. so in 2010, the total bilateral trade approach was 30 billion u.s. dollars. interest these speakers, china's reluctantance to support harsh multilateral sanctions becomes easy to understand. it will have a direct impact over china's energy and energy is a key element to deal with

the much needed domestic economic growth to reinforce the lenltmassy of china's government. -- legitimacy of china's government. china's rejection of sanctions on iran is therefore based on -- of its own national interest. will they ever change their position on another round of sanctions? the scenes certainly positive. otherwise we would not have seen china's support of the previous rounds. china's position on further u.n. sanctions depends on three factors. first of all, most importantly, china's attitude toward sanctions is determined by the likelihood of a military conflict as a result of the u.s. nuclear program. if a war is imminent, china will

accept the second best solution. also u.n. sanctions might also limit china's economic relations with iran, a war in the middle east would be worse. it will drive up the price of the -- the international price for oil and damage china's prod broader and economic security interest in the region. however, despite the hawkish rhetoric from israel and other rumors about an impending confrontation, china has yet to believe that a war is imminent. they do not think israel would launch an attack without the approval from washington and they remain convinces that the

obama administration's top priority is domestic economy and finishing the withdrawals from afghanistan and iraq and more specifically identify that the u.s. is still having major differences with some of the european countries and arab allies over a war against iran. therefore several analysts in china including a prominent professor from china's national defense university commented publicly last week that in the near term, the look likelihood of a war is rather -- without the imminent danger of a war, china's position, u.n. sanctions depends on the extent of the unilateral sanctions. the u.s. is willing to pursue how they might effect the interest in the country. this is a cost-benefit analysis. the types of sanctions that the u.s. might adopt that might affect china is the resolutions

and thesore iran's petrol chemical industry. determining with whether the cost to china will exceed the cost of a multilateral u.n. sanction which cline have a role in participating to determine the specifics. the two issues on the top of the list are restrictions of business operations of chinese banks in the u.s. as a result of the u.n. sanctions and the restrictions over chinese oil companies and their collaborations with -- in the united states. the conference indication here lies in the u.s. calculation. given magnitude of u.s./china relations and china's over all economic importance toward the united states, it would be extremely difficult to carve out and implement a sanction regime that would punish key chinese players without hurting the u.s.

itself or jeopardizing the broader picture. that is a cost-benefit analysis that washington will have to make. another fact sor russia's position. it is generally unwilling to use its veto if russia backs a certain resolution. the positions of russia and china have traditionally been mutually complementry. this was -- that includes in 2007 and 2008 and the most recently last month.

before the security council resolution of 1929 was passed last year, beijing's opposition to the sanctions only began to shift after russia agreed to cooperate with the west. these factors determine that any change to china's durnt rejection of another round of u.n. sanctions will now -- for chinas, there is ample ground for more talks regardless of their outcome. the iaea resolution did not -- to the security council. did support diplomatic solution. for now, china sees the party as for the u.s. to -- with iaea just like russia's position to clarify related concerns within the court. most likely from the chinese point of view, iran will cooperate with the iaea to a certain extent to cope with international pressure. on the other hand, russia's criticism of the report was

extremely harsh indicating a change of position from moscow would neither be easy nor fast. according to a senior chinese analyst from the ahmadmy of social science over the week, the -- academy of social science, the they will have to brew and this will not happen overnight. lastly, i'm going to talk a little bit about china's position on iran's nuclear program. people might question china's commitment to nuclear proliferation given response of its own national interest. to be fair. china is sincere when it says it opposes nuclear proliferation. china doesn't want to see its status diluted by more members into the nuclear club. chinese analysts made the

comments that smaller powers are not as responsible as big headquarters in their nuclear development. however, it is also true that beijing has other competing interest. it doesn't see the nuclear program constituting a direct or imminent threat to china's national security. there is a broader framework of u.s. china relations and use china's position as policy leverage against united states. many officials and analysts in china are convinced of u.s. nuclear ambition and are questioned about it given that iran's security concerns and the national pride issue. however they do make a clear distinction between nuclear ambitions and capacity. few in china today believe that iran has come close to producing its own nuclear bomb or

developing a reliable delivery system. china's perception of the western intentions on iran, china is deeply suspicious. their comment basically is the west is truly committed to nuclear proliferation. so why haven't the -- about israel's nuclear weapons. this is just a double standard. why does the united states enter a nuclear deal with india? neither israel nor india has signed a -- and iran is a signature tori country with the nonprolive operation treaty. -- nonproliferation treaty. it is viewed with a lot of suspicion in beijing. the west, including the united

states, goes deeper and broader than nonproliferation. only because the obama administration needs some achievement on iran for his re-election campaign and some link the current tension to washington to boost its own sales in middle eastern countries. to rescue the domestic economy and there are some more extremists in china who are firm believers of american conspiracy and they argue that this current tension over iran is basically a u.s. plot to sabotage chinese economy by picking up the tension and dragging out the international oil price. so this is pretty much the views from beijing. i look forward to the discussion and any feedback that you might have. thank you. >> thank you very much, sun yun.

there seems to be quite a bit of parallel thinking in terms of -- on the part of the u.s. and both in china and russia. so i think we can see quite a bit of similarity there in the way that both of these countries factor in the iran issue into their own role with the u.s. i wonder how much they pay attention. i know russia certainly pays quite a lot of attention to the views of the european union to european countries. china -- all the thinking about -- and the fact that the european union has been much more forward-leaning in the last several years on the issue of iran. does that get their attention at all? does china think at all about europe when it is factoring in iran? >> they certainly think about it. but i would not say that it

constituteses a primary concern for china's position. >> china would like to coordinate with the u.k., france and germany because they are all members of the p-5 plus one and coordinate on positions on engaging iran but not a main focus on this smufment >> that is quite a contrast with russia, in the runup to 1929, the russians' attention was -- by the fact that germany, for example, not just the e.u. wasing very hard on the sanctions. >> now i think again russia plays it both ways. it criticizes the so-called unilateral nonsecurity council sanctions as illegal and unnecessary. at the same time, i think that

when it draws tehran close, it says see, look at what you're facing. there is nothing we can do about that. and then thirdly, russian companies are not forced by the russian government to -- these sanctions either. there are lots of reports of russian companies under official russian government austin auspice. -- auspices. all of these discussions over deals but these discussions go on for years and just are rarely consume it aed by actual deals. some russian companies say yeah, we would like to do business in iran but we don't want to run into trouble are sanctions. >> how can can europe deal with china in this context? there is already the political

dialogue going on. having heard what yun said what are your reactions to this? >> there is another -- to that which is that europe is not a -- main program for china. china is not main -- for europe for the time being. it may be because russia is seen as less problematic. it is not -- the chinese representative who has chosen to engage iran. we are a bit like we were --

engaging with iran. we are not so much a factor in terms of the economy. nevertheless, the wrellings -- -- relation with europe, not only iran but also for economic environment of iran, are most important. so you know, here you are also -- an element because the economy sanctions taken by the european union are more important than sanctions taken whenette regards the effect -- when it regards to the effect to have european economy. all in all, we are different players with different cards to play. >> that is a very good point. let me turn it over to the audience and take a quick round of questions for you. yes. the gentleman from the iranian

-- the mic is coming down here. thank you. >> hi. this question is for mr. francois. you were speaking of the timing of sanctions by the international community and how they are essentially the only practical method to move forward. you mentioned other options on the table for the sake of being on the table. can you talk about these other options and why they are bankrupt? >> another question, yes, at the very back. the lady at the back here. thank you. >> hello. thank you, panelists for your insight. i would like to have a quick question on north korea, which is another very heavily

sanctioned country. the new multilateral sanctions on iran, i would like to hear how it is going to impact the sanction on north korea, especially when there are a lot of news media reports on iran and north korea. also i would like to ask if what will be the impact of iranian sanctions on north korea, especially with russia and china focusing their efforts on iran. will it shift the focus or undermine the gravity of the situation in north korea and its nuclear program or will it help focus international communities focusing on the issue? >> thanks. that is a very good question. the lady over here in the red sweater over in the back?

>> thank you. british american security council. it was a problem which they said required global solutions. now i understand the impact of the e.u. on the iranian economy and the fact is that this latest round is unilateral. so i'm just wondering to what extent it might be a problem going forward with the per speppingsseppings that it is the west versus iran rather than whole world? >> thanks. that is a very good question here. francois, you may begin with responding to this question about the global dimension. you yourself in your presentation has mentioned the need to engage the countries, malaysia, one country that you put forward and you talked about

some of the ways the european countries are in the e.u. 3 and having more of a role here and pointing out this perception, is this just a western, really a u.s. and european endeavor and could be -- the principles that you laid out about presenting the -- and keeping unity. >> yes. maybe i should start with this question and then i should go to the second question. i very much agree with what you said from -- basic -- there is a risk and limitation of a risk going for western sanction unilateraly. none of it is seen as illegal. they are not illegal. it is not trying to impose a -- by force. they are just things which are in the frame of the legislation.

there is a feeling that it is the west who leads the offensive and that that is pro-precisely what we ought to avoid. we have to keep a balance between both the need of taking new measures and keeping the rights of the world engaged. there is an element which goes also a bit -- the timing, if you look at the timing, you see that it takes more and more time between each u.n. security council to achieve -- 2006, then 2007 then 2008 then 2010. if we were pessimistic and believing in it would not arrive

before the beginning of 2014 at the u.n. level which is consistent to the initial reactions of both russia and china. that said, the only consequence i draw from it is that with have to be continually engageing with the rest of the international committee not going too far on the national -- because in trying fuel the kind of reflection that you leading to in beijing, the cost of national consumption for me compared to the u.n. sanctions -- more universal. we have also to make the calculation and the calculation is in many cases not so easy to make. i think it is a true concern we have to keep in mind. on your question about the other options, i think there are two other options which are to

remain on the table. one i briefly described which is to keep -- to show to the rest of the world that the door remains open for iran, would iran wish to reengage? and i said it has to remain on the table mostly for reasons of principle because we don't believe. i think that iran today is really -- at this stage. the other option is a military option which -- to remain also on the table in my personal view, which is that it is very difficult to mobilize really the international community and russia and china if it is not on the table because if not, it means that we are not serious and we are not taking the iran situation for what it is, which is one of the major challenges for the world and the international committee.

the way its program is conducted, it doesn't mean necessarily either that we believe that there is an immediate -- of this option being used, as i said when you look at the options, you would see that there are reasons not to -- and that it could be more counterproductive and than productive. it is always difficult to hear because if you want to be credible, you have also to make the poincht that it could be used -- point that it could be used and explain why. keeping it on the table just for the sake of keeping it or keeping it on the table for the sake of making it a useful tool and then you to continue working on it and i think we have to continue working on it and it should not be on the table just

for demonstration purpose and it has to be there as a credible tool as an element of -- and it is useful to the point where you have to use it. it is the same logic which would apply here to this military option. it should be credible and used as a tool in my view but don't quote me on that. this is a personal view of mine. there are many aspects on that and i don't pretend to have the last word on that. i'm not the military specialist on that. these are the two options that for various reasons -- most of you probably better know than me on that but it has to remain on the table because if i just stick to my point, how to maintain national unity, it is having the options, have

technically helped to build international unity. i will not go further than that, because i will go out of my subject and it is not up to me. it is useful to keep international unity. >> this is the question for the purposes of both china and russia. clearly this is a factor in decision making as both of you have pointed out about the last resolution. there is more credibility the last time around but there might be a strike on the part of israel. russia must properly engage on this. the secret visit of netia how the because the russians leaked it. this time around, the russians don't seem to believe it. as yun has said, neither do the chinese. the option on the table looks

like something they can take or leave. as francois is discussing it, it is extraordinaryly difficult to make that credible. so we seem to have something of a major derpt dilemma here and not one that is productive in this discussion. i think the question that we had at the back about north korea is a very important one. i would like to put this to both of you here. about china and russia's own calculations on north korea. as both neighbors of north korea, there has been a real threat of conflict on the korean peninsula by both south and north korea engaging in the correct about the prospects for -- this has been a real consequence. how much of these kinds of difficult issues playing into china and russia's calculations about the broader

nonproliferation. what do you think about this? >> on north korea, i remember two comments from chinese analysts on the linkage between the u.n. nuclear issue. the demrent by a -- comment from beijing was that north korea already has nuclear weapons. why would we fight a war against iran who doesn't even have nuclear weapons today? i guess that explains part of the reluctantance or the refusal for china as a position against the demilitary option. the second comment i remember quite well is some of the chinese analysts believe you learned an important lesson from north korea.

once you have had your bomb, you -- there is no way that you can avoid the accusations. if you do not have the nuclear test then you can enjoy a pretty big room for maneuver. secondly, north korea is more important for china because north korea is on china's border and after the provocations last year, china sees north korea as being relatively well behaved this year. so far, it is almost the end of november, there has not been provocation. next year will be the sen -- centennial, they are going to declare north korea of being a prosperous nation.

it will gradually open up. china's concern over north korea has actually decreased this year. >> so it is actually more positive on north korea potentially? >> it is more positive on north korea potentially. >> what about from the russian perspective? >> i think north korea is in a different stage, more advanced stage and so it presents different problems than does the iranian issue. there is hope that we can prevail upon iran not to go fully to weaponizeation. that is the hope. my guess, and there is still time from the russian perspective. one point that keeps getting forgotten in terms of what sparks the international unity is what is revealed that's new that iran is engaged in and

there always are surprises and i have to expect that we're going to have more surprises as we go down the road and that iran itself will spark this international unity unless it furiously back pedals and starts cooperating with the iaea. >> you mentioned the russians were not pleased by the fact that they have not gotten much out of the relationship and they were displeased by the fact that they -- >> yeah. a lot of that led to 1929. the other thing that we forget is that sanctions really have had an impact on iran in terms of a desire by some to try to engage the west in negotiations. that's how i read the whole

tehran research reactor chapter in all of this. i think that ahmadinejad tried to use that to develop an opening to washington to the p-5 plus one but then it really fell afoul of iranian domestic politics. i think he might have tried to revive that idea later on but again, everybody jumped all over ahmadinejad and he may only be recovering from that now. so it is not that sanctions have not pushed iran towards negotiations. they have pushed iran towards negotiations over the years but frequently, it has been the domestic political situation in iran that has made it unsustainable for iran to engage

in these negotiations. >> thanks, gentlemen. a question from the gentleman at the front? the gentleman just behind you. right here, please. >> very interesting conversation. i found conversation about the choreography of creating the national consensus very interesting. it is about coming to consensus on the tacting. what is the choreography and the conversations that are being had to come to consensus as to what would be an acceptable solution? for instance, france has been very skeptical about the idea of any enrichment on iranian soil. the other p-5 states have a different perspective. is it just endless tactics or is there actually strategy behind this? >> thank you, very good

question. >> i would like your opinion, from your national perspectives or the ones that you represent, how do you think the u.s. policy has worked so far? how has the obama administration handled this difficult issue? has it been a clever combination of engagement and sanctions and sabotage or have they been so constrained by their own domestic political considerations that they have been unable to carry through fully on any dimensions to this problem? >> thanks. the question towards the back and then -- >> thank you. jay cramer. i would like to ask francois if you anticipate that new sanctions from britain and france will be adopted throughout the e.u.? >> sorry -- >> throughout the european union.

>> toke joe factor here. i -- tokyo is a factor here. i thowled you had a different -- let's go to the question about the corog -- choreography that you laid out. there is a question about broader adoption throughout the e.u. and then i think you know what might be a difficult question for john, if you can pick a russian put a russian hat on as requested how the u.s. looks from the other vantage points. francois, we'll begin again with you. >> the question is good. the strategy initially was suspension. this has been the sfradge 2003

to 2005. -- strategy from 2003 to 2005. i remember negotiations, we wanted to put in -- june 2005 that we want to -- request for suspension and then opened the window and said if you put that, i have to jump from the window. i would rather die now than to come back to tehran with that. all right. we have a second round of negotiations. we opened the window and said now you can jump. ok. that was suspending the objective. that was the problem.

today, i think everything involves and if we were not thinking about the kind of situation -- evolves, if we were not thinking about the situation we have, it would not be professional. we should be thinking about what would be our goal today? we still officially are on suspension. it has been at least two years focusing in a slightly more broader way. how to make sure that there is no military nuclear program in iran. that is our purpose. nobody -- the rights oftorian use it for military purpose. nobody.

i'm not in compliance with m.p.t. how the make sure that iran -- there is no military program -- about the other question which was about did france and u.k. sanctions -- yes. the answer is yes. november 14 -- we are to address international concerns over the nuclear program by demonstrating -- to engage -- steps as proposed by -- inviting it to

prepare numerous measures on monday -- two days ago, we said the process is ongoing. the e. sumbings -- possible measures and we will update -- on december 1, the first step. so the answer was yes. we were not necessarily informed of the wording which would be used by the british prime minister or the french president but we are working together about what can be done nationally and at the e.u. level and as you know, we have already taken some additional measures after the saudi plot. we have also -- the five people

involved. by the way, europe had already sanctioned one that the u.s. didn't sanction. we are considering new sanctions , obviously expressed by e.u. member states. >> thank you. on the whole question about u.s. policy. how effective does it look from the perspective of china? >> first of all, china does see the u.s. policy on iran has a certain flavor of being deliberate. since the resolution, 1929 was passed last year, china was surprised that so soon this issue just came back again and just like russia, there is quite

a sense of anger from the chinese perspective and if you look at the comments from chinese analysts, they do identify a linkage between report which they believe is the creation of -- and they also pointed out that in some of the wiki leaks they have identified the position is the same as the united states on the iran nuclear issue. so there is a suspicion from china that this current tension was deliberately brought up. on global solutions, china's position is this. we agree on the goal. we don't want iran to have nuclear weapons but we disagree on the approach. the western countries want sanctions but china doesn't agree. china wants diplomatic china wants diplomatic negotiations and dialogue.