national guard empowerment act for 2011. it was introduced by way he and gramm, the co-chairs of the seven national guard cockers. -- by laeigh and gramm./ it does a number of things to support the national guard in the emergency management role. one of the key mechanisms to do so was providing a seat on the joint chiefs of staff. this would really help inse that the nional guard has two sides to it. it is a very unique force. while many of the federal responsibilities are very well represented within the pentagon through policy and decision making process these, providing the national guard a seat would also ensure that it is a critical domestic emergency response aspect and very well represented, which is particularly important as we are getting towards the critical

budget decisions. host: is there a concern that there could be a power struggle between the goverrs and that position? guest: i am not sure that is so much the concern as the guard would that be over represented perhaps on the joint ssheath. chiefs. we worked very well with the federal partners, and we are interested in trying to make sure that as these decisions are made, that there is a clear picture of how governor's rely and how they utilize the national guard. each day in this country we have 6000 national guards deployed under state authorities to help respond to emergencies. jointlet's hear the chiefs of staff chairman talking about this issue. >> the service chiefs are the single issue for their respective services. with the service secretaries, they bear sole responsibility

for making the key resource decisions that produce an organized, trained, equipped force. this includes the national guard and reserve components. the proposed change could undermine this effort. each of our services has a reserve component, but only the army and air forceave a national guard. this proposal will create a situation among our reserve component forces whereby to of of the six wo fo th will be represented unequally. each of the joint chiefs is subject to the civilian oversight of a single appointed and confirmed secretary. the chief of the national guard bureau has no such oversight. elevation would make them equal to the service chiefs without accountability. this seems to me to run counter to the carefully packed red -- carefully crafted principles

established by goldwater/nichols. i do not find arguments to change the composition compelling. it isnclear to me what problem we are trying to solve. host: chairman of the joint chiefs of staff saying he does not see the need to have our representative of a guard on the joint chiefs level. what is your response to that? guest: he is invited to participate in the joint chiefs of staffs meetingand many serbs and have iicated his input is valuable, so what we're looking at is codifying current practice to avoid instances where that may change in the future. the card is a very unique foe, and what we're really trying to do is ensure that all of what they do on the home wind defense side is really brought to bear in all of those decisions. i would point out that when the

common stock of the marine corps and a vice chairman of the joint chiefs were added, at the time the current sitting members very much opposed their addition, but looking back we will actually say they could not imagine the joint chiefs without them. really hoping that this is another one of those instances. host: heather hosett is our guest. -- hogsett. now let's go to the phones. john and myrtle beach. caller: i want to find out why during hurricane katrina, nothing was, not out of bond ruche -- coming out of that larouche -- bgaton rouge to help. -- baton rouge to help.

i do not understand why bush was blamed so much for this. there could have been a lot of things done, and all they wanted to do was push this office -- push this off on the federal government when the local government did nothing t help. these people probably could've gone most of them out. guest: what you highlight is one of the key reasons why are so excitedor's about the military response. her take katrina was a very complex event. witht speaking to some of the specific instances you are referring to, i think really what we tried to do -- one of the key lessons we all learned that information was not shared in a timely manner and as widely to all of those trained to respond as it should have been. between the local levels and the federal level, what everyone has tried to do since then, and there have been a number of

bills passed, really tried to break down a lot of those, not just stovepipes, but lack of other -- how we all work together. since then we have made a number of changes to how we plan to emergencies, how all levels of government work together. we train better and exercised together. so that when something like that does happen in the future, we have a much quicker response by all levels of government to help serve the people that are affected. host: independent calller in maryland. welcome. caller: two points. my first one is that director brown of fema, i do not necessarily blame the president, but the director at the time totally dropped the ball in was not prepared for the job. heas appointed by the

president. where else could you have a job where you screw up massively, and you are rewarded with other grants, they expand the size of your company, and you get all of these benefits. the other thing is the constitutionality of this, the 10 governors, they are doing the same thing with the super committee. this is unconstitutional. this is the federal government laying out all first, when in all reality law originates from the local regions. basically your local sheriff is the end all for law enforcement at that level. to have the federal government come in and shut down all local police and governors, if they're not one of the 10 governors, is completely unconstitutional. i would like tether to address that. guest: ihink what you're referring to is the council of

governors. this was created in response to some of the problems highlighted during hurricane to train appeared and we have mechanisms to get all sides a government talking to each other. -- this was created in response to some of the problems highlighted during hurricane katrina. they meet with the secretary of defense, homeland security secretary, and a director of fema, and a number of senior administration officials. governors are the ones that have been driving that agenda. thwork very closely with our partners. what the council focuses on is trying to ensure the federal government has an appropriate view of the local and state needs. one of the key things we have done through this memorandum of agreements is pserving the

state. it insures when the federal government steps in to provide assistance, they are in support of state who are in support of the locals. this is a critical piece that i cannot underscore how much of a partnership this has been, but how much of a leading role this preserves for governors and their cotitutional authority to exercise their authority within the state when something does happen. i would also point out to you that the co-chairs and all 10 governors to serve on the council work through the national governors' association to share and develop plans that are being addressed with our partners throughout the year. this is something that involves all governors, not just the 10 that are currently appointed. host: our calller talked about administrator browner and fema and when things go wrong with disaster response. how would changing things to a dual-that his command situation hold people accountable?

guest: and make sure everything is under command and control of the government. it is maintaining a single chain of command for a response operation, which means the governor will then have clear visibility and know who the appropriate people are under his or h corrections that need to be held accountable if something does go wrong. host: heath hogsett is with the national governors' association. here are the numbers to call if you would like to join the conversation -- -- heather hogsett is with the national governors' association. items we have taught that are

looking the national guard jeep a seat with the joint chiefs of staff. also the dual status command and how that can help clarify who was in control when disaers strike or when the national guard is needed too out and work on a variety of issues. you mentioned they can go out, not only four incidents like hurricane irene with their need is unexpected and last minute, but there are things that are planned long in advance. how much different is it preparing for an unexpected disaster or catastrophe vs planning for things you know about far in advance? guest: really what you're talking abt is the authorities are all the same in essence. the difference is just making sure that it is a no-notice event to have the tools that as commander requires the appointment of the president and governor. you just rely need to facilitate the appntment, which is what we've done through the memorandum of agreement. it is an agreement signed by each governor and the secretary of defense on the president's behalf to by name who would be

appointed as a duel that as commander so that when something does happen, that the governor can just pick up the phone, make a call and say i want someone as my dolls that as commander, and the paperwork can follow. -- i want so and so as my dual status commander, and the paperwork can follow. they have developed a very detailed training course that each of national guard officer, if he or she will be appointed, needs to go through to be certified in order to serve as a commander. we are now at the point that nearly every state has at least one, if not to come and national guard officer certified to play the role. host: let's look at the numbers. the army national guard has 362,000 members. the air national guard, 108,000.

50,000 national guard members are either deployed or mobilize that any given time for federal mission. let's get to phil in clearwater, fla. of the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i question is about the national security of the whole deal. let's say we're like egypt and we have the million man march. i am a little it be. i marched against the vietnam war. -- i'm a little hypie. the 99% became the 99 percent signed. what is homeland security and national guard corn to do then? will they shoot like they did inamp state? i really want to know that. are we going to control and try to control all of the people with homeland security? do you consider that a national threat by americans? guest: that is a hypothetical instance, but i am not sure i

can speak to, but what i will say is that really know governor would like to see something come to that point. we would really work with the local authorities on the scene to help manage any sort of instance where you have a whole bunch of people try to exercise theirights at that time, and we would do all w can working with local government, state gornment, an >> we take you live now to a discussion in washington hosted by the aspen institute on defense budget cuts and military readiness. >> dennis blair, a former defense. of national an the admiral and david will go for about one hour, in conversation between them.

when we are ready for questions, if you could turn on this microphone and turn it off when you are done. the round table series is made possible by the generous support of the smith family foundation. david singer is the chief correspondent of "the new york times" for washington. reported from new york, tokyo, and washington, on a broad range of issues. previously, he served as the chief washington economic correspondent and as the tokyo bureau chief for the times. twice in his career at the time, had been a member of teams that won the pulitzer prize. his documentary won the 2007 dupont award for the workings of the nuclear power for rationed but mark. his first book was a best

seller. with that, david. >> thank you. let me just briefly introduce an admiral blair, who i first met when we were in tokyo. admiral blair, of course, was most recently the director of national intelligence until may 2010. he led in that 16 national intelligence agencies, some of whom played better with others. he was president and chief executive of the institute for defense analysis, served as the commander in chief for the u.s. pacific command and director of the joint staff and held a number of policy positions in the national security council and maybe staff.

we are here to talk about u.s. readiness in perilous times. i thought i would talk a little bit about homeland security issues and how things have changed in the 10 years since 9/11, but most importantly, during the obama administration. then we thought we would turn to some of the foreign sources of these threats, explore what is going on in pakistan. particularly after the events of the weekend. we wanted to talk about iran. we wanted to talk about the arab spring and how it will remake the region, and as a result, threats to the u.s.. so let's dive right in. you have often heard people ask the question, are you safer today than we were 10 years ago? let me turn that and ask the question, if somebody had said

to you the morning after 9/11, that we would go more than a decade without any major terrorist attack, but have done several close calls, would you have thought that was possible, and had the reform that you saw take place post 9/11, in your mind, primarily responsible for that, or does it have more to do with the terrorists? >> i would say the way the situation has changed over the 10 years, i would characterize like this. 2002, 2003, we had to be lucky to stop it terrorist attack. in 2011, the terrorists had to be very lucky to carry one out. it is a set of percentages --

you could think of them as tumblers in a lot, but a number of things have to go completely right for a terrorist attack to successfully take place. each of those has different degrees of risk. you have to make the plan, surveillance, record your friends, so on the and so forth -- so on and so forth. along the way, there are risks. as we know from the 9/11 report, there was almost no risk to the united states and other countries. they were oblivious to the possibility of what might be occurring. in 2010, 2011, due to some meat and potatoes work of checking databases, setting up offices,

sending people to other countries, putting people in different places, we have made it difficult for terrorists to get all those things right. there are points along the way where actions that have been taken can interrupt the pot. one of these that we know is an aroused citizenry, which famously last year in times square -- a watchful guard saw a car in a place where it should not have been. i would say, the odds have shifted strongly in favor of the united states and others who are the targets of these attacks. as you have implied in your question, the system is not 100%. in fact, never will be, but i

think we have just about knocked back the threat to levels that other forms of terrorist attacks on the u.s. have been for longer than we would like to remember, whether unabomber's or federal buildings, kansas city bombers, other disenchanted groups that think it is a good idea to kill a lot of people with a bomb. >> most of those were individuals, which takes into the next question. if you asked leon panetta, who you work for, he says he believes allocated -- al qaeda is now at the brink of strategic defeat. he said this in testimony a few months ago. first of all, how would you define that, and would you agree with it?

i would take it from your comments, about the unabomber, oklahoma city, that if you cut down to that level, you were close to strategic defeat. >> i would say that is true, but i do not think al qaeda is there yet. their core, under various leaders, its various groups in iraq, somalia, maybe north africa, they are still able to put out inspirational literature, which puts ideas into the hands of twisted people. they still have a certain amount of organizational ability, connection with these other groups who share their goals. as we learned from abdul

mutallab, just about two years ago, one person had a visa, another would get him into the u.s. with a twisted idea of doing something against this country, if you thousand dollars, you can get pretty close to killing a lot of americans. i would say we are down at a level where the organized big a tax of 9/11 and are very low probability. we and our allies around the world are able to stop those in ways we were not able to before. but to take it down to complete strategic defeat, which is complete disorganization of the movement, so it is truly

individuals who do their own work and take their own action, as we have discussed, i do not think that will come until the idea of this zealot innocent killing is identified within the muslim world. al qaeda's approval ratings have gone down very low among muslims. it is not completely gone, but still something that can cause problems. but i think we are, if we do it right, should be in a different phase of this campaign. >> we mentioned the arab world, the ideological element of this. one of the arguments that the obama administration has been making throughout the year has been, because al qaeda had nothing to do with the arab spring -- and in fact, all of

those movements did not seem to replicate any of the al qaeda ideology -- that that indicates they have lost their momentum in the arab world, and someone purposely. we are in act one of a multi- packed play with the arab spring, but if you look at the political movements going on across the regions, do you believe it would be extraordinarily difficult for an al qaeda-like organization to come back and have an appeal on the street, the way they did 10 years ago? >> i think it will be. the trend of events that we call the arab spring, if it is ultimately successful, and the

success of autocratic regimes with more forms of government that encouraged people to work to change the system instead of feel compelled to tread off to the hills of pakistan, or before that, the desert of sudan and joined a group trying to overcome these governments and attack their western protectors with -- western supporters bombs and mayhem, then yes, i do think that is the enormous promise. i would say, the dissatisfaction of the people in egypt, tunisia, yemen, elsewhere is taking a much healthier form, which is, there are more of less than them.

let's take over the government and run it our way, as opposed to those who were seduced by osama bin laden's call, to go against the west, to take to the hills, cause as much mayhem as you could. the promise is there, but it is not inevitable. it takes primarily the efforts of those who are dissatisfied. it takes a very wise and smart wisdom and intelligence. i would say, it takes a wise policy with resources put into them by the rest of us, in order to make that come true.

>> let me take you back to some homeland security issues here. the department of homeland security had a rough start when it began. there is a sense now, though, that they have found their place. still a fair bit of tension. tell me what you think has changed, but has made that experiment worked better than many had predicted, and some of us wrote five years ago? >> i cannot remember if the articles were putting these organizations into another organization and putting someone on top, whether they could be more focused by specialization and reach out and corporate with

each other, rather than putting children into an orphanage. i think the wisdom of that reorganization was that it took all of these disparate organizations -- each of which had a piece in homeland security -- and put homeland security as a unifying idea for them. the coast guard does more than protect the united states from threats coming in by sea. yes, customs and border patrol does more to keep those who are in danger to this country out. however, that idea of stopping physical threats to the country ought to be at the top of the list. putting them together in the provided a unified effect,

which gave reality to these connections between directors. over time, it has done that. the other jobs they have to do are still being done but it put a unifying mission to it. and it is a mission that appeals. if you joined ice, customs, you want to defend your country. i think it was a good idea, but primarily, the hard work of the people overcoming those initial problems at all these organizations go through have been well done. i the organization is begin to fulfill its promise. >> when i asked people in the

government, what is the one area where they do not believe coordination has worked as well as it should, almost universally the come back to me and say cyber. the defense mission, a lot of it is in homeland security. some is located in other places. the defense department has stood up its cyber command. you only have about 30 milliseconds to figure out if your threat is coming domestically or abroad, because one of your former colleagues, as they said to me, you cannot have an argument of whose department should handle it. how you assess how the obama administration has handled this morass of dealing with cyber? >> as far as cyber defense goes,

what we have done so far has been steps in the right direction, but those steps are pretty small in relation to the potential consequences of not doing it, not doing it well. i have said openly, my understanding of cyber is you simply have to centralize in order to be effective, because of that talent available to deal with it. the government only has a limited number of people we can lurk away from -- lure away from .coms, the people that are really good at this stuff.

the difference between creating a network and creating a threat against it, defending their own networks, deceiving those who come in to make them think they are getting something where they are not, those are such intertwined skills, that to break them up into separate pieces is almost impossible. what is really impossible is trying to separate the border of the u.s. from the rest of the world in cyberspace. that is what all of our current approaches are founded on. jurisdiction, protections for americans. all of that is built upon the idea that you treat americans in one way, as laid out in the constitution, and you treat foreigners another way. if you are friends, you work with them, while checking to make sure they are still your friends. applying those rules to the

cyber rig that is just impossible. what i saw as director of national intelligence was the game of twister being played continually by people and lawyers to try to, frankly, get around these are under pressure restrictions and do what we knew was right. we were constantly running back to the justice department as technology changes, saying we have to do things differently. there was one problem that we went to the justice department to achieve a decision on the legality of. after six months, they said, you ought to do what makes sense for you and we will tell you if it is legal or not. >> six months of billable hours, and that was your answer? [laughter] >> i do not fault them.

they are in rowboats. they look to see if the direction you are going is the direction that the wake said it was. technology and concepts are exploding. there was some incredibly old legal precedents that they were tried to use to apply to the 20th-century and finally they said, this is silly, you have to find a new way. i do think there are some timeless rules that apply, proportionality, you do not try to hurt people who are innocent, you have to know what you're doing. you ought to have layers of review, division between -- of responsibilities between

congress, the executive branch, and the courts. i think those are violated by the bush administration, in the heat of 2001, in a way that were unnecessary and set us back. but we have got to adapt to the new world. i think this artificial system in which the homeland security department is responsible for cybersecurity within the country, maybe part of the .com domain, where the department of defense is in charge of production, when their overseas is getting in the way of doing something smart. you are right. at one has not gone very well. >> when you were in office, it was just the beginning of the obama administration's coming to grips with the fact that the

u.s. has significant offensive capability. they do not talk about it very much, but if you read defense department and other official government reports, now they cannot help to begin to discuss the billions they are spending on offensive technology. tell us where you think we are in that? some people use in a clear analogy, where we might have been in the period of time after the u.s. dropped the bomb but before the soviets got their first nuclear weapon. others say that the chinese are well into offensive technology. are we getting to the point where we need to have rules of the road, the way we develop them, ultimately, for nuclear weapons in the cyber realm? >> i think we should try to develop those rules on the government to government basis,

and i have talked about it with counterparts in china -- well, with china in particular and many of our allies. meeting with friends and allies to degree the dependence on cyber, the harm that can be done if you put the resources of a nation state behind what we see in small pieces with hackers and others, the chinese, in general, think that they can take advantage of the internet to try to steal information from others that they can use for their own purposes.

although they complain about people who hack them, they think they are giving up more aware than there are getting. i think we will soon approach that point. where we do see some cooperation among nations states is in the criminal enforcement area. there have been good operations involving russia, china, other countries in which law ringsement have broken up of thieves. i think the next up would be to develop an agreement on espionage. i was at a conference in china where i told them we do not do industrial as the knowledge, you do.

eventually, this is going to hurt you, so let's agree not to do it and find ways to enforce that. eventually, china will come along. that leaves the remaining area of national security -- whether you call it intelligence gathering or preparation for the battlefield -- national governments try to get into the networks of other tournaments, and if it comes to conflict or crisis between those countries, they will look at ways to use that access to their advantage. i think that will be the final frontier. it may be possible to reach agreements, such as confiding that action to military or

security matters, for instance, not trying to bring down power grids in other countries or interrupt the emergency service, some of the other things that would cost what collateral damage. i think that is the area that we can go eventually. in the meantime, frankly, it is hard to tell how vulnerable we are. i saw both classified and aunts classified -- on classified instances where do it -- on classified -- unclassified instances where it was pretty bad. in other instances, we were dealing with other things going wrong in our networks all the time, some were intentionally malicious insiders, employees

who just want to cause trouble. some of them are inadvertent parts of the algorithms that were not understood and cost problems. overall, i tend to think we are not quite as vulnerable as the doomsday people say, but nonetheless, a great deal of damage can be cost across networks, and the sooner we can find that by agreement among nation states, the better. >> living at the crowd that has assembled, let me move on for a moment to pakistan, the place where many of the threats you discussed earlier came out. if queen elizabeth were here, she would say that this was -- with pakistan. this began with the cia agent, officer who got into a firefight in lahore.

it moved on to the bin laden raid, something that did enormous damage to the relationship. several efforts to write that relationship, and then this weekend, this incident that none of us seemed to understand in which at least 24 pakistani border soldiers, provincial birds, were killed by nato forces. the pakistanis have resulted in their usual tit-for-tat way, cutting off two supply lines into afghanistan. is there anything we can do to break this cycle? how does it affect our ability to do with the terrorism issues we discussed? >> when i was operating within it and thinking about it, i had a sense of how before and the

american relationship was with pakistan, how much official deception was involved on both sides in terms of the knowledge in that things were going on, how much each side would discard strong instances on the other side and look for interests. when you take a step back and you say this is a relationship that is this form -- misformed, probably not much success. if you believe, as i do, that

pakistan requires a fundamental change, if it is to be a member of the international community, that is not a danger to its neighbors, then i think you have to think of trying to establish a more normal relationship between us and pakistan, and we have to give up the short-term goal that we had with pakistan, which was that it would take actions on the side of the border, which would give us victory in afghanistan a quicker and easier and require less resources. that was sort of our idea in the fall of 2009. pakistan seemed to be moving in the right direction, moved into the valley, south waziristan. they seemed to move into north

waziristan, accepting u.s. technical assistance, providing boots on the ground. it seemed we could meet our goal of extending government over the northwest territories to both of our advantages. that sort of fell apart last year and the consequences in afghanistan have been major. it makes the job much more difficult. if that relationship is not being achieved, we need to look longer-term and go back to a relationship with afghanistan that makes sense over the long term. we cannot deal with the army and isi directly for our purposes, thereby reinforcing their positions within pakistan to the ultimate detriment of the pakistani people. we have to help the government

put the army and isi back where they belong. we have to work on long-term things, like trying to change pakistani education, so it is not the the process who are reform renewed -- madrassas who are performing those who cannot get education elsewhere. we need a careful set of penalties as well as inducements to pakistan, in order to reach a long-term goals. i think we have to accept that pakistan will not be a great deal of help to us in the near term with our goals in afghanistan, and tried to build a long-term relationship that will eventually make pakistan and more responsible member of

the international community. >> when you get that aspin security forum this summer, you made headlines by suggesting we needed to end our predator strikes into pakistan, that there was no way that we could continue that and continue this relationship. at the same time, you point out we cannot rely on the pakistanis to do their side of the border. you ask people in the obama administration about predators. they say it is the only way to get inside the border. tell us whether or not your thinking on this has a vault? >> the question i was grappling with what i made the proposal remains -- and i think this relationship we have with pakistan, in which it does not officially a knowledge it has given permission to the united states to conduct attacks within its own country -- and

the reality is part of this to form a relationship, which is a cop-out from the pakistani point of view, from our point of view, and gives the pakistani people reason for anger against their own government, and against us, which will hurt in the long term. what i was getting at with my proposal -- and it is not to stop the drone attacks. it was to consult with the pakistanis about whom they should be directed against. pakistan has enemies in the northwest territory that it is trying to root out, the gtp, who have killed a lot of pakistan's -- pakistanis. i was looking for ways in which

both our and the pakistan interest could be acknowledged, openly, and would be supported by people of both countries. i still think binding this is what we need to do to get this relationship back. >> but to do that, the u.s. would have to the knowledge predator attacks exist. the world's worst secret. pakistanis would have to acknowledge under some circumstances and targets, they are welcome. >> bingo. >> what are the chances you could get washington or islamabad to agree to that bargain? >> it depends on how bad the alternative is. i think the alternative is looking pretty ugly, at this point. my mind says, when what you are doing is not looking very good, heading towards a waterfall that

you can see, you ought to try something else. >> let me turn briefly to iran, a subject that you and i have talked about over the years. you saw the iaea report that came out. not a huge amount new, but it did it knowledge in public what had been circulating in the intelligence channels of many countries for a long time, what has been circulating in the back rooms of the iaea. it tells you there was a program through 2003 that was very active to build a nuclear weapon. then it puts together a fair bit of evidence but not conclusive, that those programs resumed, but probably not at the level and funding that they had been prior to 2003. when you look at all the things the obama administration has done over the past three years to slow the program, has -- is there any way we can declare this effort to be a success, at

this point? >> if you think slowing is success, then what has been going on for the past dozen years is a success. if you go back to the projections of 10 years ago, five years ago as to how much nuclear material and bomb- making capabilities the iranians could have, you find they have not done as much as they could have. but, i guess what worries me about it, by becoming fixated on just how close they are, a few kilograms here and there, we are losing track of the big picture and we are setting ourselves up for the crisis that we have not prepared for. i am really worried the iranians to overestimate their capability to finely tune this dance to go

right up to the limit of american tolerance and be able to stop and hold it right there. i am worried, on the american side, we overestimate the position of our intelligence or skill, access to the iaea to know everything. i think the basic question that we need to decide is, are we going to tolerate a nuclear-arms iran or not? once we make that decision, life becomes a lot easier. if we do not make that decision but insist on knowing it when we see it, i think we are setting up the dramatic discovery of something that iran is doing that we did not know about, that they thought they could keep

from us and were free to do, on the one hand. thinking about making decisions in haste under conditions of excitement and the trail -- the trail, which are usually not good decisions, compared to thinking through consequences. >> when you think about what president obama has said publicly, he says we will not tolerate -- a nuclear-arms iran is not a tolerable situation. he has said that appoints a nuclear taliban is not responsible. something presumably short of having a weapon. based on your experience in the administration, it is that the consensus view, or is this up for debate? >> everyone in the administration would agree with what the president said, not surprisingly.

by reducing it to definitions, but you undercut the real questions, which are, at what point is a near-nuclear power an actual nuclear power. -- nuclear power? you get into this -- we are along this line. i think setting clearer lines, which are a lot less ambiguous and have actions behind them, that make rhetoric by it, as opposed to where you will turn to, is what we need to do. concepts like iran is not acting like a country that is fully

carrying out the obligations commitment, things like putting the onus on iran to prove that what it says is true come more into play than this game of saying something. the iaea listing a report, leaking interpretations of capability versus armed, or as we are going to boil to death like the frog, one degree at a time. >> you spend a lot of time exploring iran as a sponsor of terrorism. when you look at their potential nuclear capability, how big is your concern that they would be more tempted than most to slip a weapon to a terror group? and what would the saudi plot,

if you believe the allegation that the u.s. have put forth, make us rethink how we can control the program, how that could be? if you could have some freelancers out there to higher -- to kill the saudi ambassador, how realistic would that be? >> i think a plot involving nuclear weapons of any kind, plots involving assassination and so on, for any government association with nuclear weapons inevitably means identification, retaliation peering is inconceivable to me that the united states, if a nuclear weapon were used against

it, and a hand in that weapon was traced back to iran, north korea, and near the country, that we would not retaliate, i think everybody knows it. assassination plots and bonds are a different category. iran killed a bunch of our servicemen and number of years ago. i can perfectly believe that some members of the iranian intelligence service have decided that killing a saudi ambassador would be a good idea. i think they felt that they could pursue that as far as they could, from the indication of the command atmosphere in iran. anybody that has a plot against

an ally in the country had better be clear at a high level, and we are going to make that decision. anybody have an idea on how to hurt the great state? there are a couple of agents here that have some contacts in mexico, let's give it a shot. i think that is their attitude toward the use of these weapons. their attitude towards nuclear weapons is, we can get to that line without the u.s. knowing about it for crossing it be read i think the united states has to decide how far it will be pushed, and then to lower the hammer. >> in a significant way, you have heard the israelis break out in a public debate about this. is that more noise in the system, or is that for real?

>> i think the israelis have thought what they have to do at which the point at which iran beginning nuclear-weapons have shown in the past actions that they take when they fear their enemies are acquiring those capabilities. i have no doubt they are making that calculation every day. , as far as what they say publicly about it, that is probably a separate calculation. is it designed to make iran go further underground and the lead? is it designed to prepare their own people? is it designed for the united states to take certain actions? that is something you decide in the military and intelligence rums.

rooms. what would you do if you've had to set back iran? to generalen this up questions. when you were called upon, just give us your name. please make sure that your question is actually a question. who would like to go first? kimberly? >> we haven't touched on yemen. do you think that the model that is going on there given all the political unrest on the ground, is that a successful model that should be followed for c cooperationt is that a way ahead? despite the political unrest on the ground? >>

i think it is a great aspect of the american policy. countries that cannot enforce laws that are torn by civil or ethnic or tribal strife turn out to be the most difficult countries to help make better because of the nature of these divisions they are dealing with and they are ideal places for terrorist groups to go because they can set up shop and to their planning and logistics and training and propaganda and so on. these kind of spots around the world whether they be in the southern philippines or distant islands in indonesia or part of the malay peninsula across the part of the world into yemen and

somalia, that makes us face this dilemma of how do we handle them in order to keep them from becoming bases from which the united states and other countries can be attacked. i think too often we have treated them simply as battlegrounds for this war against terrorism and return the pentagon and intelligence agencies loose on them to knock back at terrorists and we have not given enough consideration as to how we can make some places which are not going to be refuges for a terrorist organization for years to come. i think that is true for the southern philippines. i think it is true in yemen. i think it is true in somalia. i don't think there's a magic wand which can weigh in any of these countries that will make

them into a perfectly-governed economically prosperous places but i am distressed if you look at -- if you take a look at the number of minutes we have meetings around this town in government and discussing yemen in terms of its military and intelligence operations versus the number of minutes we spend town trying to understand yemen and sell some of its endemic problems, the ratio could be 1000 to 1. i think we need to impose the discipline of long-term solutions for these countries as we're dealing with the immediate threat.

that being said, in the case of yemen, it is a particularly difficult set of problems. the tribal divisions are in the north and the eastern part is relatively lawless but there have been some successes there in the past. there was an agreement between the south and the central government that actually was implemented for a while and it fell apart. we have powerful allies in the region. it seems there could be a more comprehensive approach to yemen. i would like to see their emphasis added to it. as far as the military intelligence operations in those countries, i think they are doing pretty well they seem to

be doing it in a way that the yemeni authorities are involved, such as they are, and supporte ive which was not the case in pakistan. >> other hands around here? yes? >> i am from the voice of america. there are numerous reports saying that north korea is helping iran to develop nuclear weapons. what is your assessment of the s -- of the relationship between north korea and iran and also how do you think we can break the nexus of preparation? understood the part about the connection between north korea and iran but what was the rest of the question? >> that was correct.

>> even though i have been out of government for 80 months, i still get confused about what i read in one sanger's columns. >> which one was wrong? [laughter] >> one of the responsibilities i felt i had was to ensure the public discussion of importance intelligence questions was not that much different at the highly classified level than what it was at the un classified personal level. we have more detail within government. there were some things that we obviously could not make public but on key questions like how close is iran to a nuclear weapon and what is the situation in somalia and what are the russian intentions -- in a

democracy, you need to have the public understanding roughly the same as your official understanding with details. any careful reader of a reputable publications that there can get a good idea of what is going out there -- what is going on out there with key issues. in the public discussions of the cooperation between north korea and iran, the main area of cooperation was missiles, not nuclear weapons. the north koreans sold missiles to iran. their engineers consulted with iranian engineers. some iranian missiles started off as north korean missiles which in turn or often versions of other people's muscles.

-- missiles. when you have engineers who are involved in weapons programs whether they be delivery vehicles for what goes on the end of the missiles, the chances to discuss the full range "what you would like on your weapons and how they are built are pretty broad. i have no doubt that the iranian/north korean channel was a pretty broad one that could include discussion of both warheads and missiles which it obviously did i don't think i will go to much further than that. the primary spreader of nuclear weapons technology around the world including to iran was pakistan. whether you get your missiles from north korea and nuclear technology from pakistan, you

are part of this witch's brew of the grey market of weapons and nuclear materials which countries who want to build nuclear programs that can be delivered by missiles have been taken full advantage of. >> let me follow that up -- i have always thought that for the iranians, it must be a little annoying, to say the least, that the finest graduates of kim jong il high-school has managed to put together two weapons they have tested and sent to have a nuclear program that can produce a device if not an actual weapon. in the case of iran, it has taken much longer one was going by plutonium and one was going by uranium. what is it that the north koreans have figured out about how to get there quickly that the iranians have not? is it the sabotages?

did they get the centrifuges? do they have the right talent? >> one thing i would point to is it doesn't make much difference to the north koreans whether this stuff works or not. [laughter] the nuclear weapons that you referred to, both tests were not full yield tests. they were advertising on the international market was for sale and they have never flown. >> so they are not perfectionists. >> but horseshoes and nuclear weapons are relatively similar in that regard. and the case of iran, they have higher engineering standards and

they do and do it with more engineering skill. i think the pace of their development has been determined more by political considerations than it has been by lack of technical skill. had they taken the wraps off back in 2000 of some of their -- you are right -- nuclear physicists want to build nuclear weapons but they were not given permission to do so and have not been given full permission yet. i don't think it is a case of technical shortcomings in the case of iran. i think it is political decisions. >> mr. lawrence? >> thank you. don warren - thank you for joining us today.

the talent commission report states that there is a high likelihood that terrorists will use a weapon of mass destruction by the year 2013. let's just did say during the next decade. it says there is a high probability that it will be a biological weapon. do you agree with that statement and you think we are doing enough to protect against the biological threats regardless of whether it is weapon on a store not? -- weaponized ort not? >> your never doing enough especially in retrospect. statements like the one you just described are probably good warnings that we need to look hard at those threats and make

sure that we are doing everything that makes sense. i would say that -- when i was director of national intelligence, we looked at the intelligence and biological programs to determine if there were untapped forms of collection or new ways of thinking about it that we could or should pursue as the intelligence contribution to a total the fans -- to a total defense against those kind of weapons and was convinced that we were giving a lot of attention to the areas that were at any likelihood of achieving results. it is just a very hard problem

between a pathogen and a benign or even a beneficial organism. one is formed by what has happened in the past although iceland lawyers earlier. it is not irrelevant. biological warfare has not been one that is produced clear victorias results for anyone who tried to use it whether there were a nation state or others that have tried to do it. it is not as if there are hundreds of nihilistic organizations out there working away on chemicals -- on biological threats. there is a good degree of international consensus against it.

unlike some terrorist groups which have sympathizers or supporters among permissive national governments, that is not true for those trying to develop biological weapons. i think the level of average against biological weapons is about what a balanced person would have met at this point. >> there was a lot of concern at the end of the bush administration that the detection technology on biological was still pretty poor. you get a warning about 36 hours before. has that improved at all? >> it is not quite 36 hours but it is certainly not simultaneous. that is one of the big problems

with it. one of the problems in dealing with biological warfare scenarios, most of the work that has to be done is based on trying to set up contamination zones and keeping people from spreading it by traveling around. if you want a good primer on what a good biological threat is, read about the influence of of 1918 and the sorts of actions that were taken there. a vaccine was never developed for it. -- for those parts of the countries or the world devastated by law or in some cases by strong policies or kept isolated and kept it from coming in. >> mr. london? >> american security challenge

-- speaking of technology, cents technology is an anchor in our national security, do you think incutel was an ally in that? do you think it was successful in accomplishing its objectives? if not, why not and what might you suggest? if so, why don't replicate that to accelerate valuable technology deployed in other enterprises? >> you might teller bills what incutel is. >> it is a prototyping and investment group for the cia and other members of the intelligence agency. >> and the idea is to throw ideas out particularly to the information technology community to see if we can get help in ways that do not come through our normal acquisition process.

is one model there of which is going to be the be all and end all of trying to tap the innovative solution for things. darpa has been as successful as any and it has been replicated in the intelligence version and the honen security program. that has had some success. those agencies always put a high technical challenge and give a fixed time line and fund high- risk projects and see a banking comes out of it. incutel is an attempt to go further upstream and put in ideas and funding at an earlier stage and see if silicon valley

and other groups could come up with technical solutions to some of the problems we face. i think we have to keep working it and take a different techniques. some things come from inspired individuals who just push it and other things tend to come in other tocomeincutel, i'm not sure what they're batting average was but i am sure it was 50% or less. your basic concern is correct and i think i worry in the budget keeping an amount of federal funding that can address that. those are programs that are generally on the chopping block first. i would second your idea that we need to keep doing things like that and doing more of them.

>> we has been -- we have spent nine minutes so can we have shorter questions and shorter answers? >> our topic today was readiness. i am concerned that the cuts are coming and the budget. what is that going to mean for readiness? will we have to think about reviewing our strategy? >> yes, yes, you can't take a 20% budget cut and do the same chores you do now. what bothers me about this phenomena that we have now is cutting defense and intel spending and maybe they will do a little bit of what they are doing now. we should have a strategic

conversation first. what is it you want your defense forces and intelligence forces to do? they should then come back and ask if last to what to do and this is what it costs. bad as they mature decision, not some damn arbitrary $500 billion number. i am waiting for the conversation to begin. what should be our military posture with regard to china, north korea, iran? what capability to we need? do we want to have this strong tactical emphasis on terrorism or do we want more emphasis of looking at long-range threats? we should have that discussion and then we can decide what it will cost us. >> when have you seen that conversation take place [laughter] particularly in the congress? >> there are key times where it

did happen like in the 1950's. president eisenhower locked his chief of staff up and said come back when you have a strategy that we can do for $17 billion. those were the good old days. i would say in the 1990's, there was a more recent experience when we took large reductions after the end of the cold war, general powell put out the idea of a base force, this set of missions and this is what you need to do. i don't see any of that going on now. i think that is a conversation we need to have them a question right there. >> back on pakistan, one of the many recent presidential debates, there were many mentions of pakistan. the republican candidates said

we need to be more aggressive and kinetic and go across the border and do whatever we need to get into pakistani territory. the other side said to cut them off. until we see improvements in their behavior. what is your assessment? has that kind of approach been discussed within this administration when you were there and what is your assessment of how that would go down? you set a new direction was probably needed in that relationship. >> yes, elements of a more transactional relationship are called for. in early 2010 under the energetic leadership of richard holbrooke, the united states put together a very large and comprehensive assistance

program for pakistan. there was a big military component but also a very large economic component, education component, also fought society, which turned out to beat -- also a civil society which turned out that pakistan choked on it and did not believe the rest. i think we have shown the limits of what carrots only can do. i think there needs to be some penalties, sticks, limits to our relationship with pakistan. in my experience, most successful policies have a combination of those tools. all don't lean on one or the way on the other. the facts are true that the united states and pakistan have a great deal in common. there are things they can

cooperate on but there are also point for those things diverge in which the united states should be quite plain and did make it clear there are limits to what we will have a pakistani veto over and we will act. i know what those candidates are saying. i think it is more sophisticated than that. >> gentleman in the corner? >> thank you, sir. i was recently with the department of defense. considering the elections in egypt, what with that kind of backlash portend for our interests in the region? >> i have not heard the results

either. i understand the elections have been going on for awhile. the early returns are probably just early returns. the larger question of whether the arab brothers return in a legitimate government-elected system and the consequences for egypt and the rest of the world are very important. we have in our minds the nightmare of 1979 when at the last minute, the united states pulled its support from shah and shifted to the ayatollah and that did not work real well. i think it is probably not your father's egypt in many ways. as we discussed earlier, the

impetus for the downfall of mubarak - i would argue that president mubarak had far more powerful portion tools than with any new government in egypt. and yet he felt quite quickly. i would think any government coming into force in egypt would have to deal with the aspirations of the people in expressing themselves which are not to go back to the seventh century but rather to preserve some of the characteristics of a moslem state but to have jobs, freedom of expression, ability to choose their government. i have faith that the egyptian people are going to have ways to

get the kind of government that they perhaps finally want and deserve. i am not as worried about it and i would much rather be on the side of helping the opposition against a repressive fundamentalist government than on the side of supporting a mubarak-type government. >> i have two questions and they are short. the first question is -- what you make of the fact that anwar al-awlaki's message fired up after his death and given that the drone campaign is here to stay and it would seem that we want to build public support for the campaign, would you encourage the administration to release the legal memos that issued the killings? >> it is hard to tell just how

powerful lockley's message is in contest. context. i suspect there are more fringe groups that follow other blogs then read magazines. -- wet get the sense that have done studies as to what will push a person over that line from being angry about the status quo and being sympathetic with those trying to change it and then taking the next step to thinking that that justifies strapping weapons on your body and killing a bunch of people at a wedding. it is our research but what we found is that the people willing to take that extra step had some

sort of psychological defects in their character. that made them go into the suicidal/homicidal category from being generally angry. i don't sense there are many of the latter category. knock wood but one thing we have not seen so far within the united states is a suicide attack. they seem to leave the bon and go away. -- leave the bomb and go away. i cannot comment on particular drum campaigns we're doing today or give official word on them. however, i will say that covert action that goes on for years does not generally stayed covert and you need a way to make it

something that is part of your overt policy. i think the way we know to do that is to make it a military operation. and therefore when you are going to be using jones over a long period time, i would say you have to give strong consideration to running it as a military operation. within the armed forces, we have a set of procedures which are known for how you make decisions about when to use deadly force or not. there are levels of approval and there are things that should be openly put out there. that is another problem of conducting long standing, covert operations which is a secrecy you do for other purposes but puts you in a situation. i argue strongly that covert

action should be retained for relatively short duration operations which should not be talked about and should not be publicized. if something has been going on for a long time, somebody else should do it, not intelligence agencies. >> i'm afraid our time is up but i thank you very much. this has been a terrific conversation and we have covered a huge amount of ground as always. it has been great to hear your views and thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio]

[no audio] [random inaudible conversations] >> as this discussion wraps up, the pentagon is facing $450 billion in cuts in projected spending over the next 10 years. that amount could more than double beginning in 2013 when automatic cuts go into effect due to the deficit committee failing to reach an agreement

were. will have another live discussion here on cspan at 2:00 eastern time with ohio senator rob portman on debt reduction. he was a member of the joint said this reduction committee which failed to reach an agreement and he will talk about why. >> by the phone calls we get and e-mails we get, by the increase participation we have seen on our programs, we know we have been successful. >> we look at u.s.-government sponsored broadcasts and other countries. we talk with the director of cuba broadcasting. >> there have been 23 focus groups since i have been there. i have been there one year and one week. we found out that people in cuba want news. they definitely want news and when they seek news, then

mentioned the mateez. >> tonight at 8:00 on c-span 2. the newly designed c-span.org web site as of 11 video choices making it easy for you to watch today's events and it is easier for you to get our schedule with new features like a three network layouts for you can quickly go through the programs scheduled on the cspan networks and receive an e-mail alerts when your program is scheduled to air. there's a section to access our most popular series. there is a handy channel finder is a you can quickly find where to watch our three networks on cable or satellite systems across the country at the all new c-span.org. >> congressman barney frank of massachusetts is retiring after more than 30 years in office. he made that announcement on c-

span 3 and you could watch it on line at c-span.org. he says he will not seek reelection. he is 71 years old and was chairman of the financial services committee. the associated press reports that he would run again if the redistricting map in massachusetts came out and he would represent more people than before. maxine waters will be in line for his seat. 16 other democrats and six republicans have announced they will not seek new house terms in 2012. the pentagon says it costs by about $800,000 per year to house each of the detainee's and guantanamo bay, cuba the miami herald look at those costs and we talked to one of the reporters this morning on "washington journal." host: carol rosenberg with "the miami herald" , and she has

written extensively aut guantanamo bay. good morning. you did a recent story looking at the cost of prisoners, how much it costs to detain people there. every monday, we have a segment called "your money," where we look at a program, how much it costs, and how public money is being spent. why did you start looking at the cost of keeping detainee's at guantanamo bay? guest: "the miami herald" has covered guantanamo bay coming up on 10 years. in july, the administration wrote congress in a letter signed by the dni, the attorney general, and the secretary of defense that this is costing america $800,000 per year per detainee. they compared this to about $25,000 in federal detention.

they were doing this as part of a letter talking about the pros and cons of military versus a billion trials and military verses -- military verses civilian trials and military verses civilian detention. how could this possibly be? this makes it arguably the most expensive detention center on earth, $800,000. we set out to break that down. host: carol rosenberg, we're looking at a charright now, the cost per prisoner at guantanamo bayompared to other prisons. miami dade county jail is $50,000 per prisoner compared to $800,000 at guantanamo. colorado supermax is $38,000. the state board system is $19,000. once again, guantanamo bay

$80,000. where did these come from and hohave you been le to parse out the numbers? guest: we added the supermax because there is a small group of people there that would be more like the supermax than it would the dad county prison. we tried to give comparisons for those in maximum security, not necessarily solitary confinement, but on their own, to mix it all up. what we knew all along was that the commanders down there had told us to think the antanamo as an aircraft carrier in the sea. it is totally dependent. they create their own water, their own electricity, they bring in all of their supplies by barge or aircraft. because they cannot live off the

land and everything gets brought in, you haveark ups for contractors and transportation. there are rotational staff, people coming and going, and there have never been any fixed costs. you can think of it as the international space station, staff coming and going, supply missions all the time, no expense spared. that is more the way the detention center functions way out there with what they need brought in and the rotational staff is key. the guards come in go in six, nine, 12-month rotations. they get 24/7 mental, medical health care come amusement, entertainment, three square meals, entertainment, and housing.

there is no detention center where a prison here in the states that functions that way. a guard gets up, packs their launch, drives to work. it is their car, their home, their lunch. at the end of their ship, they go home. guantanamo is a 24/7 operation. when they are inside the wire and working as guards as opposed to other stocks that may be outside what they call "the wire," but also get combat halite their brothers and sisters outside of guantanamo. is it like a gated community down there. host: a pie chart from "the miami herald."

carol rosenberg, you have worked hard to try to get more spefic numbers. why they are spending, and what they are spending. tell us about your search for information. guest: this is a very superficial snapshot, the best we could surface when we k the detention center staff and their supervision at the southern command. they give us a very, very broad categories. when we asked them to drill down and asked what intelligence meant it, ask for things that seemed, perhaps, privileged but are actually quite meaningful at guantanamo, we could not get anywhere. basically, the people down there

who handled the budgets, the people who handle public relations refused to drill down to any level. when we went to their supervisors at southern command here, the pentagon's office they say they are responsible for a portion of the budget but give us is superficial snapshot. it is hard to kn exactly what they mean when they say mething like "intelligence collection missions." we know from briefings that sometimes at t intelligence operatio has been responsible for bos in the library. we know that there are linguists down there and some of them are accompanied by their families living in the base in these apartments. we are trying to figure out what the true cost is if you were to separate this out and how you could consider this huge figur of $800,000 per detainee and we

only got so far. we filed under the freedom of information act a couple of months ago. we asked for expedited consideration, because as everyone knows there is a debate in congress about pentagon expenditures at the moment. we were denied expedited consideration, so we are still waiting for the documentation that breaks this all down. we did get numbers, but they were t numbers that the detention center has been publishing through the years as a part of their transparency mission to show certain things that they want to show. i think you have a chart there for food costs. they are considerable when it comes to the detainee's. it is not quite $40 per day per prisoner to ed them. if you look at about,e have compared it to come for example, the average american living

alone what they pay out of their pocket, what in midshipmen would pay out of their pocket. what we're trying to show is that they are not eating surf and turf, not all you can eat salad bar, but three meals in styrofoam containers, but there is a considerable markup. everything that comes down there stts out frozen solid in a barge in jacksonville anis shipped in. the exception is that the military has been very caref to observe hallal, the islam equivalent of kosher. they bring in special lamb. for holidays, they bring in

treats, honeyed baklava. i think those are special order, but generally often out of detroit and brought in by aircraft. host: carol rosenberg wrote a recent story for "the miami ."rald," caller: anthony wayne meyer. guantanamo bay is a clear demonstration that we, the people, arunder siege. a state of war ests between our federal government and our people. they are using our federal tax dollars to capri's -- to oppress everyone around the planet including our own citizens. it is an outrage. the 99% protests demonstrate

that our money is being used to terrorize everyone on the planet and it has to stop. guest: what we have learned is that we just report the facts which is one reason that we try to drill down and figure out the meaning of the figure of $800,000 per detainee. people read the same story and a drop completely different conclusions about the wisdom of the detention center, whether we should keep it, whether we sneed it, whether it is a good or bad thing. our stories do not follow the politics of the guantanamo issue. we just cover it. host: georgia, chris on the independent line. you are on with carol rosenberg. caller: guantanamo is more of a wartime facility for prison

detention. right now, we are not even in a legal war. only congress can declare war, and we have not been in one of those legally since world war ii. do you also do studies on the crime rates in the united states? we basically lost the war on drugs in america and how that is affecting the statistics that you're looking at. guest: we did a very basic straightforward comparison of the cost of detainees. we look at different types of prisoners and captives ranging from convicted terrorists at supermax to those in the county prison that cover the types of crimes you were speaking abo. what is interesting about the

war on terrorism is that this project at guantanamo opened on nuary 11th, 2002, so coming up on 10 years. one of the things we learned in preparing this story and doing reporting is that, in some ways, the pentagon was spending and preparing for the next 10 years. they would not grow down and explain their operating costs and w they could spend $138 million in the basic operating costs. we studied contracts and it took a look around the system, but they have been on a bit oa spending spree, resupplying for the next 10 years. they put out a bid for new equipment in the detainee hospital, which they are in process of moving to a dferent part of the base, andifferent prison operations. remember. guantanamo is a navy base which

has a porch, an airport -- a port and airport. in the corner, there is a series of prison camps that have been built culminating in three fairly rigid structures that look more like prisons we would recognize in the states where most of the detainees are not kept. that is just a corner of the base. we only looked at the cost of that corner, which we describe as kind like a gated community. they have their around jim, movie theater, health clinic -- they have their own gym. we are talking about the detainees. they have their own satellite television, three meals per day brought in.

they have a section of the kitchen that feeds the guards and prepare and their meals, but they all eat out of the same kitchen in effect. barnes, interrogators, intelligence units, command staff, the people who control the budget, the public relations team, they all eat out of a special dining room set up separate and apart for this community within a community which, as i said, part of which are getng combat pay. host: carol rosenberg, off of twitter - presumably, for the pentagon. what do you have to say? guest: we found no evidence that is the case. t you can go down there and see buildings under way. one of the big questions i have

asked since the start of the project is how much they are actually consuming in fuel at this detention center? there are building this all along a part that overlooks the water. everytng is air-conditioned. a stadium-style lighting so that might look like they. they consume large amounts of fuel. -- they have stadium-style lighting so night looks like day. the detention center on the occupies a portion and they consume $100,000 worth of fuel each day supposedly. the money is being spent, but the question is how to drill down and see suspect that the clean -- d see specifically how ch is going to feeding the guard versus the detainee's, the command staff, and a number of people that are on hunger

strikes. they do not give those numbers come out exactly how many prisoners underwent that treatment. they are certainly consuming a lot of money. i guess that would be my answer. host: three meals per day, satellite tv, it sounds like club med. you can submit your tweets, @cspanwj. our guest is carol rosenberg with "the miami herald." the first dispatched her to cuba in january 2002 ahead of the arrival of the first of the captives. she has been there from the beginning. carol rosenberg, can you paint us more of a picture of what the detention center is like?

he described the kitchen facilities and the way the people who work there live, but how much access do you have as a journalist to the prisoners? guest: we have never spoken to a prisoner. one of the conditions of access that you signed in the voluminous ground rules to get to the base is that you will not talk to the prisoners even on occasion when they shout at us. engaging with a prisoner would get you banned for life, as it happened with some of my colleagues. the live on a section of the base that was built since the start of this enterprise. it used to be a beautiful, beautiful piece of land overlooking the water and now it is surrounded by barbed wire, offenses, with guard towers -- fences, guard towers. there are about one dozen of

prison camp-like structures. half of them are out of service at the moment. it started out as a temporary enterprise. it to the but the pictures you have seen it with 20 men on their knees in orange jumpsuits, that is not even the camp they are using now. you cannot use that facility anymore. it is dilapidated. then they builtore prison camps at considerable expense that they are not using any more either. the weather is unforgiving. it is salty, hot, sunny, and the infrastructure to not hold up well which is why they are in their third or fourth iteration of these buildings. they went with steel and cement air-conditioned buildings that are all steel bulk -- sealed up with little access to the

outdoors. people are in these lockers, pretty much, with access in the cooperative camp to an outdoor area that is surrounded by, again, fences, barbed wire, guard towers. i want to go back to the club med analogy. when you visit as a reporter, it is a surprising place. the detainees do get these good meals, the satellite tv, and they get 2,500 calories per day. the military, as they developed the detention center, realize that what they wanted to do was keep the detainee's busy and distracted because there was tension between capt. and guard. the guards are soldiers and

sailors in their 20's and the captives have been there sometimes for 10 years. the objective is to keep the two sides from having this tension and having them occupied. they did introduce the satellite tv's and there are some that will not watch. remember. some of these are quite militant in their observation of islam and they will not watch television. there are some radio stations and audio teachings of islam. but back to club med, it is striking when you go to that base and you worked there as a part of this rotating staff that does six, nine, 12 of months, me of them volunteered for multiple-your duty and get to bring their family. -- volunteer for multi-year

duty. when you leave the prison and go to the base, there is a scuba diving, an irish pub, beautiful beaches, fishing trips, constant visitors and entertainers coming, cheerleaders from professial teams, comedians. they have some of the best gyms that are available both to guards and anyone who lives on the base, aside from the detainees. they have a wonderful baseball field that looks like it came out of "the field of dreams." it is a beautiful, surprising place when you are posted their as part of the military. there is a tremenus transportation system in which buses run are around like a

little community. they have a school for some of the military and contractor kids for attend. -- kids to all attend. scuba diving is very popular down there. they also have night school. the staff complains that the internet is so low. if you ask them what the biggest gripe is, they want faster internet to skype with their families. you can call home anytime, but you can use the internet and study get a degree or higher ucation. once the government decided they were in the guantanamo business, they went down of their way to improve the quality of life of the military down there in such a way that it is really a fine

duty. you talk to soldiers and they will tell you that they picked a guantanamo over afghanistan or iraqny day. in a way, it is a commuter job. the military has planes coming and going all the time. they have guessed housing, guest quarters, and you can bring your family down a. if you are not part of the long term staff that gets suburban- style housing with your kids in school, you can arrange to the military bureaucracy to bring your girriend or boyfriend down and put them up in guest quarters that are like hotels. i am not saying it is club of mad, but it is definitely a surprise when you go to that base. -- i am not saying it is club med. host: who is actually serving

there? there is a total of 2046 on active duty. guard, 400, and 70 reserve. our guest, carol rosenberg, writes in "the miami herald." you go through some of the other benefits they get there. omaha, neb., on the republican line. caller: i would just like to make a comment that this is one of the most biased things i have ever heard c-span put on. we are talking about a detention system whose conditions are set by the geneva convention, the aclu come and the media for the most part. i do not suppose ms. rosenberg

has ever been sent overseas without her family. she describes it as a space station, well of course it is. you cannot observe stars from a motel 6 on the corner in motel -- in omaha. there are security concerns. there are so many differences between the guantanamo base and any other prison that is not set by international tribunal. to make a dollar on dollar comparison just because the military treats their soldiers the way they need to is senseless. host: we are not making a judgment on that. the segment is about your money and letting you know about how it is spent. it is up to you to have an opinion on that. "the miami herald"

>> live now to the american enterprise institute. discussion with senator robert portman who was on the deficit reduction committee and is expected to talk about why the committee failed to come up with a deficit reduction plan. live coverage here on c-span. >> the good afternoon. welcome to the american enterprise institute. i am alex brill. today have the pleasure to kick off a two-part event. i have the opportunity to introduce our keynote speaker, senator robert portman. let me make a brief remark can set the stage in the wake of the super-committee termination. when i think of the super- committee, on one hand it was much like any other

congressional committee with a limited number of members appointed by the leadership from the house and senate to forge a compromise between the chambers and report back to both chambers a product that is neither amendable on the house or senate floor. on the other hand, it was a truly unique structure. unlike some symbols, it was constructed in an even and bipartisan manner and needed only a simple majority. the expedited measures to leave -- further facilitate the process and encouraged them to work. from the start, i was both a proponent and a believer that it would succeed. my best guess was $500-$600 billion in the first decade. i believe i was right to believe in the mechanism, but i was wrong in the hope for a positive

outcome. since the announcement by the cochairs last week that they would not make any recommendations, the air in washington has been filled with a degree of the finger-pointing that is neither unexpected or inappropriate. they had a great opportunity to steer washington toward a sustainable fiscal path. taxpayers deserve an explanation. we also need to look forward and continue to examine the options and debate will political considerations, what mechanisms, and what type of leadership is necessary to address our fiscal challenge. i trust we will hear about all of this this afternoon. our first met senator portman in january 2002. at the time, i with the new hire and the house ways and means committee and he was a 6 time congressman. his most recent accomplishment

had been a series of critical reforms to the tax code to encourage retirement savings. they are known to be a key component of the tax cuts and the only portion that was later made into permanent lot of the tax cuts. in those 10 years, i have had two jobs, that when and this one. after serving in the house, he was the u.s. trade representative, director of the omb in 2006-2007, and now serves the citizens of ohio. his interests are for the whole country and i can tell you from personal experience that he constantly seeks out the latest economic research in pursuit of any policy to reduce the unemployment rate, accelerate the rate of growth, and improve the standard of living for all americans. i have always appreciated the opportunity to work with senate

report men and welcome here today. he will speak for 30 minutes and take questions after that. following the q&a, we will have a panel discussion with kevin hassett, andrew biggs, norman ornstein and william gale. senator, the floor is yours. [applause] >> alex, thanks to. i have taken full advantage of aei staff. alex brill made a mistake of showing me that he knew his way around, not only on policy but politics, which is a dangerous and a rare combination. i expect you to continue to give me guidance and advice. i also want to thank other friends at aei, andrew biggs, kevin hassett, and norman

ornstein. i continue to seek your help and guidance. i appreciate it. mark has provided me a lot of that is because his wife is my legislative director. i know he has had a lot of late- night particularly over the last several months. alex mentioned my four months on the so-called super-committee which, in fact, i found it to be not so super most of the time, but it was an incredibly important experience to have. we learned a lot about how we can move forward even though the super-committee was not successful. one positive aspect was that i got an avalanche of good ideas. i said up reform on my website for ohioan is to give ideas. as of monday, we had 17,462 submissions. they ended up coming in from all over the country, but a lot of

good common sense ideas. those include changing unemployment benefits to incentivize hiring by giving small businesses a tax incentive, privatizing and reforming fannie mae and freddie mac, a tax credit for seniors who choose to forgo medicare and social security. as you can see, these are good substantial ideas. some of which we were able to work into the process, but in the and were not successful. my favorite idea was from john in cincinnati. his idea was that the united states should merge with canada. i told him when i responded that we should do it quickly because prime minister harper was about to cut their corporate tax rate to 15%. we may be losing some business unless we do that. what i would like to do today is to talk about some of these ideas and enter into a dialogue

about what comes next after the super committee. first, i think it is helpful to remind ourselves why the committee was formed in the first place. as alex talked about, there is a divide in the washington which is reflective of the divide in the country on these fundamental issues. the super committee, i think, was born at that divided government and different philosophies, but also by the fact that our fiscal and economic challenges are too urgent not to address. the committee was set up with special expedited procedures were we could provide to the house and senate on a majority vote basis rather than the normal supermajority in the senate, a product that was voted on without amendment. i was asked to join the committee by our leadership. it is not something that i sought, but when i was asked i

accepted it. why did so knowing that it would be very tough to reach consensus. i did so in the context of a comment made by a colleague that it would be like having a root canal. i agree that it would probably be close, but too critical for us not to try. we just cannot wait for someone else. my view was and remains the cannot wait for the next president, the next congress. we need to act, and we need to act now. the urgency is particularly profound because of what has happened over the last few years. the economic policies that this administration has followed and what the congress did has made the problems even more urgent because they have accelerated the potential for an economic and fiscal train wreck. some would say that the answer is raising the tax rates and that our current tax burden could not generate the revenues

needed to burden this big and complex country. i would remind that four years ago, back in 2007, we had almost a balanced budget with the same tax code we have today and the same tax rate. when i left the omb in 2007, that fiscal year the budget was $161 billion, one eighth of today's deficit to representing 1.2% of the economy. discretionary spending, the non- emergency annually appropriated spending was 17% lower in fiscal year 2007 and this today. there has been a big spike in terms of spending. obviously, the financial crisis and the subsequent recession has led to reduced revenues. no question about it. the big increase has also been driven by unprecedented spending

that expands the size and scope of government without the economic benefits. in a few short years, this administration has presided over a 21% increase in the growth of government and has taken spending as a share of the economy to levels we have not seen since world war ii. the president, at this point, seems intent on tumbling down on his policies. his september submission to the super-committee said it all. ignoring the recommendations of his own debt reduction commission, he proposed $1.60 trillion in new taxes but no reform to bring solvency to are troubled entitlement programs. instead, he asked the super- committee of to handle even more spending. he proposed a $447 billion new stimulus bill, his so-called

jobs plan and asked the super committee not only to handle what we have been asked, but an additional $447 billion of deficit reduction which made our job harder. despite the absence of the president's leadership on trying to make our job easier and come counter to what you may have heard, i do believe my democratic and republican colleagues on the committee worked with a sense of purpose and in good faith. i think the members tried to come up with a sensible solution. in the end, the same court philosophical differences that have paralyzed the congress from making process -- progress also prevented us from coming to an agreement. the failure to this is leaving me more determined to forge ahead of the twin challenges of our time, building the economic

and fiscal policies necessary to unleash the job creation potential of the economy and restore our nation's long-term fiscal health. these challenges remain even though the committee is gone. by the way, these two challenges, only with a growing economy and a larger tax makes will we be able to turn back the tide of record deficits and the huge debt that we face. failing to address our fiscal crisis in a serious way makes it difficult to get the economy moving. it only erodes our competitiveness in the world. saying we can tackle either the financial crisis, which is worn out by the $15 trillion debt the we had reported just two weeks ago or we can address the economic slump, to me, is a false choice. they go hand in hand.

the mounting debt is a drag on job creation. there are various studies that have looked at this. one was a 2008 study by common reinhart who have come before us in congress and met with a number of us as a part of an expanded gang of six to talk about their research and how they came up with their conclusions. once the country's debt burden -- 90% of the economy, you have a significant downturn in economic growth. they say it is about a 1%-2% drop in gdp. that would it leave us 20% smaller than we would otherwise be. if we do not get our debt to gdp ratio, which is now add 100%, equal the sign of our whole economy, we will continue to create 1 million fewer jobs annually.

the pressure of the annual deficit and debt does have an impact short-term in our economy. that needs to be a acknowledged as well as the longer-term generational issues that it represents. let's be clear. we have a primarily a long-term spending problem. that is the number-one issue. it is not a revenue problem. even if we kept the current tax rates in place, meaning that taxes would not go up one year from now or one month from now, revenues are still expected to rebound above the historical average of 18% based on the non- partisans cbo analysis. even if you assume that the so- called bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of next year, continue, we still have revenue to the% of g.d.p. above the historical average. if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire, revenues by

2014 would top 20% of gdp, or one-tenth above the historical average. the deficit is rising in large part because of the tough economic times, but also because of federal spending. 20% of the economy has jumped to 24% this year. without changes come again based on cbo projections, it will rise to 30%, 40%, 50% over the coming decades. you have heard those pushing for higher taxes appeal to the need for a balanced approach. i give you $1 in spending cuts, you give me $1 in new taxes. i think this misses the big picture. raising tax rates to chase soaring spending would upset far more fundamental balance in our country which is the balance between the government and a

free and vibrant economy. more space for government means less space for individual americans to enjoy risk-taking and innovation. a massive tax increase would deal a blow to the fragile u.s. economy begin to diminish wages and fewer jobs. even a large tax increases cannot keep up with are dangerous levels of spending. some of you know glenn hubbard. he recently calculated that accommodating the president's spending plans in his budget would require across-the-board tax increases of 20% over the next decade and 60% over the next 25 years. that would make even my most aggressive democratic counterparts blush. the short of it is if we do not deal with this problem we cannot fix the impending fiscal crisis. the tax system is broken. once fixed, it can help to get our economy moving and raise more revenue through growth.

we need to be sure that we are modernizing our entitlement programs. along with pro-growth tax reform, which is needed, we need the modernization of these important programs which are otherwise unsustainable. we need savings through government-wide sitting reform. as an alternative to proposals from committee democrats for $1 trillion or more in revenues, republicans supported pro-growth tax reform to produce a more efficient tax system while yielding new revenues. they would be raised by scaling back itemize deductions while lowering marginal rates for all taxpayers. economists helped influence this proposal. the best way would be to

reinvest all the savings into broadening the base. lowering rates would create jobs and the economic analysis on that is clear. in the context of this committee, we were willing to concede some for the sake of savings to cheaper-growth reform and avoid the risk of the largest increase in american history one year from now. we sought tax certainty. entrepreneurialism and small- business owners are well aware that one year and one month from now there is a risk that taxes could increase dramatically. a $3 trillion tax hike is currently scheduled. it would lower marginal rates in order to get more investment off the sidelines to create jobs. we were not successful in that effort because most democrats were not prepared to work from that remark.

all was not lost on the pro- growth front. i may strong advocate -- i am a strong advocate. there is a broadly accepted consensus that lower rates are critical to our competitiveness. they said "portman is the most aggressive, he is the choice of what in the room -- the chihuahua in the room yapping about it." a do not think that was meant as a compliment, but i think it is critical. as part of deliberations, colleagues and i ever been outside of the aisle collaborated to put together a proposal that was scored as deficit neutral by the non- partisanship joint committee on taxation. i will soon introduce pro-growth

corporate tax reform that is revenue neutral, but lowers the rate to 25%, and moves to make territorial tax system. i hope to have co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. with the exception of japan, the u.s. has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. over the past 20 years, every one of the major foreign competitors has moved to cut rates. 20 years ago, the average among the developed countries in the oecd was 39%. the u.s. alone has failed to enact a to make its corporate tax system more competitive and we are paying for it. as reported, despite our higher rates, we collect less. high tax jurisdictions like united states have a harder time

attracting new investment which translates into fewer jobs created. some have criticized our current system to allow big companies to pay little or no taxes. this base broadening approach we are talking about would insure all companies pay taxes through a more efficient tax code that will create more jobs. american workers are paying the price in more ways than one. but studies have shown the burden of high corporate rate falls mostly on labor. the cbo has reported all this is born in the form of lower wages. it is no wonder that policy makers across the spectrum, the obama administration, chairman owles-ucus, the b simpson commission as all called for us to change the tax code.

we want to bring it down to 25% by reducing inefficiencies, preferences, and exemptions. to those who say it cannot be done, we have an estimate showing me can do it in a deficit neutral basis. the higher rate is not the only obstacle to competitiveness. it penalizes u.s. companies are reinvesting profits they earn overseas back here at home. this gives them a choice between keeping them abroad or pay the tax bill. the lock out effect has made it $1.50 trillion overseas translating into a foregone u.s. jobs. this will move to a territorial tax system means we tax income where it is generated, as a vast majority of our competitors do. by adopting this scheme, we will empower corporations to compete

and win customers in foreign markets around the world. the trade agreements recently enacted by congress were incredibly important to get the u.s. back in the game of breaking down foreign barriers to products and services. we need to do more there. it is time to eliminate the tax- driven competitive disadvantage of our own making. this is essential in job creation. the joint committee on taxation, sometimes known to be skeptical of so-called dynamic scoring, reported that reductions in corporate marginal rates have the greatest effect on long-term growth. by lowering rates and moving to a territorial system, we can do something big and permanent at a critical time when we need to strengthen our economy and create more jobs. at a time when we also need to help reduce the deficit through growth revenues. the second major front of

deficit reduction, as noted, is entitlement modernization. it is impossible to tackle the mounting debt without addressing the current unsustainable costs of social security, medicare, and medicaid. the long-term costs of these is projected to squeeze out the cost of every other federal program within a couple of decades, leaving little or nothing for other government priorities. take medicare. it is projected to spend $6 trillion over the next decade. there is a perception that all benefits are pre-funded through payroll taxes and therefore they could not or should not be reformed. let me give you an example of a typical two-income couple retiring today with an income of $50,000 or more. they will have paid $119,000 in a lifetime medicare taxes yet will receive $357,000 in the

medicare benefits. $3 in benefits for everyone dollar collected. without structural reform, medicare, as we know it, is not sustainable. some democrats, including the white house press secretary, and secretary chuck schumer on "meet the press" yesterday that it died gave democrats credit for putting an entitlement reform on the table. -- noted that i gave democrats credit. it is critical in coming together to address the issue. what senator schumer and the white house press secretary failed to mention, conveniently, it is i said that they only did so because of the $1 trillion tax increases over the next decade. it is critical to address this crisis. part of the reason we have a

crisis is because congress long ago chose to put these programs on autopilot. the united states shows come and it is the only country in the world that i can find, not to have a budget for these entitlement programs. when you look around the world that other countries, even countries that have very generous programs, they have a budget for health care. the united states does not. we set eligibility and benefit guidelines and write a check. social security is budgeted similarly. we should not be surprised when the autopilot costs grow rapidly. the roughly 40% of the budget that the discretionary is subject to annual appropriations. there is an annual debate and a spirited discussion as to what our priorities are. at the end of the day our votes. along with that comes accountability.

the largest and fastest part of our budget, there is no mechanism to budget for the costs or make trade-offs among competing priorities. a bipartisan coalition of think tanks and former cbo directors has suggested putting entitlements on a long-term budget. then have a congress keep those programs on the budget or to taste the consequence, certain reforms built into the system to provide -- but these programs on the budget or face the consequences. i tend to introduce legislation along these lines. the american people cannot afford more blank checks without accountability. the third front of deficit reduction exists of non- entitlement federal spending. i continue to support the cap and a balanced legislation to return spending to a historical average. in my time as omb director, i became more convinced it was

time for washington to have the discipline of a balanced budget. just as the vast majority of our states do. until a balanced budget can be enacted, congress has not proved its mettle as a steward of taxpayer dollars including waste, duplication, and spending in the discretionary portion of the budget. it needs to earn the trust of the people in order to reform those important entitlement programs. but federal spending should go unexamined. clearly, washington is not working. the nation's mounting debt and deficit are holding back job creation keeping millions of americans on the part. in my view, another round of stimulus spending is not the answer. we tried that. we need entrepreneurs to come off the sidelines and higher and invest. the way to do that is pro-growth policy including corporate tax reform to bring hundreds of billions of dollars back to these shores and budget reform

forcing washington's insurance and programs. adding common sense reductions will have the a truly balanced approach to deficit reduction and job creation. while a final resolution eluded us, we can benefit through lengthy discussions. democrats and republicans alike gained a better understanding of each other's the appointed for remarks -- each other's viewpoints and free markets. we voted for fundamental tax reform, generated discussion in federal pay and benefits, property sales, fees, agriculture programs. after all, the committee may have expanded, but the profound fiscal and economic issues have not gone away. in fact, that will become more pressing. we have always come together as americans to solve tough problems from the great

depression two world wars. we can solve this problem, too, but only if we work together as republicans, democrats, and independents to roll up our sleeves and force a consensus to meet the twin challenges of our time. thank you for having me with you today and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> senator, we have about 10 minutes for a q&a. do you want to call on your own? i can do that. >> thank you. my name is todd. the believe there is any validity in the criticisms that have been promoted by the occupy wall street and occupied d.c. movements with respect to tax reform in general?

>> i address that briefly, because one of the things that occurred not just from occupy wall street but critics of our current tax system is that there are corporations to do not pay any taxes. as i said earlier, part of the answer is to have a fundamental reform of the tax code, broaden the base. the reason some corporations do not pay taxes is that they take advantage of the complexity in our tax code. in order to lower the rate to 25% and do so on a revenue neutral basis, but we get rid of most of the complexity. companies that currently pay little to no taxes will be paying a higher effective rate. other companies that do not take advantage of those preferences and tax breaks in the code will be paying lower taxes.

and also leads to a more efficient tax code where resources are allocated in a way that helps create economic growth and jobs. to me, it is a classic example of what we can do across party lines addressing those concerns. this super-committee process was frustrating and we did not achieve what i hoped we would. we did achieve some results. one was coming together as republicans and democrats alike and putting together a framework for dealing with this issue of corporate taxes. i am hopeful that one of the products of the committee is that congress will now have the ability to move forward on this. there has not been a joint tax committee scored revenue neutral at 25% and territorial ever in the history of the u.s. congress, so this is something that, i thank, will be able to help move this forward.

>> yes? >> from the great state of ohio. we are very lucky to have you in the senate and on the super- committee, even if it did not work out. i know you were desirous of getting into the next opportunity to address these issues. if you could -- you have also said that we cannot wait until the next round of elections. what do you see is the possibility for moving some of these issues along to a final package that can be passed? >> as i said earlier, it would have been a great opportunity because of the special expedited procedures. it is very difficult to have a

controversial issue addressed in the senate because it requires 60 votes, except for rare exceptions like reconciliation, and also subject to amendments. this was an opportunity that was missed, in my view. having said that, i still think there is the opportunity over the next year to make significant process -- a significant progress. i say that for three reasons. i think the committee put forward a lot of good ideas that now can be picked up by members on both sides of the aisle in both houses. i mentioned the corporate tax reform ideas come entitlement ideas come and the non- entitlement spending ideas that we spend an enormous amount of time on. as did the commission before us, as did the bowles-simpson, and the rivlin-domenici commission

did. we have to address a lot of tough issues. immediately, insurance extension, a payroll tax extension, and other tax extenders' at the year end. there are about 87, at my last count. at the end of next year, 13 months from now, we will once again be dealing with this issue of the 2001 and 2003 taxes and the alternative minimum tax. without addressing them, we're talking about a $3 trillion tax increase on the 2001 and 2003 rates. i think it is even more when you include the amt and other extenders. the conversation on to be about economic growth and deficit reduction, not just how to deal with specific issues expiring

and needs to be addressed. third, although, as i said earlier, i think the committee represented a lot of where congress and the american people are, i think people are looking dancers here on the spending side. i was back, over the last several days, and a lot of people spoke to me about the direction our country is headed and what we need to do. people are more and more informed and educated about what the situation is and are willing to make tough choices. i think the environment is conducive to making some of these tough decisions. maybe not at the level that some have called for, going bigot, which is something that i would support with the right balance, and i supported two budget proposals that do go big, one being the brian budget that

passed the house but did not pass the senate and reduces deficits by $6 trillion over the next 10 years. the environment is there. both because there are more proposals to build the foundation to force some specific legislation because of the inevitable decisions that we will all have to make and because of the environment. over the next year, there is a good possibility for reform and that is what i will continue to work on. i am disappointed in what happened with regard to the super-committee, but more determined than ever to address these issues. yes. >> good to see you again, senator. on the individual income tax side, do you envision there will be further limitations on the

home mortgage interest deduction? >> as i said earlier, i think of remark that some of us supported in the committee process supported free mark that would require big changes in the way the individual tax code treats not just mortgage deductions but also tax preferences. i mentioned marty feldstein who gave a speech at the aei annual dinner several months ago about this very topic. there are trillions on expenditures in the tax code cited much of it should be considered much like spending and set of tax policy. i think there is some truth to that. when you look at individual tax reform, there seems to be a consensus building around lowering the marginal rates, broadening the base by either

eliminating or eliminating some of the tax preferences, tax breaks, tax loopholes, expenditures, what everyone to call them. -- whatever you want to call them. the republican candidates all seem to have their own idea, and i will not get into 9-9-9 or 2020 in 20. i think all of the current expenditures of the code will be a subject close examination. at the end of the day, i do believe, as i said, that i am a supporter of tax reform and i believe lower rates will create economic growth. i believe that is part of the solution to not just our economic problems but our deficit problem is because more growth leads to more revenues through more economic activity and more growth. yes.

>> hello, senator. from "the washington post." some have called for a vote on the simpson-bowles plan. it is does seem like there are any efforts under way for that. is that though something you would support, or do you think there are other ways that there could be another shot at big deficit reduction? >> it is an interesting idea. the issue, of course, is that there is no legislative proposal. we of gotten scores from the joint committee on taxation and the cbo, going through that process, the discipline of that sometimes alters the way your proposal looks. i would be supportive of any proposal like that coming to the floor and having a vote, but i think there is a challenge, honestly, in taking some great

ideas and reducing them to a legislative language that is vetted and scored. we had a number of ideas, as i said, that were sent in that were serious, some not so much like merging with canada, but we cannot get a score on them. one example is selling federal property. there is excess or under- utilized federal property. the have a hard time giving a score on something like that. we tried to set of various mechanisms to do it including a sequester of agency budgets unless they sold a certain amount of property, but that is one of the ideas from the gang of six and some symbols -- and simpson-bowles. part of the challenges coming up the legislative language and literally scoring it to make

sure that it can meet the congressional budget office and the congressional tax committees estimates of deficit reduction. it is more complicated than taking a proposal and putting it on the floor because there is not legislative language attached to it yet and it has not been scored. it would take a while. i think something could be constructed. i am not sure what the numbers will look like in the end, but it is an effort worthy of trying. yes. >> thank you very much, senator. elizabeth sinclair, tea party patriot. i was wondering if you and your republican compatriots would get together and have a new to gingrich-style -- a newt gingrich style press conference. we are in a catastrophe and do not have in other year to wait,

as you said. if you get your word out to the american people who are angry, upset, very concerned. as wonderful and measured it as you are, we feel like we are in serious trouble and we need to get the word out to the masses. thank you. fiscal contract for america, to get it out to us, please? >> i worked a lot on an economic platform for america through the united states senate republican caucus. i took the lead on putting together a jobs plan. the first part of it was fiscal issues. they are connected. we cannot get the economy moving until there is more certainty on what is happening in the fiscal side. as an addendum, it ought to be both. it ought to be fiscal issues and getting the economy moving. i talked about tax reform today

because that is something that i am now going to be trying to promote that includes regulatory relief, lower health-care costs through sensible proposals to the consumer more in charge. it has to include more energy development, exploration, and use which would create more jobs in states like ohio and elsewhere. and has to include, in my view, greatly expanded trade and access to customers outside of the united states. most countries do a lot more of that than we do and it would create enormous potential for more jobs here. we need to do a better job of communicating on all those issues, but it cannot believe you can solve one without the other. i do not know how you deal with these -- maybe 12 points. ours was 7, which seemed a lot. it is critical. we have got ourselves into such a deep fiscal hole that is not possible for us, in my view, to get out of that deep fiscal hole

without doing but spending reductions -- both spending reductions and smart growth policies to be able to work our way out of it. the overhang is now too heavy. i would hope that we, as republicans come and come up for that matter, republicans and democrats alike would to a better job explaining the challenges to the american people and understanding the challenges and coming up a smart solutions. it is not easy, as we have found out through the process. there are some very strong feelings on both sides of the aisle, on our side about revenues come on the democrat side about entitlements. the democrats put entitlements on the table, and i give them credit for that, but also i make the point about republicans putting revenue on the table in the context of for-reform -- pro-growth reform. there were difficult challenges we face in the committee, but

there were also some lines that were crossed which forms the basis for an eventual solution. >> senator, we would love it for you to stay all afternoon. we will have one more. >> senator, two things. i am assuming that the democratic commission you're working with on a corporate tax reform was at least senator baucus. would you expect support from him if you brought your bill forward to the full senate? secondly, why you think democrats would not agree to a smaller deal around $600 billion, like we heard mentioned earlier? i am with the national journal. thank you. >> i have avoided talking about my colleagues in the committee for four months, much to the dismay to the people in the press. i do not want to start now talking about what happened

behind closed doors. with respect to chairman baucus, he is very interested in corporate and individual tax reform. he has made that known. he has done a lot of work in that area, as had senator hatch. i worked with both of their staffs over the last three or four months on this issue. i do think that both of them are very interested. i believe, in this case, there is a common approach to not just lowering the rates and broadening the base, but putting this out as a priority because they understand it is important for economic growth and deficit reduction. with regards to my colleagues -- could you state that second question? >> do you think it would agree to a smaller deal? >> i have talked about that some public built -- publicly already. it is too bad. at the end of the day, there was

a proposal to at least make significant progress, not to hit the $1.20 trillion market, but at least halfway there. as alex said, that is where he thought we were likely to end up. i was more optimistic we would hit our goal to avoid sequestration altogether. that $600 billion included some changes on the entitlement side with needs testing, but there was also a proposal for $550 billion to take that out, so even without any health care, or for that matter, and vitamin changes, there was an opportunity to move forward. -- or for that matter entitlement changes. you'll have to ask them why it did not move forward. it is too bad, because that would have taken us in the right direction in terms of dealing with mandatory spending. the biggest part of the budget

and the fastest part of the budget, so it would not have made the fundamental and structural changes that need to be made, but it would have taken this down the road as opposed to the sequester which focuses on the discretionary side of the budget. you'd have to ask democrats for more detail on that. thank you all. [applause] >> i will just ask the panelists to come forward. no need to get out of your seat, unless you are a panelist, and we will move right to the next part of the show. what is just taking a short break here to get the panelist speakers seated for more discussion. we are talking about the failure of the joint the deficit

reduction committee. you are watching live coverage here on c-span. >> ok. we will move now quickly to our panel as our fellow panelists move up. i am kevin hassett, director of

policy studies. we assembled this panel to discuss where next for the super-committee in part because the failure of the super- committee has been a very frustrating thing for a lot of people in the think tank community in washington. there was a moment where people thought that maybe there is a chance that the right thing would happen and then at the super-committee failed. it is almost impossible to discern why they failed. but alex mention there was a lot of finger-pointing. if you had a body that broke up and you ask why and they said, "we just decided to be friends." there is more to it, but we cannot quite decide what. thinking about politics of how to construct a committee so that it can be successful in the economics of how to have a plan where everyone who is reasonable

should vote for it, we decided to follow up senator portman's discussion with one of our own. to kick this off, i turned to my colleague, norman ornstein, only because he is the only analyst that knows any jokes. >> i must say, kevin, i am tempted to start with a story that i have used in this room before, but that it fits even more where we are now. it is a story that takes place in a first your anatomy class in medical school. the professors is in the socratic method and says the question of the date is what a human organ, when appropriately stimulated, grossed eight times normal size? he looks around the room and says, "ms. simpson?" she would not answer. he looks to the other side of the room and he says, "mr. bowles?" and he answers the people of the human eye.

you did not do your homework, you have a dirty mind, and you are doomed to live a life of unfulfilled expectations. to anyone who deals with these kinds of issues, we are doomed to live lifetimes of unfulfilled expectations. in this case, i was not quite where alex brill was, but i was cautiously optimistic we would get somewhere. part of the reason was because rob portman was on it. he has an unparalleled blend of experiences in his professional lifetime that includes working as either an internal or a lowly assistant to alan simpson on the immigration issue but moving forward to being a member of the house known for his bipartisan efforts, budget director, trade representative, before moving on to the senate.

he understands as well as anyone that, given the shakiness in europe, the troubles in the global economy, that we are no longer just plan with -- playing with fire, but atomic weapons. there would be an urgency to act and a recognition and come up as much as the super-committee leaves many of us who believe in the regular order of the process uneasy, these extra and unusual actions are not really the way you would ideally like to go. having the ability to take whatever you produce be brought forward for an up or down expedited vote within a filibuster, no delay tactics, and no amendments was an unparalleled opportunity to get summer. why? i offer a couple of reasons.

one, which robert alluded to at the end, and i was optimistic in part because the template was there. we know what the bipartisan template is and i was looking at the $4 trillion, which i believe is much easier to do than a smaller number. you put everything on the table, and we know from simpson- bowles, rivlin-domenici, and everything else that coming from revenues tied to tax reform that reduces rates and broadens the base and then a substantial slice of what is left from reducing the growth of where the real budget increases will be, which is the big entitlement programs. the template was there, but one reason did not happen is because they are templates. from all the enormous amount of

works that the commissioner did in commissioners and staff and did, and the six senators and their staff did on the gang of six, all of those are templates. they offer ideas. it turned out in the four months turning that into something concrete was a heavier with than it might have been. i am disappointed because i do not think they started very long looking at that before they move beyond it, for the reason that we do have a deeper level of this function then i have seen in my 42 years here in washington, and that played out inside, a much more than it did in the efforts outside. it is baffling actually in some ways that we could not go beyond it. when i looked at that adds,

looking of the republican members and the committee, what it said to me is, and from what i know of the deliberations inside, you did have democrats willing to go an extra mile or more on the entitlement front. the proposals were somewhat to the right of some symbols in terms of what they were willing to do. you just could not get there on the tax front on the republican side, and there is an in balance their peer yen what the opposite says is we could not do anything because democrats would not get off the one trillion dollars on the tax increase front. and it is one trillion dollars for four trillion dollar overall deficit reduction, it than that is just where all the other committees are little bit less when there -- where they would be. if that is off the table from the beginning, you will not get

very far. if you start to move from the four trillion, which requires very significant moving, but you also have to include social security and medicaid into the package, and you take the tax issue off the table, and then you start to look at what you can do on a 1.2 trillion dollar front, which means most of it will have to come from discretionary spending, which has already taken hits over and over again, including the 900 billion that were part of the deal that led to the creation of the super committee, you are just not going to find it possible to do so. if you start to move down towards 500 billion, which will be seen by the public rating agency and others as not much better than complete failure because you're taking another tiny baby step, but you are taking off the table now some of the things that you could agree on. eliminating or reducing the

possibility dobber road of coming to the grand bargain. i think i would have been at resistant to going in that direction as well. once they moved past the notion of going for gold, of going for the grand bargain, which was not 4 trillion, but 3 trillion because we already have 900 billion done, and could have been made much easier by using consensus, even if it is somewhat phone me. -- somewhat phony. it seemed to me it was doable, and it is the tribal politics that are keeping us from getting there. while we will see movement forward, i am uneasy about the notion that you will move forward with corporate tax reform. if you do this in individual pieces, you take away pieces

that make it possible to meet all the pieces together. but you do have at the possibility of a broader tax reforms in broadening the base in reducing rates if you can make added revenues of part of the package, and you do have the ability to reach into the entitlement areas. let me make one last comment. we have a different dynamic as we move towards 2012. on the one hand the next month will be an affirmation of how awful power politics are, because we have not just all of these tax issues on the table right now that have to be dealt with one way or another without creating more consequences from the payroll tax cut for word, you also have the fix if we do not deal with payments to

doctors under medicare, they will drop by a substantial percentage, which would cause havoc among medicare recipients , and across the board. doing that requires offsets, which will be very tough in this environment post-failure by the super committee. next year we get to sequesters, which are going to be very uncomfortable for everybody, and the expiration of the tax code. to some degree the dynamic of this schists, and if obama holds to his firm commitment to keep the sequesters in place and less -- unless they reach a deal and renegotiate a sizable portion of the tax cuts, if you're talking about getting $800 billion in tax increases coming from the over $250,000 with nothing in return as compared to reaching a grand bargain where you get tax

reform and entitlement reform for it, i think you will see recalculation on the part of the participants about whether they want to come to the cable -- table and do something. suppose the next administration, the president called you up and said i really believe might economists have convinced me that i have to move on fiscal consolidation, what are the lessons from the super committee? should i have another super committee? should i not? and am i a political force to try? >> i think if i were to answer that question, the first thing i would want to do is in fact move much closer to operational lies

in the legislative language some amalgam of the best ideas of simpson-bowls and tom coburn has his own ideas on how to reduce spending, some parts of it i think could reach a bipartisan agreement as well. i want to have something ready to go. i would propose another process, something like the super committees to make it happen. i would remind you we actually have that. when the president created the simpson commission, he did not do it on his own. it was done because congress had a fast-tracked commission progress that was put out there. seven original co-sponsors of the congressionally-created committee voted against their own plan because they did not want to give the president what looked like a political victory.

that would have been much more effective. if i were coming in as president, i would want a package in operational terms like those three ready to go, and a process to make it happen. >> just thinking about advice for the current administration if it repeats or the next, isn't it historically true that the president can take a leadership position on this because he has a large staff? he has all these guys that know how to score things and can do so in a way that is consistent with what you get? then't this sort of -- administrative staff and more or less out of the game completely in the past couple of years and that may be part of the problem? >> the area where i fault obama the most here is a failure, especially at the state of the

union message to a week ago -- a week ago, to increase it in concept, and move forward to a legislative vote, but use his resources to start to operational lies -- operational lies that. having said that, part of the reason i had cautious optimism is a tax that was ready to roll their. i think you can have tax reform fairly quickly. all you need to do is look at combination of rates and where he would put the cap in terms of adjusted gross income with the revenue unit to raise. you could do that. the congressional budget office was ready to go if they have been able to come up with something fairly quickly. we have operated with a whole heine bought -- at least several bankers of one hand behind our

backs in terms of pushing this forward. a lot of that represents what we have now in a toxic political environment. sadly i did not think the next election will somehow cause all of that to go away. i think it becomes harder. i would much rather see something done in 2012, because i think it becomes harder to do in 2013. >> thank you. i share the disappointment in terms of how the super committee turned out. the failure of this and the failure of other efforts over the past year have made me reassess some of the things one context i have is if you look back in the past several decades, liberals and conservatives had a means of

living together because they could step to suspend. in effect, liberals could have big government, and the to pretend they did not have big government by virtue of the fact there were not paying for it. the ability to borrow help to smooth over the ideological differences between the parties. and now we're coming to a day of reckoning were you cannot do that anymore, where the money is running out. they're having to look each other and i and say where are we? the reality is the political parties have very different views about the proper role of the federal government and the size and scope and activity of the federal government in terms of the economy and in terms of people's lives. there is always a perception this is a failure to communicate and people need to get down in the room together. in part we did not just disagree.

there was a social security commission in 2001. there was a real effort to cut a deal. what i said to other folks there is you do know they disagree with you on this? they simply blue -- few things differently than you do, and that will be a difficult thing to get around? . -- view things differently than you do, and that will be a difficult thing to get around. there are a lot of people in the world to feel that way, so there is nothing illegitimate about it i think that explains a little bit the failure -- the difficulty to come to agreement on this. the conventional wisdom is where we split the difference and a 50/50 down the middle, and that is how we should do it. if you are someone who is a democrat who really believes in the entitlement programs or

thinks it is a really improve -- important contributions to society, even splitting it down middleman's reining back the proper and vision and of the government. likewise, if you are republican, you think the government is already spending too much. essentially you are walking yourself into a government that is significantly larger and likely to grow. so there is a readjusting of baselines that i think would be a little bit tricky to do. on a substantive basis, one of the reasons why i worry a little bit about the conventional splitting the difference approach is i am not really sure it would work out well. kevin and i and one of my colleagues did some work over the past year where we look that

different countries around the world and their efforts to balance the budget and reduce debt, and we said, which countries succeeded in which failed? and what was the difference between them? what we found is the typical successful attempt was not 50 percent signed spending cuts, it was really more like 85% spending cuts. and the spending share rose the bigger the fiscal gap you have to solve. so the question it raises in terms of you -- if you are someone who says i want to favor what i see as good policy, is there any conceivable approach on the super committee that would fit into what we think would be good policy. this is likely to succeed and lead to good outcomes down the road that would be likely to get good support from the committee. i am not sure that really

existed. you want your government to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. also be able to do good policy in the sense that something will be actually successful and addressing the problems we face in terms of the budget and something that will not be having a deleterious effect on the economy. and i am not sure your diagram of politics and policy at an intersection in this case. the question is where you go from here? the other conventional wisdom answer is we need an election to decide this. if an election would decide, i think that would be great, but the way our political structures work is that even if president obama is defeated and republicans retake the senate, which seems possible, then you ship the democrats and senate's

into the mischief-making role the republicans have been in. they will enjoy the role, but we're more of us back where we started. i think we have a bigger problem and a structural problem in terms of how politics allows us to get on top of these things. it is easy to say the tone in congress is that in need to get better people to run for office. the economic point of view is people react to structures and incentives. the structures we have made it very hard to get anything done that. i took a quick look at data on other countries in the size of the fiscal gap, the size of the long-term budget deficits they face. i looked at other anglo countries, countries that have similar political countries to us, with the exception of the u.k., the other and the low countries -- anglo countries

have much smaller fiscal gaps that we are. is this because they're better people than us? probably not. they have structures that enable them to get on top of things. part of the problem we have with the increase division in congress between the parties, which comes from congressional districts that are set up, and increased use of the filibuster that makes it harder to pass things. those sorts of things make it hard to get on top of these problems. an example i give is i started working over 10 years on social security. it is a relatively straightforward problem. we all know and admit the longer you wait, the harder it gets. here we are with exactly the same point as before except for we of lost a chance to make progress. there is something uniquely

dysfunctional about how to process this that makes it very hard to get on top of. i think backing structural changes -- lacking structural changes we will meander along of things. part of what we need to do is to focus discussion idea is to say we have big choices to make going forward. it does not just a question of we will do everything we were doing up until today, but doing a little bit less of it. i think we need to make bigger, more fundamental questions about the source -- sorts of things the government is going to do, how it is one to collect revenue and from whom. the downside is politicians, much like teenagers, do not focus on a task until the night

before it is due. . eventually they will have to focus on these things. the job but for people, be it the elected officials or people in think tanks like we are, is to talk to the public to say these are the choices you face, and you have to think about not where we are just today, but what sort of governments you want going forward. certainly over the next year or so, that is the challenge people face but it may extend longer than that. >> think you. putting on my next president a hat, just suppose i made the following argument. i said president obama tried to do it and did not work out well for him. the one thing he passed with the health care bill, and that was a political disaster.

so why should i bother even trying. i have a three-year horizon. three years from now i will start running for reelection. i think i consider putting it off for three years without causing a calamity, so why should i do it now? >> that is the rational consideration. there will always be some president or congress where you cannot put it off, but the reason why these things do not get addressed, is because you can. >> we're going to pass the road map or health care reform or whatever you think will make things sustainable for the long- term, and recognize you will take a political hit for it. you may lose your job or whatever. i do get democrats some credit

on the health care reform. a lot of them are willing to bite the bullet and just do it. lacking people who have that sort of political death wish, it is very hard to get people to focus on what needs to get done today, versus what you can put off until tomorrow. >> democrats presumably have things they could put in their mind that they believe they could accomplish that were worth the risk. maybe it was getting uninsured people injured, but you could list some things. what would you tell the president that he gets? what is the benefit he should be willing to bank his career on that he gets from fiscal consolidation? >> most have gone on record saying they support the right and road map towards mapstaxes. my guess is if that were passed,

and i do not know the mechanics of congress will enough to say how easy it would be to do it through reconciliation or whatever, but my guess is you would have some of low back -- blow back, but people would realize things were politically difficult to do. i suspect that the incentive there is do you want to have a lasting political legacy over the next not for years but 10 years or 20 years? you say just go for it, and then you could go back to the private sector. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for having me, and it is a pleasure to follow on norman andrew. for some reason this whole conversation reminds me of the

description between an optimist and septimus -- pessimist. an optimist thinks we live in the best of our world. a pessimist fears this is the case. i keep also waiting back and forth between optimism and pessimism as i hear people talk. i tried to organize my comments into six super commons. i will try to run through them quickly. i seem to be the only one in the ring surprise the super committee did not reach an agreement. i thought it was general consensus in the room when it was formed that that had a tough uphill effort. i was not surprised at all they did not reach an agreement. first, they did not to. teen-agers do not start their homework till the night before it was to come in there was nothing do. -- teenagers do not start their homework until the night before it is due and there was nothing due.

i never understood why they would agree to one. true in specific cuts that they would then have to take heat for when there was already 1.2 trillion in general sequester cuts about to happen that they could say we are happy, but we did not specifically vote for that. third, the 1.2 trillion in sequesters were not the right competition -- composition to get republicans to the table. it the trekkers have had tax increases in them, you would have gone republicans to the table, and they would have talked. the administration caved on what the 1.2 in sequesters should have looked like, just like it caved on the overall package in august. so there was no real bargaining power to get republicans to talk about tax increases. you heard that in poor man's comments.

comments.'s having said that is not surprising, my comment is nonetheless remarkable they did not reach an agreement. one issue is they had a direct line to an up or down vote with no point of order, no amendment, no one even -- no funny business. i would have expected them to retain option somehow, even if they could not agree on something right now. the fact that they let that go down the drain i think it's remarkable. the other thing is yes, they need to cut 1.2 trillion, but they could choose the baseline. you can cut from any baseline or do whatever they wanted to in terms of baseline. they could have had a base line that had no tax revenues in this or 50% in gdp in tax

revenues and cut that by 1.2 trillion dollars and would have succeeded. the fact that they could choose their own baseline was remarkable. it is about a difference of one trillion dollars. so i felt like if you let me choose the baseline, i will give you what ever 1.2 trillion and cuts you want from the baseline. even being able to choose your own base line, 5 trillion, they could not come up with 1.2 s.illion in cut spirit an i do not want to spend a lot of time on whose fault it is. >> we believe you, bill. >> i will take my share of the blame. you, bille

. there is a lot about this i do not understand. first, why did they set the committee but there were not going to read -- work hard to reach a solution? third, why did they give up so publicly and quickly and easily? even in the nba they dissolve the union, filed a lawsuit, and then they all come back to the table and eat one more time to reach an agreement. there was no dog and pony show about how they're working hard to reach an agreement. they-shutdown and said we're not going to make it. that is a little baffling to me. fourth, it is how can you hope to have a serious discussion worth it -- fiscal policy going big with the white house not involved? fifth, what this this mean for the gang of six? are they back in the leadership

position now? if they are not, who is? last week, on the optimistic side, maybe this is what project -- progress looks like. it was only a year ago that the report was released. the manager replied was released almost exactly a year ago. in some ways the discussion has come a long ways. they did not reach an agreement, but this is a hard issue. maybe this is what success looks like. it is ugly and messy for a long time, but maybe it is all necessary to eventually reach the conclusion. the fifth point about is the economics about all of this. the answer is as far as i can tell, not at all. the economist magazine had a headline that said with a deficit reduction committee's failure american fiscal policy,

it is drifting in a dangerous direction. i thought that headline was 10 years too late. we have been drifting in a dangerous direction easily since 2001. implicitly before that in terms of the implicit liability we have been setting up. we have been drifting in a dangerous way for a long time. as far as i can tell, that does not change any of that. the real issue that was mentioned earlier has to do with getting the economy going. as long as the economy sticking around 9% unemployment were trillion dollar output gap, it will be very difficult to balance the budget, or even come close. last point, what we do going forward? if we do another committee,

other people have suggested this, i had the idea in august, maybe we shall let each party picks some or all of the other party's delegates to the committee? rather than having each party pick their own? the idea that might get you people more in the middle on both sides. some people are more difficult to work with than others. the second thing is that the deficit issue is not like buying a new pc or new ipad. if you are not sure if you want to buy a pc or an ipad, you wait six months or a year, and it becomes technically better and less expensive, and then you say now it is worth buying. the quality of the solution that are out there are not going to get any better over time. all of the major ideas are out

there, and they have been in all of these. even something like 9, 9, 9 is a flat tax and a sales tax put together in different combinations. the menu is not going to get any more attractive. waiting will not help us. in a way, the longer we wait, the harder the options become, because we have a larger issue to solve in a shorter amount of time. ultimately what will happen is not that the solutions change, but people's feelings about the solution will change. we will have to reach some agreement. i have a lot more to say, but i think being black speaker i will stop there. >> first question to follow up on the suggestion, but you think in some sense of that the leadership has failed a little

bit because they could have done a better job over the trucking center to put stuff in legislative language and have really hard scores that were almost exactly what they're going to do, so it is easy to know what they're going to happen, or is that just beyond our means? the you think that is maybe think tanks at fix stak should have invested in? >> you know, there is sort of -- i do not think that the lack of think tanks writing legislative language is holding back the process on the hill. if we had unlimited resources, we could devote stop to that, but i find legislative language very difficult to read. it is a specialty. you sort of have to be a lawyer

to understand a lot of legislative language, or a long- time staffer. i do not know -- i do not know that is a think tank comparative advantage. i think they have been out there a lot putting out the ideas suggested reforms. >> it did seem the hurdle this time around was they could not get everything scored in time and written up in time. maybe that is a problem with the super committee design. >> the problem with each of these reports is there are ideas that have not been operational lies down to a specific level that you could turn into a language in score. i do think what they can do is take the best of the reports and flush them out to a point where

then that the legislative council could turn them into legislative language, and then the cbo could score them. in the absence of that, let's this to the floor ande vote on that, but you cannot do that because there is no b role or guidelines that someone will have to turn into specifics. that is really too bad that a year later we have not really moved in that direction. >> i would follow up to emphasize how big of an issue that is. it does not really have a tax plan. it basically says if you eliminated all tax expenditures, you could do these rates. it does not actually propose any of those. it has some other things in there like governments

productivity rises of 2.5% per year. i do not know how you legislate that. it is simply not in legislative language. i think it was an accomplishment that they got that far then, and i do not know what the saying is about the amazing thing that the dog could walk -- whenever that say was. there is a long way to go from that to legislative language. at some point the legislators have to take responsibility for the fact we do not have legislative action. >> there may be f tax issue. and i have been involved in the social security end where you have to turn over scores very quickly, and that is an easier area to do it than probably taxes, and it is still very labor intensive to do.

i think you can get generalities on a variety of things, but i think nailing it down is pretty tough to do. >> we of a few minutes left for questions from the floor. identify yourself. try to make your statement in the form of a question if you can. >> i think the whole debt deal was ridiculous. most people agree the ratings were like 25 percent signed. -- 25%. main talking 0.4141. over a few days we learned it was over 10 years. what you really meant, maybe you realize, and i am sure it was

not intentional, but it turned into a dollar of debt increased to 10 cents of spending cuts. we knew at that time anyone with common sense would have the time to watch what was going on, knew that this was going to go way off the rails. and it did. they should have just started with it you had a one trillion dollar deficit for 2012, you could have offered it for 300 billion of cuts. the american people would have supported that. at least you get 250 in cuts, rather than 25 billion. and the other thing is on the effective tax rates, the top 2

percent signed -- the conservative messaging is fox news is not doing its job. can we move on to the question? >> yes. tax rates are 20 percent signed for the federal, and there are rabat 12% for state and local. -- 28% for the federal level. in addition to that, you have the regulatory tax system, and that is another 22 percent signed according to the cost of governing data, and the top 2 percent signed are incurring those costs as well, because we deal with the tax system more so. they are actually paying something like 27%. what you really have is like a

67% cost out of income for the top 2%. >> to get a final sentence -- >> to get a final statement. >> what you think of the conservative messaging on tv? do you think the main information gets to the voters intelligent decision?c >> i think both sides have to come to terms a little bit with what their ideologies imply. i think republicans have gone through with sooner and a little bit more help the process. nomething like the riney iyabn plan that says if you want to go

forward without raising taxes coming here are the sorts of things you have to do that medicare and medicaid will not look in the future the way the book today. i think it is a healthy thing where you get a little bit beyond your own talking points. you say this is what it looks like and will not be particularly pretty. i think folks on the left have to get to that stage as well where a lot of you still think you will have an european size welfare state finance like an american progressive style income tax system. there is a reason why very few european countries do that. the idea there you will have all these very generous programs, not just the top 1 percent signed that the average diet industry will have to pay more. you already have some recognition of it, but president obama says we need to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. in reality he wants to raise taxes on households making more than two under 50,000.

the more forthcoming democrats say which of but all bush tax cut go. that is the hurdle they have to get over. i think both sides need to come to our reality in terms of what their views imply on all of this. >> i cannot get past fox news is not doing his job. my first question is, what is fox news job? evidently we have heard. rob portman, i almost passed the question but decided not to. the balanced budget amendment that every senate republican, including portman endorsed caps spending as a share of gdp. 18% of the previous year's gdp, which don marron has said 16.7% of gdp.

if you put that level down there and look at where we're heading in terms of demographics, what he was saying, which is we should have taxes at the historical level of 18%. the fundamental reality is what ever we do with ryan's budget or not, we will not have spending at 18% of gdp. it is going up. in an ideal world liberals and conservatives can agree we do not want it to go to 30%, that maybe we should try to stabilize it at 23%. that is probably the best we will be able to do given the demographics come in the masses change of the immigration. that is not likely to happen. if that is where we are, we need a very different kind of

conversation, not one that unreality ofe roun the budget gaps, but how you come to a better match of reducing the growth of where it is. what robson also is in reference to the explosion in size of discretionary spending since he was budget director, almost all of which is a consequence of an economic collapse. if you look at the path of economic discretionary spending over the past 15 years, it is that rising to a considerable degree, and we are paring it back very significantly to a point where i would say we need to start worrying about fundamental elements of public safety, and things like food safety, the centers for disease control and the like, much less homeland security. . we are not in a realm of now where we're having an obverse

conversation -- where we are having an honest conversation at how you will develop a match that works. a match of revenues that ideally you can blend with a much better tax system, and fundamental changes in the rate of growth of entitlement programs that take into account the changes in demographics, and also understand you will change the growth pattern. >> bill, did you want to add to that? >> thank you. i am derrick mitchell, and i write the mitchell report. >> i want to come back to things that you sent. the first is that there is this fundamental difference between republicans and democrats. on what the role of government ought to be.

i am struck by the fact that it seems to me if there is anything that recent history tells us, is the real issue is not the pain it republicans and democrats, it npublicans and ind eomcrats. the second thing that you talked about is that we need -- i think you said we need new structures in order to be able to get on top of these key strategic issues. i am wondering if you could articulate a little bit what kind of structures are you talking about that might allow that to happen? >> on the first you have a

point. there is a self-selection problem where anybody who runs for congress or goes into congress often the banks there is good things government can do. self interest comes in as well. in terms of the structures, i am not a political scientist, so i get myself in trouble here. i personally think the filibuster in the senate should be got rid of. this is informed by very little other than what i have said here. i tend to think at the state level, the districting done for members of congress, the joke is it in a democracy the voters choose a representative, and the u.s. of representatives choose their voters. i do not think that is healthy, because it pushes out the center and pushes them to either side. i am sure there are others i

have thought of, but i tend to think in parliament terry governments the party that can generate the majority has a lot of power for a certain amount of time. at the end of that time they have done what they want to do or what they think they can do, and they are responsible for it. the way it works here is you division between different branches of government. within those branches people have veto power. you could always blame someone else for it, so the voter is not clear about what people want to do. i think this leads to difficult -- i feel like i'm saying something about about the founding fathers, but they set this up to build coastal roads and such. i tend to think there is more power for the majority in congress to get done what they need to do. the thing that makes me depressed is the fact that we have this commission at all is

admission that congress cannot handle these things. congress cannot do what congress does, because entitlement programs passes it off to someone else. the thing that is disturbing for me if the commission was designed the way i would have to find something. a lot of members in congress involved, the ability to get an up or down vote on the floor if you come to an agreement. some sort of a ticking clock to give them incentive to do something, and still it did not work. that is troubling. this sort of things i would have proposed would have proposed, and did not work. >> i could add that non-defense discretionary spending dropped pretty sharply. then after that it started to grow from below were base -- lower base.

i did a study and looked back and look at the stuff that i was riding in the early 2000 and bush first three budget years for their first three biggest spending increases in u.s. history. you go back and look at what president bush did. they had a bill from hades. medicare part d after that. -- they had a bill from haitis. steve forbes in the new hampshire primary says he talked about the republican, but conference like a democrat. his evidence was texas government spending soared 10% per year under gov. bush. i think part of the problem that we have got here, and this gets back to the first question, is

there is almost like a denial about how much spending has gone up going back. if we have stuck to the clinton base line, we would probably be in surplus right now. any more questions? >> thank you very much. >> i want to recognize bill frenzill as a great american hero who walked the walk -- talk the talk and walk the walk. unfortunately out of congress now, but we have someone here that we can thank you for his service. >> thank you for your service. thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> just to let you know, you can

watch this discussion in its entirety here tonight at 8:40 eastern on c-span. some news today, bernie frank says he will not be running for another term in 2012. -- barnie frank. ney frank. according to the associated press, he said he was intending to run again until his congressional map was redrawn and district changed. it is expected masked the water of california will take his place on the committee. 16 democrats and six republicans have decided not to run for reelection in 2012. here is the announcement he made earlier today. this is about 40 minutes. [applause] >> i am grateful to mayor warren

who is a very promising addition very recently to office in massachusetts. i am also appreciative of the efficiency. i called them this morning as i was driving in. i called city hall and the mayor's office was open well before 9:00. i was impressed. i asked if i could use this wonderful place that has been a site for a number of very important meetings in my career. i was very grateful to them for getting it done so quickly. i am going to give you my statement. you will have a written copy of it. i will stick closely to it in substance, although not word for word. i did write it. it is -- as i said, i will begin with the statement ended. when you are massachusetts politician it is custom to "

former presidents from massachusetts, and i am going to quote one, although he is probably the least often quoted by people on my side. i do not choose to run for congress in 2012. i have gone through some changes. last year, a project earlier around the signing of the financial reform bill, i attentively decided i was calling to make this my last term. and i spent a very busy and somewhat stressful four years with the financial crisis. first dealing with the crisis, and then dealing with legislation to prevent as having another one. i then had, as is appropriate, a very spirited campaign for reelection. my view was that i could do my

job best for fighting for the public policies that i care about by making this my last term. then a funny thing happened on the way to retirement. a very conservative republican majority took over the house. at that point it seemed to me that some of the things i fought hardest for could be in jeopardy. financial reform, which i anticipated the conservative republicans to are running for the house would try to undermine, and additionally i was afraid that given the need to do deficit reduction, the very conservative majority would seek to block any increase in taxation on the wealthy people and would seek to protect the military from any spending cut so the necessary that is a reduction would fall disproportionately on other programs that enhance the quality of our life here at home. i thought if i were to announce

in december that would weaken my chance of having influence. ordinarily i would not have announced as early as it did, but we're doing redistricting or did redistricting, and the legislative leadership and my colleagues all said it is important for you to tell everyone whether you are planning to run or not. so i gave my initial view, and i was planning to run again. then the congressional redistricting came, and this decision was precipitated by congressional redistricting. i have been ambivalent about running, not because i do not continue to think the job is important, but there are other things i would like to do in my life before my job is over. i think i have the long this uncompleted ph.d. featured in harvard history haunting me, and there are a lot of things i would like to do.

some people are able to pursue an active life. i am easily distracted -- i started writing a statement with the blank page, but i will take almost any excuse not to write. i want to write about serious issues. i was torn. then the new district came out, and there were two aspects that makes this -- the decision what i did. they stem from the fact that the district is very substantially change. there were 325,000 new people, many of whom i've never represented. some of whom i have not represented in 20 years, which is an eternity in politics in terms of issues. first, i decided to run again because i wanted maximum influence on protecting financial reform in making sure military spending was part of

the deficit reduction. the need to campaign in a district that is almost half new conflicts with that. if i were to run again, i would be engaged falk clutch in a campaign, which is entirely inappropriate. no one should be expected to win an election without a context -- contest, but the fact that it is so new makes it harder in terms of learning about new areas. i have three obligations. one is to continue the people i currently serve. i am wearing a new bedford tie. i have spent 20 years working on the fishing industry. none of them will be in the district that i would be running in. i cannot walk away from their fishing industry and people i have grown personally close to to say i am sorry. and i have worked a lot on relationships between countries where my constituents have strong ties.

there are three. one of them stays the same, and that is israel. part of portugal, i have done a lot of the request of hundreds of thousands of my constituents now who live there. most of them would be out of the new district. there are other issues that would either become politically irrelevant or diminished prevalence. i do not want to be torn between a full-pledge campaign in the district with 325,002 people and my obligation to the existing constituents. that is reinforced by the fact that i have a hard time going to 3 hacker 25,002 people and saying i like to be your congressman for two years, because it was always clear i would be retiring after the next term. months be a couple one sur short of my 70th birthday.

some people can do it, and it would have been a mistake for me. i would have had this very difficult situation and which i would go to people and saying if please, let me be your congressman, and let me work on your problems, because that is an important part of this job that i've always taken very seriously. but the most important ones are never resolved within a year or two. to go to a new district, 325,000 people knew and ask them to trust me with being there advocate on their problems and say that expires in two years, and it be have their original problem, none of those can get done in 18 months or two years.

i would have a hard time justifying myself to do it. that lends me to tell myself that i should not run. i am not retiring from advocacy of private problems. i think i will have more impact. it is not a secret that holding an elected office is considered to be a great virtue. there is a cynical screen through which the comments of elected officials are put. i expect to be saying things as the private citizen and have been saying as an elected official but, i think i will find my motives less impugned. i think, candidly -- there is an

old saying that truth is the first casualty of war. modesty is the first casualty of a political campaign. it was on shaky legs to begin with. i will not have to be modest, so indulge me in modesty now. i think i was pretty good at being a legislator. i have been pretty good at working within that framework of government. to my disappointment, the leverage you have within the government has substantially diminished. the anchor, the current opinion is such that the inside work i have felt best that is not going to be as productive for the foreseeable future until we make changes. i finally believe that my ability to be an advocate on the kinds of issues i most care about will be as great outside as inside. if i had never served in congress, that may be the case,

but i look forward to help change the system. i think there are now too many constraints against doing what we need to do, and i expect to join the debate to change that. with that, i will open it up to any questions or comments to have. [inaudible] i would have had to work very hard. when your candid it, you're supposed to get all macho, say you can win. perhaps you'll be surprised that i do not feel surprised that i do not need to be macho. i have 120 elections, four to the state house from 16 here. in five of those cases, i entered in uncertain about the outcome. in a couple of them, i was the underdog.

in 1980, when i moved from boston, i one two narrow races. it was a terrible year for a democrat to run. in large people thought it could not win, and i was one of them. in 1990, i entered when people said i could not win. the same was true last year. i think i would win, but it would have been a tough campaign. people are skeptical of incumbents everywhere. if you are an incumbent representing people you have not represented before coming you get the worst of both worlds. you are an incumbent, but you do not get to show the people what it can mean in terms of being their advocate. i do not like raising money. i had to raise several million dollars last year. i have probably close to $600,000 in the bank and i will continue to have two media

markets whoever runs, but you have two jurisdictions and i would have to start now raising a couple more millions of dollars. i think i would win, but what is relevant to me is that i could not but the requisite effort into that. it is exacerbated. part of my strength is that i have been effective as an advocate, but one side knowledge or would only be for two years, that gets under cut. people say and should not say that. running a full-fledged campaign in a district -- by the way, the new district is about 75% of the size to which was first elected, resizable. [inaudible] let me be very clear. i will not be a lobbyist for a

historian. i promise you got on both. there's no way i would be a lobbyist. look. i will miss this job but. i will tell you this. one of the advantages, to me, of not running for office, as i do not have to pretend to be nice to people i do not like. [laughter] some of you may not think i am good at it, but i have been trying. the notion of being a lobbyist and try to be nice to people i do not like would be ridiculous. i will not in any way be a lobbyist. i will not practice law, but i may show up pro bono one day for a gay-rights case. i want to do some combination of writing, teaching, and lecturing. i am not looking for any institutional affiliation. i made this decision about one

week ago. one of the great advantages is that when the phone rings now i do not tense up and said, "oh, god. who's screwed up now?" i was not responsible for anyone else's actions. [inaudible] yes. i did not think i had lived a good enough life to be rewarded by newt gingrich being the republican nominee. it is still unlikely, but i have hopes. for example, i intend to continue to be an advocate of public policy. i look forward to debating, as one in portent example, the defense of marriage act with newt gingrich. he is an ideal opponent for us when we talk about just who is threatening the sanctity of marriage.

it is a repudiation of mitt romney. it is extraordinary the extent to which mitt romney, and i have been struck again by people talking about the degree of flip-floping and changing. i have been surprised. it has been my experience that when people say they do not like you if you flip flop, they usually do not mind if you flipped to them. case, it hasy's been so constant. i think there's a real question that is fundamental. it is striking that given the nature of the republican primary, and the electorate is very conservative, it is likely that he will win. he thinks so, to, because his comment about the immigration is clearly looking to the final election. he would be the best thing to

happen to the democratic party since barry goldwater >> my biggest regret -- but i cannot think of it. people often ask you what that is, but none of us think that way. we have several things. i will let knowledge one area of that is very relevant. i voted against president bush's first request to go on to iraq. i was afraid he was going to do what his son did, which would be to mess it up badly. a very limited engagement in erakat the sole purpose of expelling saddam hussein from kuwait and not pursuing a marked well, and i would go back again and i would have voted for that.

i voted at one. for legislation that passed with only one or two dissenting vote to put more restrictions on the irs that i now think were appropriate. we suffer more from ineffective tax enforcement's than oppressive enforcement. i do not have any regrets. here is the story on the financial crisis. i was in the minority in the house from 1995-2006. i, along with many others, did not see the crisis coming. until 2003, i thought fannie mae and freddie mac were doing well. i had virtually no impact on that. i did become, in 2004, concerned

about sub-prime loans given now promiscuously. when he ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to increase the percentage of loans from below the median income, i was quoted in bloomberg that it was a mistake. in 2005, oxley was the conservative chairman and i was the senior democrat. i put through a bill to reform fannie and freddie. it passed of the house and i voted for it in committee, against it in the four -- in the floor. i was in the minority so i had no real impact. the republican senate disagreed with the republican house. mr. oxley said he had been given the one. salute. that was the end of 2006. at that point in 2005, i did try

to get legislation passed to stop loans going to people who could not afford them. that was blocked by tom delay. he said we would not do that. that brings us to 2006. in 2006, and you can read this in hank paulson's buook. he approached me because it looked like we may when the congress back. the asked with me if i would work with him on serious reform of fannie and freddie. i was worried enough that i said yes. usc said, we won, i kept my word, and a first became chairman with any serious responsibility in 2007. tom delay ran the house. the majority -- the minority did not have much to say. until 2007, i have virtually no impact. then i became chairman and one of the first things we did was

pass legislation to further regulate fannie mae and freddie mac, giving the secretary of the treasury the power he wanted. there was one group that monitored fannie mae and freddie mac to regulate and they announced they were dissolving as a result of our bill passing. we passed a bill to block subprime loans and they said it was the sarbanes oxley of housing and was not a free market but it was a very good thing. it did not pass the senate. the senate did pass the fanny- for reddie regulation we wanted. when it turned out to be too late, he put them into conservatorship. he was afraid that he would get attacked by fannie and freddie. the first thing he did was to call me and i told him that is

what he should do. fannie mae and freddie mac have been in conservatorship run by the government. the agency that runs them was no great friend to the democrats because obama can try to fire them. he testified that since paulson use the powers and put them into conservatorship that there have been no losses. the losses you read about our payments that happened before that. they have done a pretty good job and have not caused any losses. we were late in recognizing the problem, but i was in the minority in the first impact i had came in 2007. by the way, that is telling the air recently mentioned, michael steele, the former chair of the rnc said we took over in 1996 and house in 2002.

he has since of knowledge to was wrong. with regards to the financial crisis -- oh, by the way. we did incorporate the subprime bill into the financial reform bill. the kind of loans that were made a problem for people are now legal. there were two issues i wanted to focus on in my statement. i thought if i was a lame duck would not have that much impact. one is the pending financial reform. incredibly, the republicans have held down funding of the commodities futures trading commission to the same amount in the next fiscal year as they do it this year. they got the major new powers because they are now regulating derivatives, swaps, the things

that got aig in trouble. they have refused to fund the agency we give the power to. they're trying to block the independent consumer bureau. there try to cut back on one of the most import reforms which is to say to people a few lend money, you have to hold on to 5% of that. you cannot make loans and not care about getting them repaid. look. there are three potential responsibilities that i looked out a couple of years -- a couple of weeks ago, running for reelection in the reconfigured district, servicing the current district, and being the ranking member and try to protect financial reform. all three are important. two i cannot transfer. one of them is transferable. i cannot pass up being a ranking member in the middle of a term and leave of the people i am now representing. i will continue to push hard for financial reform. but we will get ready for a

committee vote on wednesday to protect financial reform. you may have seen yesterday's "the new york times." secondly, we're going to do deficit reduction, as we should. i believe that we are substantially over committed worldwide in the military and that includes, by the way, why we are sending 2500 marines to australia at a time when we did not have enough at home. we are in an interesting situation now. sequestration has been triggered. that will need substantial reductions in the military, even more than some of the other programs that i care about. there will be a right wing effort to undo that sequestration and protect the military from further cuts. to protect the military you need to do one of three things, reduce the amount by which to reduce the deficit, or cut social security and medicare, or

cut other domestic programs. i do not think we should do many of those. i intend to spend half my time on protecting financial reform and half my time on this. i just got a call from my office with other members and i have requested a house democratic caucus to push for deficit reduction that includes military spending. those are the two issues on which i will spend most of my time that will keep me pretty busy. what? [inaudible] would stationer u.s.? -- what station are you with? oh. quel suprise,. on the first place, if you were

interested, you look at my financial reporting and see this. i have come up for some time, but almost all of my investments into massachusetts municipal bonds. there are double tax-free and they paid a steady four% -- 4%. i believe that the rating agencies overvalue the risk and we have to pay more interest than is justified. municipal bond, full faith and credit general bonds. all my investments are in. i'm sorry to have to disappoint you on your "gotcha." all my investments are public and are in massachusetts municipal bonds. no one would accuse me in a conflict of interest in the persian for the stability of my state. [inaudible]

i will knowledge that my judgment is not always perfect in these situations, but i think i'm smart enough to not answer that. people should leave their legacies for other people to describe. that is even worse than saying what i think of me. [inaudible] there have been successes in two areas where a veto power has worked. first, the absolute refusal to block confirmation to a filibuster to confirm the head of the consumer finance bureau. the way the bill is written, the consumer bureau as the powers now that existed but people talk about the non-banks. the community banks cover right

to complain. if only entities known and the banks made mortgage loans, they would not be in trouble. it was the non-bank lenders. we extended the powers of the consumer bureau to the payday lenders, check captures. they do not become effective until it director is confirmed. they have unfortunately it retarded our ability to extend consumer protection. most outrageously, the have endangered the system by refusing to fund the cftc to actively regulate derivatives. those two are hurting. the have not been successful because they understand the financial reform is quite popular. they have done a frontal assault on health care -- and can i say at this point that one of the great muggings in american history politically just took place. dr. donald burr wick, an extraordinary leader in the medical profession, a newton

guy, he just had to retire as head of the cms because of right wing obstructionism. we have lost a great guy and he has been treated very unfairly. the door after the environment had gone. they want to go after financial reform had on. they understand the slogan, "but the regulate derivatives" will not take them anywhere. outgoing subprime loans, which happened -- some prime loans were a lot in the legislation that i tried to pass in 2007 and that became law in 2010. no republican during that time ever did anything to retard subprime loans being given to people who should not get them. they are aware that ahead on assault will not work. if they win the next

presidential election they can do that because you have a president to appoint people to use those powers. by underfunding the cftc and by blocking, they have already had some impact. they are trying to go at this from the side and i find it hard to block it from happening. [inaudible] if i were sure we're going to win and i would be chairman hardest four was the years of my life. the things about the better for the democrats. is newt gingrich's the nominees then... wow. beyond that, it is a very open

question. i served in the house for 32 years, 18 in the majority, 14 in the minority. it is different when you are in the minority. that is not a factor for me. you think i'm going to answer that? [laughter] [inaudible] let me make one correction. my late colleague was the first openly gay -- i was the first to volunteer it.

i volunteered that information on memorial day. the speakered when of the new york city council and a serious candidate tells audiences that my example was helpful to her. the best antidote to prejudice is reality. prejudice is, by definition, based on the ignorance of people. i am proud that by my finally coming out -- was 47. when i volunteered finally in 1987, i do think it was helpful in that regard and i am proud. one of the things that we were able to do is to blame dock congress was the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. then speaker pelosi really put

me in charge of that. i have the gavel that was used when don't ask, don't tell was repealed hanging up. [inaudible] it is substantially deteriorated and newt gingrich brings that to mind. when i got a congress in 1980, there was a good deal of cooperation. there were differences, but they were not personal. he has specifically said that he did not believe the republicans would never be able to take over as long as it was seen as a debate between peoples of good will. he had to demonize the opposition and say they were corrupt, traitorous, etc. it was somewhat successful and to provoke a reaction. it has gotten worse. i was ranking member of the committee 2003-2007 and oxley

ran in a bipartisan way. there was some impact of the margins. today, that is not the case. republican party in the house today is dominated by -- i will say this. it consists half of people who think like michele bachmann and half of people who are afraid of losing the primary to people who are like michele bachmann that leaves you very little ability to work things out. personally, i get along with a team members and there are some people like and still work with. congress is not some autonomous entity that parachuted through the dome. we were elected by people. there is no member that did not get more votes than anyone else for that job. the public cannot be absolved of its responsibility. they picked us. in particular, what you have is

this and have to do with primaries. people on the left and people on the right live in parallel universes. no longer do people get most of their information from a current media source and then diverge in how they interpret it. the left with msnbc. the right is on fox and talk radio. what happens is people no different facts. what happens again is that these are echo chambers. people here agreement with themselves so you have the most active people on both sides of the spectrum convinced of their view is the majority view. it is those of us who are their allies to try to make a compromise and we are told there is no reason. i had people that did not believe we have the votes for single payer health care. works for me. people did not believe it. that is another obstacle to cooperation.

there are people who object to cooperation in principle because they do not see the need for it. they blew their side is absolutely on the majority. which one? not at all. it did not affected at all. several people have written my obituary. 2010 was the worst year for democrats that anyone can remember. the 63 incumbents lost. it is one of these things work, having gotten through that, it is unlikely will face anything remotely like that again. there was one aspect of it that is clear to me now. for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, there are people not so fond of me. some of them have a lot of money.

some of them think i want them to have less money. in the last election, i raised a lot of money. i actually raise the most prized as much money as i spent because people gave to him because they do not like me. that is the way it is. with the supreme court decision the way it is, i would anticipate a lot of money being spent. with that said, would have to spend a lot of time raising money. raising $2 million again, that this time i would rather be using to fight to cut the military. is that what? yes. it is the people who do not vote in primaries voting in primaries. politicians are not all economists. the number of people who vote in party primaries is a small number.

party primaries have a major impact. what we need are for people to go and participate in primaries. sometimes i get a little irritated when people who have not voted in primaries -- and i do not want to make this personal, but when people who do not vote in primaries complained to me, i do not take it will. literally, it begins with the electorate. the half to stop rewarding excess of the militancy. until the electorate does not, it will not change. yes? yes. i will divide my time. i will continue to live in new england. my partner has a great house in maine. i will be spending time there as well. i will be giving up my place in washington. i will not have a washington apartment, but i will keep the new residents as well as

spending time in maine. thank you wall. -- thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> you can watch the congressman's comments again. we will be showing them tonight right here on c-span at 8:00. he says he will not be running for another term in late 2012. congressman frank has been representing massachusetts for 30 years as the chairman of the house financial services committee when the reform bill was passed. >> by the phone calls that we get, the emails. get, the increased part

dissipation we see on our programs, we know that we are being successful. >> continuing the look and u.s. government sponsored broadcasts to other countries tonight with carlos garcia perez, director of the office of cuban broadcasting which oversees them. >> i have been there one year and one week. what we have a found out is that the people in cuba what news. they definitely want news. they want anything relevant to the focus groups. tonightcommunicator's" at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> earlier today, the u.s. agency for international development unveiled a new global health strategy that will help agency strategies and the global health initiative which aims to address major health challenges world wide. held by the center for strategic international studies,

this is one hour, 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am steve from csis and welcome to this very nice event. happy holidays to everyone. i am sure you are happy to be back at work. we are thrilled and honored to be able to host the assistant administrator from usaid at the center for international development. he has come here today, several months now into that post and the president nominated him back in market took its duties back up in august. he has been very busy since

then. from the early days when ariel began, we hoped to get him here at the right moment to speak to this audience here and beyond to the thinking in the direction thinking has been moving within usaid on key global health issues before the bureau as their refining and strengthen their own capacities than their own leadership role in moving forward u.s. interests in global health. that is what he has agreed to do here today. we are really honored and thrilled that you have done that. thank you so much. we are very pleased at the staff support we have received from aid in pulling this event together. ariel comes from a very distinguished career, almost 13 years, at the rockefeller foundation where he really

became the dominant personality and leader across a broad range of issues around research, public-private partnerships, and research in diseases of poverty. very instrumental, a very integral in the foundation the proton care in africa. the foundation became a global leader in taking on the health workforce issues, the joint learning initiative on learning initiatives for health. he is an internist, and has been a professor for many years at columbia university, a professor of clinical medicine and epidemiology. i think there's a point that many people have made on his arrival at usaid. the obama administration did very well in enlisting ariel to

take this job on at this particular moment in time and we are all very fortunate. please join me in welcoming ariel pablos-mendez. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all. it is great to see some late friends, old colleagues, and a new colleagues as i am here before you. i am pleased to be here to share my perspective in the context of u.s. aid's emerging from mark. i want to start by thanking -- emerging framework. i want to thank csis for hosting this forum and i thank you for joining as well. earlier this month, the u.s. aid come on our anniversary, -- and

you just had a birthday, too, so happy birthday, steve. president kennedy founded the u.s. aid for international development on the belief that all people deserve a decent life. the world indeed has experienced a peaceful revolution of health and human progress. this process is also contributed to our own nation's peace and prosperity. dozens of new democracies came into existence. the revolution saving billions from hunter. lower poverty rates and global literacy raising drive 60%. the rate of child mortality declined by 70%. but more than 50 million lives saved in the last 20 years alone, children who otherwise would have died. the hopelessness brought on by the aids epidemic particularly

in a continent where there was an inclusion of hope. we look back at this time as a turning point in the history of public health. in the history of civilization, u.s. aid's contribution to this success has enjoyed bipartisan political support in the participation civil service in the public sector. people should feel very proud of the part they played in achieving this extraordinary accomplishment. nevertheless, preventable diseases and premature death continue to plague much of the developing world, particularly affecting poor women and children. over 7.5 million children under five died last year. two-thirds of them were easily preventable. one of every the children-- three children sufferes from

stunting. for those who do not perish, there are lives condemned to never learn or earn. women in developing countries are more than 100 times more likely to die from pregnancy- related complications. more than 250 million women have the needs for voluntary family planning. neglected tropical diseases effect over 1 billion people worldwide. our job is far from done. for those of you who may doubt that we will see a change in our lifetimes, a challenge with this. i believe there are indications that we're closer than ever

before to narrowing the gap between the idea and the reality of our time. today, i will introduce u.s. aid's strategic framework for global health. the next stages have been built on a strong prior success. challenges are sure to present themselves, but our strategic framework is not new. it is driven by the vision of president obama's global health initiative. it reflects our agency reform efforts called usaid it forward. the document is being circulated among agencies at the moment, and i hope to share with you some of the highlights. i will begin my presentation by

touching on the u.s. context in which this has been developed over the last few years. we are guided by a set of national policies, directives come initiatives, and other factors that influence operations into a cohesive approach for a more cohesive global health response. i will outline how our strategy fits in with the ever changing global health landscape. we must have an improved understanding of the forces that directly and indirectly influence our ability to fulfil our shared mission. third, i will discuss our priorities and the way forward. to do so, we need to challenge

the world and we need to adjust the way we work. u.s. efforts in global health are heavily influenced by our international commitments around developing goals in the agenda for action. the structure of u.s. assistance is guided by a number of national policies, principles, guidelines. president obama issued a national-security strategy there recognize the government as a pillar of our national security. in september of last year, throw the first ever directive on global directives, he outlined and called for a new approach to development. on almost its first anniversary, hillary clinton issued a diplomacy review and an

unprecedented joint review of the capabilities of the department of state and usaid to ensure these core elements of american civilian power work in tandem. is. aid's strategic vision to align with the principles and goals of president obama's global health initiative. as they have remarked, u.s. aid is aggressively during its part to pressure in a new era. true reform, a talent management, capacity, and it focused, undergoing a ambitious change, something we've recognized by an independent peer review. u.s. aid is guided by the

principles and goals outlined in the ghi. significant progress has been made against a more comprehensive global health study. after bonus in the road, now forcing coordination and integration while aligning previous health initiatives, namely the malaria and the emergency plan for a relief. for more reviews, they have opened up our thinking for external participation. the counter strategies are integrating to improve efficiencies. these principles, which really bring to light in ghi, and doctors some consultations will be implemented by teams on the

ground. many things are changing in the global health space. far beyond the beltway, the nature of these conflicts will the need greater collaboration in the community in the years ahead. u.s. aid is prepared for those changes and is engaging in them. it is manifesting itself with diseases like cancer, diabetes, and others. concerns about safety are bound to grow. even if we can launch a whole new platform today. there are other more contextual developments and we know that it

is paramount to health. i would like to take this opportunity to emphasize what i call the economic transition of health. despite the economic slowdown, developing countries are in the middle of an unprecedented economic expansion. the globalization of trade and policy and the demographic different brought about by a child success. your children hurt women is a leading to an expansion of empower women joining the work force. this demographic dividend adds 1%-2% to the g.d.p. growth for it. 30 years or more. -- for a period of 30 years or

more. this is just beginning in africa and elsewhere. today, the world economy is 500% larger than it was when u.s. aid started. this is more than twice the growth of the populated nation, so g.d.p. has been growing at an unprecedented rate. they are nonparticipants in a new emerging aid help. the $50 of a basic health care package represents 10% or less of the original per-capita income growth projected between 2009-2012. as these developments affect health in those countries from harshened way adjust to this

economic growth? these countries will invest in growth disproportionately in health. by the end of the decade, domestic health spending may double. one fourth tends to be an expansion of unregulated private provision and out of pocket payments which now account for 50%-8% in africa and asia, according to the national health accounts. this leads to and equitable access and catastrophic expenditures across all expenditures old and new. every year, 100 million people are pushed back and property -- into poverty because of health

bills. this cannot be the future of health. growing g.d.p.'s should insure health for all without families going bankrupt. i returned is challenging to an opportunity? at u.s. aid, we're supporting how we can lower expenditures. where feasible, we discuss local investments and private sector help. we are in discussions with bric countries and other partners for strategic dollars. this brings me to my final point, our five-year success for other's and children is

strengthening innovation and improving leadership through international development. this spans many crucial areas for the health of poor people from family planning to tuberculosis control. this is reflected in the strategic framework and improving the health of mothers and children and realizing innovation are areas that have a great potential. early this month, secretary clinton outlined a vision for maximizing preventive measures and treatment as supported by new studies. as the number of new hiv infections false, the aids epidemic is entering a time of self and forcing decline. -- self enforcing declint. usaid will continue working with

the cdc and others. the current budget environment requires us to do work to lower- cost while engaging in new partnerships for stability. we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we sell them together. this goes beyond. it is at the heart of usaid's work and cuts across our elemts to malaria control come immunization, and birthing. for those of you who are parents, i know you have been in the shoes of the people we work to help. as vice president biden put it,

imagine what it is like to be stripped of your dignity to look your child in the eye and know you can not provide for their needs. no child should die when it can be prevented. a child dying from something that is preventable is a foreign concept. we should bring this reality home to every american. we will be able to maintain strong support. efforts and collaboration, innovation,, integration will be able to celebrate the decline of infant mortality. the day when this will disappear is not far. this has been replicated aroudn the world.

we are close. beyond specific decision their age groups, ghi challenges the world to work in new ways. ghid's aligned with princeples focuses on the following -- leadership and respond to challenges, partner in a strategically with a wide range directors, accelerating the development and production of innovative technologies, the scaling up of local health solutions spreading health systems, promoting gender equality, working efficiently with public trust. many of you are familiar with this. it plots the health outcomes

against gdp over several decades. the graph shows that richer countries do better than poorers. the recent decades have been given the same health outcome. this is attributed to knowledge, its current technology, capacity, while development moves the curve along the g.d.p. line. hour worked -- our work flattens out the curve. it is more health for the money. we are harnessing the technical excellence of our staff in science. and we've adapted and scale solutions? -- how do we adapt and scale solutions? we are strengthening our work in

health systems as well as technology and innovation. usaid has a long tradition of supporting technology and development. women dressed in a platform for science, technology, and innovation. -- we have enhanced a platform for site, a technology. public uproar partnerships supported by u.s. aid in the last decade alone, we have formed mroe than 900 alliances for a greater health impact. outsourcies and impacting to better deliver our mission. we are also using health i.t. the number of mobiles in the developing world soared from 1.6 billion to 4 billion. the growth in africa has been

dramatic. the need for global health is only now starting to come up focus. the need to leverage the power of the mobile revolution to improve the lives of women and their families. the agency will also harness this new teradyne the calls for greater capacity for the national stewardship of a mixed public-private partnerships. for this purpose, we will strengthen platforms within the agency. we are going to support to allied principles of the global health initiative including greater integration, accountability, and sustainability. the programs are successful and it works towards independence for foreign aid.

usaid has left about 30 countries in it's history. we are not menant to be there forever. advancing our interests, making other countries more stable, and the u.s. more secure. they are a demonstration of our values. i am proud of the talent and dedication of our diverse staff. we have a partnerships with countless people here and abroad. we have made development in global health in recent decades. a group of recent results gives reason for optimism. the budget environment notwithstanding, usaid forward

and the ghi position as to maintain momentum in newport with innovations. president kennedy once said, "it is difficult if not more difficult as the conquest of aerospace." reaching the moon took one decade to be realized. humans are all together in this universe. if we can develop the technology for a minute to send in orbit, we can find better health right here. we only have this small planet and collectively we share the responsibility that every man, woman, and a child is provided an opportunity to live in succeed. given the trajectory of recent given the trajectory of recent