furious, a.t.f. field ops assistant director mark the chaplain: emailed bill nule, a.t.f.'s phoenix special agent in charge of fast and furious. -- the and furious, the following, quote, bill, can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same licensed gun dealer and at one time? we are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. thanks. unquote. amazing. the a.t.f., the justice department, creates this horrible program that would get people killed and then wants to use that as a basis for further regulation and further

elimination of second amendment rights to the united states constitution. . unbelievable. senator feinstein down the hall when questioning brewer who was not and senator feinstein said we have lax laws, this influences the a.t.f. in how they approach the problem as to whether they have political support or not, but i think these numbers are shocking and i think when you know the numbers of deaths these guns have caused, cartels against victims, it is literally in the tens of thousands. the question is what can we do. and i really rather concentrate on the constructive rather than other things. as the question comes, do you

believe that if there were some form of registration when you purchase these firearms, if that would make a difference. again, a deadly program that would kill innocent people is put in place by the justice department's a.t.f., people are killed, and then people around this town want to use this horrible program's results to justify taking away second amendment rights. it's staggering, staggering. it's bad enough that anybody would think that this type of program, fast and furious was a good idea, but then to turn around to use it to destroy second amendment rights under the constitution is simply

unconscionable. well, the attorney general also, when asked about his testimony last week, he said, yes, he had ordered in february an inspector general study inspection of the fast and furious program, when it was pointed out to the attorney general that in the big document dump that they had -- and it was clearly a document dump intended to mask and hide anything therein, a good piece of evidence of that is that 92 pages of that at least of the documents were senator grassley's own request for information about fast and furious, those were just

duplicated dozens and dozens and dozens of times, and that was part of the document dump, just to hide what little bit of information was in there. and yet, despite all those documents produced, and despite information that was inquired about at the hearing, the attorney general does use government email. he does use private email and does sign things. not one email of the attorney general, not one letter, not one order of any kind by this attorney general was part of that record. if we have an attorney general who believes in playing so fast and loose with the laws that it really is more about who you know in this administration rather than what the law says,

it's time for another attorney general. nothing was produced when i asked about his testimony that an i.g. inspection was ordered, our attorney general indicated that basically, he had such a great relationship with the inspector general and pick up the phone and ask her to do an inspection, a study. if that's the way this attorney general operates, which he testified under oath that it was, we need a new attorney general. those kinds of things are so serious, they require something signed. and as far as being so chummy with the inspector general, it makes clear, this is no way to run a justice department,

because it makes clear that the justice department is run by men who is so chummy with the one person who may be able to do an independent study that there really is no independent study done. that also became clear and representative issa, who has been pursuing this, and i'm thankful for it. he has been relentless. but the information has not been forthcoming, but from what information has been gleaned, we find out this inspector general, the very, very, very close chum of our attorney general, found out that there was a gun dealer who became so concerned about this egregious thing being done where he was being forced to sell guns to people to whom he

did not want to sell guns that he began recording conversations . things that were told him by federal agents so that he would have some protection when the inspector general found out, she got the recorded conversations. now, a good inspector general who is not extremely chummy with the person heading up the department she is supposed to independently study and inspect, would go forward, talk to witnesses, see if they said anything inconsistent in their statements to the inspector general so that the inspector general could determine if these people were being honest. instead, what this very close ally and chum of the person

whose department she is supposed to be inspecting, she apparently took the recorded statement, gave it to the federal agents and said, hey, you better listen to this before you give any statements to make sure your statements are consistent. inspector generals aren't supposed to do that. they are supposed to conduct a thorough, independent investigation. all the indications are that this inspector general is just as attorney general holder testified, so chummy, so close, that she doesn't need a written order. it works out better if we say, we just talked about it over the phone. and in fact, wouldn't it be great, too, if we could do that here in congress. you know what? we passed a law, but we justed pass and you can't run a

government that way. there needs to be documentation for decisions that are made so we know who made it. and that brings us tore one of the more egregious factors in the poor management of the justice department. when the attorney general was asked who it was, by my friend judge poe, who it was who made the decision to go forward with fast and furious after these many, many months, the attorney general said, he just really didn't know. didn't know if he was going to be able to find out. since we have an attorney general that has no way of knowing who is making the decisions in his department that are getting innocent people in the united states and mexico killed, it's time to have an

attorney general who does. we cannot survive as a country when the federal government plays so fast and loose with orders that mean the difference between people being killed and not killed. it's time for a change. america deserves better. mexico deserves better. and can't help but wonder what kind of pressure was put on mexico's government not to raise holy caain about these weapons forcibly sold going into mexico. this justice department had no intention of following them, no

method of getting them back or where they were. and it appears the whole goal was to wait and see when they showed up at crime scenes, which meant that somebody had been killed, then check the serial those against the a.t.f. those had been forcibly selling and then we could blame american gun dealers. an american gun dealer could become concerned that he ought to tape federal agents giving him instructions. things are not going well in this justice department. one other area of concern has been for some time is the fact that there are organizations in the united states that are raising money and then funding terrorist organizations abroad.

hamas is one specifically. and since this government continues to send money to the palestinian authority, which is now got an agreement with hamas, our own government is in cahoots in funding terrorism. at some point, the insanity has got to stop. we know this has gone on by organizations in the united states because in november of 2008, the bush administration obtained five convictions, 105 counts of funding terrorism. those people referred to the litigation as the holy land foundation trial. and there were over 200 named co-conspirators and many of them

were implicated through evidence that was introduced at trial in the holy land foundation trial. now, they were named co-conspirators but the others were not actually indicted. my understanding is that the bush administration intended to try to get those first convictions -- first time the case was tried to a hung jury, 11-1 split for guilt. second time they got the 105 counts of conviction against the five individuals. and if their intent was if they could get those prosecutions -- get those judgments, get those findings of guilt, then it would proceed on with others of the

200-plus-named co-conspirators. and some of them had filed a motion with the federal court in dallas that ended up at the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans. they wanted their names struck from the pleadings. but the fifth circuit, in essence said there is sufficient evidence here to show that these named people were co-conspirators and their names aren't going to be struck from the pleadings. this this -- there is evidence to evidence that they are co-co nspirators from the holy land foundation. we have got some pleadings.

but there was a massive amount of documents that were turned over to the five defendants, the holy land foundation people, and since we know beyond a reasonable doubt they were funding terrorism, there's not really any doubt in most people's thinking minds, those documents found their way back to hamas, to terrorists. but this administration, led by attorney general eric holder, has decided, they aren't going to prosecute any of those people, even after the fifth circuit said there is sufficient evidence to go forward and to keep their names, because they are co-conspirators according to the evidence produced. this sfration has chosen to --

this administration has chosen not to prosecute them just like this administration did in failing to prosecute the individuals involved in the new black panther movement who were involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960's who said it was the worst case of civil rights abuses he has ever seen. . yet this attorney general who could have got a judgment and prevented these two individuals from ever appearing at a voting place like this and intimidating voters chose to water down the judgment with one so he didn't go back to the same voting place in the next election, and with the other, who was certainly from the videotape involved in violating people's civil rights, didn't

even take the judgment against him. and then to turn around and refuse to prosecute people who are -- there's sufficient evidence to show that they are funding terrorism, is horrendous. there is an article, december 7, holy land foundation, hamas support convictions affirmed, and this is from andrew mccarthy who is the prosecutor in the first world trade center prosecution in 1993 when the attempt was made to blow up the world trade centers the first time, successfully prosecuted, at the time, america didn't realize we were in a war. we were in a war. but only one side knew that

they were in a war. and that was the radical islamists. put anyway, the -- as mccarthy indicates, the u.s. court of appeals, fifth circuit, upheld the quick of five jihaddists about the holy land foundation, the piggy bank set up in the u.s. under the guise of charity to fund hamas to the tune of tens of millions of dollars during the deadly intifada. the unanimous 170-page opinion recounts that hamas was created by brotherhood operatives, that's muslim brotherhood, operatives in 1987 as the brotherhood's quote, palestinian branch, unquote. thereafter, quote, the muslim brotherhood directed its worldwide chapters to establish so-called palestinian committees to support hamas

from abroad. unquote. in the u.s., the palestinian committee was led by marsuk who for a time in the early 1990's ran hamas from his home in virginia. they created not only the holy land foundation but a number of other islamist entities in the u.s. the leaders of one of those entities, the islamic association for palestine, subsequently created care, the council on american islamic relationship -- relations, which was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. mr. mccarthy goes on to point out that documents recovered by the f.b.i. at the home of a brotherhood operative establish the brotherhood's overarching

role in the hamas support scheme including bylaws showing the brotherhood had directed the collection of donations for this -- for the islamic assistance movement which is hamas. also recovered at the time was the internal memorandum in which the brotherhood's american leadership asserted, quote, the brotherhood must understand that their work in america is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within. and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and god's religion is made victorious over all other religions. and in fact, we get a copy of

the fifth circuit's opinion, there are a number of interesting things addressed by the fifth circuit with regard to the holy land foundation. the fifth circuit said, my friend from california, mr. dreier, wish to be heard? i yield. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'll ask him to yield momentarily in just a moment, so please proceed. mr. gohmert: ok. the fifth circuit said we are satisfied that independent evidence also established the existence of a joint venture or combination among the declarants and defendants between the holy land foundation and sa gatt. they discussed hamas and its control of the committees. they referenced the importance

of the holy land foundation in the committee's goals and identified as, quote, ours, unquote, vare committees to which holy land foundation donated funeds. the government also introduced evidence of numerous financial transactions and personal contact between the defendants and hamas leader marsuk, who was listed in the documents as chairman of the palestine committee. he also had in his personal phonebook the contact information for baker, elashi, el masin and el barahe. further, he attended a meeting about supporting hamas. according to someone present, he lead a breakout group to discuss raising money.

moreover, he specifically testified from personal knowledge that the holy land foundation was part of hamas. i yield to my friend. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 491 providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3630, to provide incentives for the creation of jobs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. mr. dreier: let me express my appreciation to my good friend for yielding. the measure we just filed is so we'll be able to bring up our effort to create jobs -- jobs and get this economy moving again, we'll be doing that on the house floor tomorrow. i thank my friend for yielding

me the time, mr. speaker. mr. gohmert: i know the rules committee, having been before it numerous times, has a thankless job. i appreciate the gentleman from california's efforts. usually late into the night as he is working tonight. the fifth circuit, talking about the holy land foundation trial, said the evidence at issue is offered to show the defendant's connection to terrorists and his predisposition to terrorist activities. it goes on to cite much of the evidence. and the court says the evidence in this case does show a relationship between the defendants and their connections to hamas leaders. it goes on to say the record here showed the defendants' joint participation in the shared undertaking involving the committee, that's the palestine committee, and the documents were properly

admitted. the court goes on, makes numerous findings, discusses the law, but also says the defendants here are wrong to suggest that it is necessary to know the prix pre-sice idefinite fi of -- identity of the declarants of the documents. they go on to conclude, it's inescapable that the declarants were joint venturers with the defendants in supporting hamas through the palestine committee and it goes on to cite some examples there. the fifty circuit did an excellent job of going through, reciting the evidence and they said this -- they are also consistent with security guidelines found a i among the holy land foundation's materials which directed that there should be cover stories agreed upon to explain things like meetings and travel.

now if this group that worked through the holy land foundation to send money to hamas. -- to hamas, were perfectly innocent, then it seems interesting that the foundation's policies and guidelines that were found in virginia in a subbasement which contained much of the muslim brotherhood's archives, would say the following -- this is from a footnote on page 84 of the fifth circuit's decision, they said, the document, which was labeled the foundation's policy and guidelines, included comprehensive policies for ensuring the secrecy of the organization's activity. for example, the policies directed that documents should be arranged at meetings so they could be easily gotten rid of in an emergency. that measures should be taken before a meeting to be sure there is no hidden surveillance

equipment. that an alert signal should be given if the location is monitored or if a member of the committee is followed. and the document should be -- documents should be hidden when traveling and a pretext should be devised in case they're discovered in a search. the possession of a such a document by a purportedly charitable organization was clearly suspicious and the fifth circuit there is a master of understatement. it is amazing what was found in the documentation in virginia, and that's after a couple were arrested as they went across the chesapeake bridge, photographing construction columns of the bridge, and on further search of their home in virginia, shuve basement, they

found the muslim brotherhood archives that gave us so much information. trouble is, there were massive numbers of boxes of information and as we understand it, much of that was provided to the defendants in the holy land foundation trial. i made the request of the attorney general last week that since those documents were provided to defendants who were convicted of funding terrorism, funneling money to hamas, that surely the justice department should now allow congress to see those boxes of documents. the attorney general once again didn't know. -- didn't know what was furnished. he would look into it. we need an attorney general that knows what's going on when there are organizations in america who are financing by

millions and millions of dollars people who are conducting terrorism efforts around the world. the attorney general said he'd look into it, the official request was made at the hearing, and yet we're waiting to hear from the squssties department. it just seems to make sense to me that if this justice department will provide documentation to people who are part of a terrorist network, then surely they provide them to congress. but then again, that remains to be seen. we had an article here from fox news on december 7, it reports that susan collins, senator susan collins, on wednesday blasted the defense department for classifying the fort hood

massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's armed forces at home. during a joint session of the senate and house homeland security committee on wednesday, the main republican referenced a letter from the defense department depicting the fort hood shootings as workplace violence. she criticized the obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical islam. 13 people were killed and dozens more were wounded at fort hood in 2009 and the numb of alleged plots targeting the military has gone -- has grown significantly since then. . there have been 33 plots since the u.s. military and 70% of those threats have been since mid-2009. during this administration. major hasan, a former army

psychiatrist allegedly has been inspired by allaki who was killed in late september and who was leading a prayer session of capitol hill muslim staffers just years before. here in our capitol complex. and continuing with the article, the two men exchanged as many as 20 emails according to u.s. officials and declared hasan a hero. the chame of the homeland security committee, senator leiberman said the military has been a target of violent islamic extremism within the united states. senator lieberman's words, the stark reality, the u.s. member is in the terrorist scope and

not just overseas in a traditional setting, leiberman told fox news. in june, two men allegedly plotted to attack a washington military installation using guns and grenades. in july, abdul was accused of planning a second attack at fort hood. with regard to private abdul, it's worth noting that we have people who have been banned now from briefing our justice officials, intelligence officials, state department officials on the threat of radical islam.

there was even a memo put together provided in this administration, which by name, pointed to army private abdul saying this guy has been in uniform in al jazeera saying he is going to do what he did at fort hood. this administration is so interested in protecting radical islam and not offending radical islam, that that memo was trash canned and never went anywhere. and the only way this private was stopped was not by our intelligence community, not by our justice department, not by our state department, not with all the information they could have, it was stopped by a gun

dealer who just believed something was wrong. and he notified law enforcement. and now we know from the 9/11 commission, we have known since the commission came out with its report, there are hundreds of mentions of things like jihad, islam, not that there is any war on islam, there is not. thank god that most -- the vast majority of muslims know we aren't at war with them and they aren't at war with us. but it is insanity not to protect ourselves and educate ourselves on that small percentage -- it's a large group of radical islamists who have declared war on us. this administration, though originally after 9/11, the bush

administration, the independent 9/11 commission that was appointed, came out, saying this was a result of radical islam. now the justice department, the intelligence community, the new lex inch con will not let them use words like islam, jihad, which led to 3,000 americans being killed and the war that brought about thousands more being killed. the war goes on. but as one individual who is fighting for us said, this administration is making us blind ourselves so we cannot see the people we are fighting. there was a conference at langley, c.i.a. headquarters

that was canceled by this administration. why? because care complained to the white house and they saw -- the report is that that's how the conference was stopped. care complained to the administration and they stopped it. and now the administration has gone through and come out with a new methodology of selecting people who will be allowed to brief our intelligence officials, will be allowed to brief our justice officials, will be allowed to brief our military and not be able to use terms like radical islam. in this administration's mind, hateful terminology rather than figuring out who is on our side and figuring out who is against us. there is a report out that this administration now in the last

week is going create a new category on the terrorist watch list which would be called former military detainees. if that ended up being true, makes you wonder why they create a new category now that they are about to release military detainees and so when they come in to the country or in our country trying to fly, we will know who it is trying to kill us here. this administration has blinded the people who are trying to fight the war against radical islam, which is at war with us. we have seen to it that it looks like a procedure in both libya and in egypt are going to likely result in radical islamists controlling those countries. the middle east has become a powder keg, far more so than it

ever has. if you go back and look at the president's speech. i believe it was back in may, looked at a transcript where our own president said, israel is going to have to defend itself by itself. now thankfully as we saw when prime minister netanyahu spoke in this body, we had both sides of the aisle repeatedly stand and support many of the things that prime minister netanyahu was saying. israel has been our friend, they have been our ally. muslims are allowed to worship islam as muslims are allowed to do in the u.s. it would be nice if cristians were allowed to worship in

muslim countries but their definition of freedom doesn't allow them to worship, but only allows them to worship under islam. even in afghanistan, the last christian church is now closed, the kind of freedom that american lives and treasure that is brought to afghanistan now means you can't have an open cristian church in afghanistan. and we find out that this administration was indirectly negotiating with terrorists, with the taliban with regard to afghanistan about a year and-a-half ago. there were few of us that met with leaders of the northern alliance year and-a-half or so ago and they told us your administration is indirectly meeting and negotiating with terrorists, with the taliban,

with the people we fought with you to defeat. and after we defeated them and in three, four months, then we started putting in tens of thousands of soldiers, military, into afghanistan and went from being embedded to being occupy years and we oversaw the creation of a constitution in afghanistan that says sharia law will reign when true sharia law is in charge. one of the things that were found in the archives in the muslim brotherhood and have a 10-year goal that was founded in 2005. anybody that raises any issue about people that the tiny percentage of muslims who are at war with us, the radical

islamists, anybody who raises anything about the radical islamists is to be called an islamaphobe, and that was composed of 57 states, 57 states, and they are the ones that came up with that and they came up with the notion of branding anyone who says anything negative about radical islam trying to destroy america. any time anyone as the speaker sees the term islama phobe, they should know where it originated and originated with the 57 states of the o.i.c., who are helping fund through other entities and individuals courses at some of our nation's formally

best schools that show they are for sale, their souls are for sale that if someone will give them enough money, they will put on seminars and put on classes that will also call people islama phobes, about anyone who raises any issue about radical islam trying to destroy our way of life. and the goal mentioned as part of the 10-year goal in 2005 was, by 2015, to have subverted our u.s. constitution to sharia law. and the method for doing that, we have been seeing it take place, is to subvert america's first amendment rights to sharia. one of the ways that is being if

he can tu ated is when some nut burns a koran in florida, some one gets killed in a riot in afghanistan and even a fine upstanding citizen says we need a law prohibiting the burning of koran, because that's going to get americans killed. let's have a law banning anyone saying anything negative about burning the koran. never mind the fact that we find out it's not against the constitution to burn the american flag or burn the bible or to take a cross, symbolizing that thing on which jesus was crucified and put it in a beeker of urine. but if anybody says anything

negative about the koran, let's make that a crime. there are well intentioned people in this capitol who are thinking that maybe we need a law like that and when people push that kind of law, they are moving to subvert our united states' first amendment rights under the constitution to sharia law. and once that were to happen, then that goal can be checked off of the goals that were established by the muslim brotherhood in 2005. they are hoping to get that done by 2015. a great way to do that is to people like me or people in the justice department, are trainers who would teach people about the ideas of radical islam as islamaphobes and continue to have courses they fund to

encourage laws to prevent islama phobia and they have laws to prevent laws and even on a television program today, an a theist called crist nant a hate religion -- crist yant because he says yees us created a hell and said we shouldn't admire christmas. some of us know that jesus was not likely born in december, but more likely in the spring time when shepards are on the hill. . .

when they knew the best things in this country would come as a result of the teachings of jesus and teachings of the bible you had comments like, george washington in his resignation saying, and i'll close with this, he prayed that americans would follow the teaching of the divine author of our blessed religion without an humble immaterialation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. he was right. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i almost don't know where to start but let me first of all indicate my privilege to be yielded the hour as the represent thoif minority leader , and also to be be privileged to discuss some of the issues of the congressional black caucus that have been a leader along with our chairman emanuel cleaver and our officers and those of us who have worked on these issues on the question of jobs for america. i almost don't know where to start but first of all let me say happy holiday to my colleagues and in this season of giving and joy, i acknowledge how special a time it is for families to come

together. i would care to, if you will, try to get equipment working, which is -- a little difficult. i need the two posters, please. but i do want to start on some of the comments of my friend and colleague from texas and i'm delighted to have him act knowledge that we cannot condemn one faith as it relates to the harm that terrorists desire to do against us. it's important to also note there are distortions in the comments and terrorism and the president's position and the

administration's position, and i think it is important to acknowledge that the war against those who will do us harm is not about points, it's not about partisanship, it's not about one upsmanship it's not about what administration has done better than the other. i'm very grateful to the men and women in our intelligence community and the men and women in the united states military and those that are engaminged in homeland security that we have not had a terrorist act of the proportion of 9/11 on our soil since 9/11. there are no doubt of the many threats that have been interjected and stopped and it's important for my colleagues to understand that. i am a senior member of the homeland security committee. tragically, i was appointed to the select committee on

homeland security and traveled with one or two senators, people in the other body, to ground zero and when i arrived it was early enough that one of the rescue missions were continuing, one could see the smoke bill lowing out of the -- billowing out of the ashes an as we visited the board that still had loved ones that people were asking, have you seen my father, or my son, it is a potent message for those of us who are committed to securing the homeland. chair perp for a period was a member -- chairperson for a period was a member of the congressional black caucus, congressman thompson, the committee has always chosen to be bipartisan, we joined a bipartisan hearing with the senate, senator lieberman, the other body, senator collins and the chairperson now, chairman king, on the question of the potential danger of our military and military basis.

in that hearing, no one quarled with the responsibility to identify those who would go against our military on domestic soil or how we would address the question. but it is important to note that i stand here an refuse an reject the labeling of one faith as a faith of terror. i've been in so many different mosques an among so many different groups of muslims who practice islam who have rejected those horrible acts, one cannot challenge the pathway that president obama has taken and not view it as a pathway that has saved lives. in particular, there's well documentation that the last administration after a period of time indicated that they didn't know where len len -- osama bin laden was. it was not their focus. they knew the country was safe but they were not looking for osama bin laden. frankly, in the last period of

time of president obama's tenure, he has gotten the imam in yemen, the american citizen that was in yemen who was part of the inspiration of capturing hussein who perpetrated the terrorist acts at fort hood, in my state, the state of texas, we have intervened in several terrorist threats and attacks, the times square bomber, my recollection serves me well, i think also the christmas day bombing that might have been a little bit before that. we have in essence taken out a number of high target threats to america's security. we have in fact, with the intellect and genius and order of the president of the united states, president barack obama in a very dangerous mission, navy seals secured and brought

to his end osama bin laden. very dangerous mission, very controversial mission, but there had to be a command for the chief that ordered it. so i take issue with a comment that this president has not been vigilant in protecting the homeland. and any number of us who serve on homeland security know that we can always be better. we can always work on issues to in fact secure more than secure, but as a member of the homeland security committee, i have watched as our border patrol has surged to 18,000, as we have utilized resources on the border, as the numbers of those coming across the border illegally have dropped, as we've tried to be constructive in arguing for a comprehensive

immigration reform, i have seen a number of responses that would cause me to disagree that this administration has not been individual lant. and -- vigilant. and even today as we were speaking to the president of iraq arguments were being made to ensure the evenness, enhandedness of iraq's behavior and their treatment of individuals in iraq dealing with those who were at camp asrat and our ongoing relationship with iraq and with a vital region where there are allies like the king of jordan. allies that we've been friends with, that it is important that we maintain a certain type of

demeanor and clearly suggesting that a two-state solution is not viable or the palestinian people are not real, they're made up, that's an outrageous position to take for any public and political person that would rise and ascend to leadership, whether it's in the congress or in the presidency of the united states. i could not, not just respond to charges of inadequacy by this administration, having served on the foreign affairs committee, privelemminged to have served, and likewise, having been a member of the homeland security committee and served as a ranking member on transportation security and fighting to enhance security measures, more personnel, better train, responsiveness to those who are patted down and go through aviation security, making it fair but yet making

it responsive to the nuances and new ideas of terrorists who want to do us harm, mr. speaker, it's important that we acknowledge fairness, balance, and that we continue to pray every day for our men and women who are on the front lines, for our intelligence community, for those who are thinking every moment under this administration, successfully, on addressing that question. i am here, however, to raise the question of our concerns of the american people that are outside the circle of homeland security and address the day-to-day needs of those who are fighting against poverty, losing their quality of life, and a discussion that has been going on and on and on and has a simple answer, just do it.

just do it. but yet we are stuck here on december 12, i have no quarrel with that, because it is our responsibility to be here until we get the job done. but i would encourage those who are listening and our colleagues to work in a bipartisan way but i'd encourage you to call us at 202-225-3121, and ask us to get the job done fairly, one that is rational and reasonable. is it going to pass the other body? is the president going to be able to sign it? is it going to help the vast numbers of people? members of the congressional black caucus, we knew that jobs had a devastating impact on this country the lack thereof. we know that there are unemployment numbers throughout our communities and some pockets of the united states

and some states, there are double digit unemployment amongst all population groups and the african-american population it is a consistent double digit unemployment. for those of us who participated through the congressional black caucus jobs fair throughout the many cities that we saw, thousands standing in line for jobs. recent jobs fair at the fall brook church in houston, texas, hundreds were online for jobs. in a city that has done fairly well, not good enough. this is a crisis, mr. speaker. and the congressional black caucus introduced legislation that would emphasize that jobs are a must, a crisis, and must be passed, we all joined in the resolution introduced in the summer months, we all got on that resolution, that we must do everything we can to create

jobs and we introduced for the people job creation bill and worked on initiatives to deal with that. let me tell you where we are. we are addressing this question this week. i have no qualms that this is about two weeks before christmas. a holiday that many celebrate and the holiday of other faiths that celebrate around this time, hanukkah, we're all -- where all families come together no matter what faith you may be if you're in america you come toward your family in america. where our soldiers are themselves even though many are coming home, many of our soldiers are scattered around the world. i would almost suggest to you that somebody's family member who happens to be related to a

member of the united states military may even be unemployed. or they may be a worker who is crying out for the payroll tax relief. so i have soldiers up for my colleagues to see and i have some happy faces for my colleagues to see. and i have another poster for my colleagues to see. it is important that we connect not just to our neighbors but also to realize that our soldiers have family members that would benefit from the payroll tax. there's a happy family right there. they would benefit from the payroll tax. if their family members are here

in the united states while they are abroad serving this country. that's why i have these pictures here. let's make it real. in addition to all those who are working, there are people who are related to these who have taken the oath to be able to say that we are fighting on behalf of this country, your freedom and your justice or your justice and equality, we're fighting and we believe it is important that they are fighting for us or they are positioned and posted around the world and that we be serious about the needs of their family members. a payroll tax relief that would put 1,400, 1,000 to 1,4 -- $1,400, $1,500 in the pockets of every american, some of whom

i've said, i don't want to be redundant, but are related to the very men and women that we admire, the very men and women that we admire, husbands, wivenes, aunts, uncles, grandparents, sons and daughters . of people here in the united states are now on the frontlines in many places around the world. some will be coming home for the holiday season, as the president has ordered troops out of iraq. what will they come home to? and so here's our answer. they will come home to legislation that i believe has passed the rules committee that unfortunately does not speak to the emergency and the crisis of what we're facing. i don't know whether or not my colleagues can see this, but here's a picture of the

unemployed. unemployment is not a respecter of region, not a respecter of race, i've indicated there are high numbers in the african-american community, but people are unemployed across america. highest unemployment that we've had in long years. rather than calling it a crisis, of which it is, where six million people will lose their unemployment insurance, this house will now debate a bill that has already been acknowledged that it will have no legs in the other body. won't even get anywhere near being heard or seen. this is a crisis. i think there is about 19 days before december 31, if i'm calculating correctly.

it is a crisis. and yet we bring to the floor the legislation that has already had the lights turned out on it. while people are suffering. you have heard that -- have you heard that? the fiddlers are fiddling while rome is burning. here's a picture of the unemployed and the bill adds extra policy issues. drug test the unemployed. make them get a g.e.d. job training. i'm all for all of the efforts of job training and g.e.d.. we should try to do a polling of the unemployed. i'd venture to say that many are college graduates. some of them just graduated in 2011 with college degrees and cannot get any jobs. i don't think they want to go back to get a g.e.d.

i think that's a little step beyond where they are. or behind where they are. drug testing? will cost $25,000. how often are we doing it? every week when they pick up their check? mothers and fathers who are trying to make sure they pay their mortgage, maybe never taken a drug in their life, subjected to drug testing? policy being done in the middle of a crisis? so, mr. levin of the ways and means, our ranking member, had a commonsense approach. his commonsense approach was that he declared unemployment an emergency. six million people about to go over the dam, sinking the ship. burning their house. it's an emergency. six million people are, if you will, about to go you

understand. -- to go under. we're having a great time with these posters. six million people are about to go under, it's an emergency. why couldn't we have a bipartisan agreement on that? why do we have a bill that has a long litany of to-do's for the unemployed? has anybody done any research to find out whether or not these people are in need of g.e.d.'s or been out of work for however long because of their own fault? the law clearly states that no insurance is denied un-- denied, unemployment insurance, that you are able to get, numbers you have been charged with misconduct or fraud or something else that pertains to you getting the unemployment insurance. friends, what is the definition of insurance? you pay for it while you work. you pay for insurance. you pay for unemployment insurance. you pay for car insurance. insurance on your house. it's insurance. you had to pay for it to get it. if you're getting unemployment insurance, you had to work to

get it. why are we putting all these burdens? so just get this little picture. let me add to the insult to injury. this bill would cut 40 weeks from the duration of the federal unemployment compensation and again as i said to allow states to drug test and we had some comment about random comments about people applying to jobs and couldn't pass a jobs -- a drug test or something thereof. well, let the individual businesses test individuals who are applying for jobs. they can handle it. i've heard that businesses are not hiring people, they're holding onto their cash. so these random comments that are being made are not

legitimate. they're making comments about people couldn't pass a drug test at a business, if that is the case, let the business continue to drug test them. it has nothing to do with individuals who are working or work and paid for insurance and now we want to deny them and add a burden to the state. the government. to drug test. it is perfectly well for an employer, which many employers do, to individually drug test on their own clock, on their own bill, their own tab. as i've said, under present law, you cannot deny insurance for reasons other than on the job misconduct, fraud or earning too much money from part time work. that is it. how dare we suggest that we've got dead beats who are looking for work every day? where did this scheme come up

from? here's a man that -- he lives in minneapolis. he's watching congress anxiously. he said he lost his job as a marketing director for a mutual fund company in july. his name is dean. meaning his six months of state benefits will expire at the end of january. if congress doesn't strike a deal, he will be ineligible for the additional weeks of federal benefits given the long-term joblessness since 2008. he said he'd be willing to do anything to keep the money flowing if he hasn't found work by then. it's a little bit ludicrous but this man is so desperate he'll do anything. how do we insult the american working public who paid for employment insurance or unemployment insurance and we want this person to be insulted for no reason, no documentation whatsoever. here's what happens if we don't do two things. one, the payroll tax extension and unemployment insurance.

one, on the payroll tax, 400,000 jobs will be lost and we will give in to 300,000 of the 1% for 160 million americans who will not get the payroll tax relief of $1,500. one million new jobs could be created thanks to the extension. losing 400,000 jobs. how easy is it? a surtax on 300,000 americans starting in 2013 and finishing in terms of the payback in 10 years. we've heard over and over again by the 1%, many of them saying, they don't mind the extra burden. that's a proposal that i offered and that ranking member had as part of his proposal.

i met with doctors, they are concerned about their medicare reimbursement. and in this instance the proposal by the democrats which includes mr. levin would have fixed the doctors' reimbursement with the war savings. a reasonable way to go. payroll tax quickly finished, surtax on 300,000 folks, starting in 2013, we'd be able to put between,000 and $1,500 in your pocket -- $between $1,000 and -- between $1,000 and $1,500 in your pocket. the relatives of all the folks we love who have taken an oath to protect us would be able to benefit. you just heard the story of dean. i would imagine that dean is a similar -- as similar to many others. the second thing we need to do is the unemployment insurance.

3.2 million americans pulled out of poverty in 2010 thanks to unemployment benefits. remember, now, you have worked, that's how you get unemployment benefits. i don't know where this g.e.d. comes from. but i know they'd be glad to get a g.e.d. if they needed it. and we can do that in regular order. let's pass a jobs bill with training and i'll tell you about two amendments that i introduced , joined with mr. cleaver and mr. towns. of the congressional black caucus. the number of job seekers who will lose benefits if congress fails to extend emergency unemployment, 2.2 million. 700,000 newly created jobs will be lost. can anybody explain to me why we have this bill that has already been cast aside as going nowhere? absolutely nowhere.

the republican bill will come on the floor and we will find that we are stuck with not an answer for the people like dean or the families that you've seen in this photograph or the thousands who came to jobs fairs that were held by the congressional black caucus or the jobs fares that i held in my district -- fairs that i held in my district, where respectively 5,000 and 8,000 persons came in the middle of the jobs crisis about two years ago. there are fates that are likewise in a deep pickle of not being able to continue the benefits of some who are suffering. so as i said, let me repeat it again, senator reid has already

said, will not pass the senate, will not be signed into law by the president. but let me go on to tell you why. the bill that i believe was passed out of the rules committee, solely a republican bill, with opportunities for us to have come together on these two crises, show the american people in the spirit of giving that we were going to live to fight another day in 2012 and really work to get this done for people who are desperate, literally desperate, but here's what we're doing. the republican bill requires millions of seniors to pay more for health care while refusing that surtax on the 300,000 wealthiest of americans. i've already mentioned that it cuts the unemployment benefits for people who have lost work through no fault of their own. again, call this congress, 202-225-3121, 202-225-3121, and

tell any member of congress whether or not you were fired because of your own fault. and still trying to get unemployment insurance. let us hear from those voices who have lost the job or not employed because of no fault of their own. what about an individual who said he was hired, got laid off, he got hired again and got laid off again? we know in this season of giving, we have hired, got about 80,000 jobs that have come through some of the mail houses and retailers. but it still hasn't cut into some who are desperately unemployed. and then it poses -- imposes new limits on unemployment compensation by, as i indicated to you, restricting benefits. it violates the bipartisan debt limit agreement, statutory pay-go and the g.o.p.'s own cut-go. we have not had any documentation that c.b.o. -- it meets any standards of whether or not it increases the deficit.

we are hearing that it increases the deficit, if we could declare the unemployment insurance as an emergency we would void that particular problem. would you not think, reasoned colleagues, that the helping of six million people, literally keep a roof over their head and their children, is clearly, if you will, an emergency? . helping the families of our soldiers that are around the world? some laying on their beds where they are injured? some now going through therapy? some now going through the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, if one of their family members are unemployed, isn't that an emergency? i'm not sure what we are thinking here. increases taxes on families by

forcing large end of the year tax payments. that's why i should go through the regular order. what is the regular order? hearings, legislation, we debate it and vote on it. one of the major insults is it reduces preventative care. we have encouraged americans to get health care at the front end and not get treatment in the emergency room with skyrocket health care, no doubt. literally, just cuts it. and reduces medicare and medicaid. and so my congressional district, it will literally shut down physicians who are dealing with the poorest of the poor. close hospitals. close clinics, because these individuals have no other way, shut the chips program down, children's health insurance

program tied to medicaid. seems to me we are not being rational. takes away e.p.a. rules that deals with trying to clean the air on behalf of the american people. unfortunately can't seem to find common ground. i want to repeat one point again. 40 weeks are being cut from the lifeline of those who need unemployment insurance. this is the deal that our republican friends have crafted in order to allegedly put a bill on the floor of this house. taking the lifeline, taking

rescue vote, taking the floor from the feet of the unemployed, just imagine a drowning man or woman and a ship comes by and it simply stares as they go down once, twice, and they are screaming life raft, life raft, just a life raft, just imagine, and the ship keeps sailing, shouts back, i don't think it's an emergency, keep pad willing -- paddling, are you sure you didn't get in this water at your own fault? keep on paddling.

that's what this bill does to millions of americans, by cutting ellgibblet to 99 weeks to 59 weeks and in fact, suggesting that unemployment at this rate is not an emergency. let me tell you about ohio is among other states 8.5% unemployment rate that will be hit the hardest by this proposal . these states would likely lose 40 weeks as i indicated. -- of insurance. and the way this bill is written, the unemployment compensation provisions in total equate to an increase in federal

spending by 34.2 billion over 10 years. let me say that again. the fiscal hawks, the folks who have been joining in the microphone and accusing this administration of reckless spending when we literally stopped the bleeding of this economy and job creation surged from november into december and seen the markets do a little better, none of this we senior nirvana but consider the movement. but wre see our friends spending $34 billion rather than acknowledging if you are unemployed and can't even access a loaf of bread, that you have an emergency of the 46 million americans on snap, on food

stamps. many in parking lots in front of grocery stores, waiting for that supplement to get into their account so they can go and buy food for their children. what else does this bill have? 11 riders, as i indicated, rolling g.e.d. and many other riders that have to do with regular order. sounds complex. what that means is letting the bill go through committee, let us discuss it and putting the omnibus jobs bill. now we want to hold hostage the unemployment insurance benefits. medicare extensions, this bill averts the cut to physician payments by increasing the payment rate in 2012 and 2013.

the rates would be the most the physicians have since 2004. the riders are unacceptable to hospitals. it's going to dramatically impact hospitals. it reduces payments to hospitals by drastically cutting payments for evaluation and management services by $6.8 billion. these are the most common outpatient services provided. reimburses from 75% to 60% and 55% in 2015. they are closing hospitals, literally closing hospitals in poor areas. other riders including relaxed restrictions on many other issues that are not good. this bill attempts to ensure that welfare funds cannot be accessed in a number of places. i might really agree with that, but it's a rider that has a

serious problem. and so, mr. speaker, it disturbed me when we are making work -- what does make work mean? means we are going through an exercise of 90 minutes of debate, which i believe may come shortly, and event you'll passage i believe of this legislation. some have some points in it that might be relevant to some of us in different regions. however, i believe i can get to the same spot in regular order. i am looking at legislation that can turn some of the profits that come from my region into coastal restoration and to provide for reduction of the

debt. i hope there is a bipartisan response to that. mr. speaker, that is ok, to do in regular order, meaning having hearings, introduce a bill, let your colleagues debate it and understand it, but to throw this kitchen sink on the floor of the house when people are asking for a life raft just to see how long we can hang out here, just see how long we can hang out. i'm all about getting a g.e.d. and improving graduation rates of our students across america, it's too low as we speak, but that's not the issue for this legislation. the issue is the life raft. it is to note that personal and family savings for many are exhausted. let me tell you something that

has not been diminished. newspaper articles that suggest that the purchase of luxury items, jewelry, et cetera, is booming. it means that there is a group of prosperous, wonderful americans who are having a heck of a good time and i'm neither envious or in any way want to criticize those purchases, but that is why the surtax is reasonable, because i believe those americans are willing to experience the benefit of this great country, the opportunity to live in a safe and secure nation that has democracy and equality, which allows them to prosper and to be part of saving their fellow americans. are we conscious of world war ii

when we were asked that very question of those who could not serve, every american had a role working in war factories, willingly, thuically, they understood the burdenen the benefit and the sacrifice. why in the world, when luxury items are flying off of the counters, we would be concerned. one of the issues is that we would be attacking small businesses. no, we would not. it is very difficult to, in essence, find small businesses that are at the million dollar mark. and so that seems to be an argument that is taken to a new level of understanding. i believe it will be a fair response.

amendments that we offered in the rules committee, which i did, also makes sense. we talked again about the surtax . talked about looking at some flexible ways of getting additional income on financial transactions. talked about an urban jobs training program, one of my amendments as i indicated, mr. towns, mr. cleaver and jackson lee, had to do with partnershipping with the urban league. i worked closely with the houston urban league to go into these hard-to-serve areas. if we are going to have a kitchen sink, let's add a responsible provision that really addresses job training, that really talks to the needs of job training. why not do that?

we offered that amendment in a bipartisan spirit. let us partnership with a proven entity, the national urban league, that could, in fact, help us with job training around america. and so, understanding how jobs are created seems to have eludded this legislation. i'm reading an a report from the urban institute and the unemployment insurance benefits the economy. reduce the fall of the g.d.p. by 18.3%. this resulted in nominal d.d.p.

being higher in 2009 than it would have been than unemployment insurance. this is a crisis and pass it under an emergency legislation, which is allowed. unemployment insurance kept the g.d.p. 315 million higher in the second quarter of 2010. and kept an a of americans on the job and low point of the quarter, eight million job losses were averted. lowering the unemployment rate by 1.2 percentage points. . standing in a line, trying to find a job, some people say it's like finding a needle in a haystack.

listen to the painful stories of people who have not been able to find work. as i stand here on the floor of the house, mr. speaker, i would almost venture to say that a person who worked, who may be presently unemployed and still eligible, might be living in their car. might just be living in their car. and here we are fiddling while rome is burning. i can't imagine. two things we want to do. payroll tax and unemployment insurance. and we've got a whole litany of throw the kitchen sink on the floor of the united states house of representatives, a bill that is 300 pages long.

jeopardizing the lives of children. we've lost some jobs. seven million since 2007. and a number of other elements that we could be working on. mr. speaker, i'd like to pass a make it in america initiative. we have enough time. i'd like to pass a major manufacturing initiative so that america begins to make things again. and we begin to redevelop our steel industry so that we would never find a bridge built with steel from china and workers from china. i believe that we should be collaborative, there is a worldwide economy. we're interrelated. but intellectual in doing it from strength -- but i believe in doing it from strength. so i think it is enormously important that we spend our time doing something that might draw bipartisan support, actually

creating jobs. asking our banking friends why they have $64 trillion on their books and what's happening to homeowners who are attempting to access these dollars for refinance, or homebuilders who have turned this economy or why are we allowing housing stock to just sit and not finding a way to provide more dollars for neighborhood stabilization so that occupiers who have been driven to the wall don't have to do what some friends are doing out west, take up residence because they're unnecessarily being foreclosured on, some of -- foreclosed on, some of whom are probably unemployed, do you consider that an emergency? that we have driven americans to

taking houses and taking their homes? this is not the america that our ancestors sweated to build. this is not the america that the turn of the century caused an industrial revolution, making us the builder and producer of the world. that saw us turn out the necessary weapons of world war ii. this is not that america. that we have people who are in the streets today asking why they have no relief, why they're unemployed, why there are recent graduates from the nation's colleges and yet cannot be employed. that's why i'm here on the floor. that's why the congressional black caucus put forward major legislation to help suggest that

there is a way through. there's a way through. our chairman sent a letter to barack obama urging the administration to deliver targeted solutions. to address job creation in american communities with the highest unemployment. we were broad based, including those that include african-americans. but target the highest numbers. does anybody remember presidential candidate, former attorney general robert fitzgerald kennedy, that went into appalachia in 1968 and acknowledged some of these poor pockets of poverty? does anyone acknowledge the number of children that are impoverished in the united states? has anyone done an overview of the pockets of poverty because manufacturing plants have closed in our rustbelt?

we initiated the effort to target those who are most in need. none of that is in this bill but kitchen sink. we suggested nine job creation proposals that would target the most vulnerable communities. we want to give people a second chance. remember the lifeline and the ship just passing by as the hand goes there once, twice and, yes, a third time. you hear that voice shouting, are you in the water because it's your own fault? we believe we should do something about it. there are more job fairs and town halls to come, many members are holding them on their own.

and so we focused on trying to help those vulnerable, the most vulnerable. how do we get to where we are today? and why are we in the midst of a war he willsome debate that will not get us -- quarrelsome debate that will not get us anywhere? mr. speaker, i would encourage the leadership to come together. every time we travel home we hear the same thing and i might venture to say, from democrats and republicans, they egg us on. we know you can do it. because this body, this democratic body is the oldest democracy. we live by a constitution that says, among other things, that we deserve due process, that there should be no

discrimination, that we have the right to vote. many privileges that other nations do not have. can we imagine ourselves now, last waning hours, to have a kitchen sink built that has no room for success in the other body and it is hours, minutes, seconds before the person drowns? how do we throw away all of these jobs? some would come back to me and say, we have this bill. and i would answer why this bill is flawed. cutting 40 weeks off of someone who is drowning in unemployment insurance. refusing to disgus a -- discuss

a reasoned way to do the payroll tax cut which is taking the top 1% and a reasoned surtax for 10 years only, starting in 2013. cutting seniors' medicare benefits in this bill. throwing them under the bus. making sure that the unemployment benefits are bogged down with provisions that should be put in a bill and it should be documented that we have a problem of drug addicts who are unemployed, who are paid into the insurance. answer the question, whether private businesses cannot do their own drug testing, which they have done all along. to weed out individuals who may be seeking jobs. document the people are home,

who are unemployed, just taking drugs, that may not be prescription drugs and not looking for employment. i've not seen them. i just want to have somebody come to the floor of the house, submit a document, give me a report that states all around the country or seeing people drag themselves up, getting their unemployment checks. that are undeserving because they're on drugs. what did i say, mr. speaker? you are deserving because you worked. and the law says, misconduct, fraud or other reasons dealing with those issues is the only reason to deny an unemployment check. so i think it is important that i leave with a call of reason. and to in essence make sure that

our friends can have a sense that this is the wrong direction to go. that families like those of these soldiers, americans in ham lets across this nation -- hamlets across this nation far and wide, young people that are 2011 college graduates that we've encouraged to finish their education, loaded with debt, having secured loans. families loaded with debt, homes on the verge of foreclosure, people who everyday of their life worked -- every day of their life worked, children whose families counted on them

for little jobs that they might have tried to get, some did get them. certainly these are not the children that former speaker of the house suggested are poor and have no record or history of seeing anybody go to work. certainly that's untrue. in fact, if they're poor right now they may be of a parent who worked, has been unemployed for a long period of time. they watched that parent go to work, they probably are watching that parent cry in pain. because of the plight that they're in right now. so i want my friends to know that we should not be playing at this. we should be taking this serious . mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: four minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: thank you. we should be taking this seriously.

seriously. we already know that we will have a degree of war servings -- savings, excuse me. and i'm looking at these numbers now. we have spent $802.3 billion for the iraq war, $472.6 billion on going -- ongoing on the afghan war. a lot of money. we will have some savings from the iraq war. we could in a bipartisan way address the question of the pained family member, the person that might be living in their car because of the plight of unemployment for a long period of time and needs the 99 weeks. we could address the question of poverty, the largest number of

children are impoverished. we could work on making sure that children are able to reach their highest level of education . we could in essence try to be part of the solution, by helping to create jobs, by introducing a major legislative initiative on job creation such as manufacturing here at home, buy america, make it in america. we can ensure that the government continues to buy america, recognizing that we have many friends around the world, but i don't think that there would be any problem with us doing that. we could stop burdening seniors. we to pass this payroll tax. let me remind you, the unemployment could be done under an emergency, the payroll tax could be done simply by taxing the wealthiest of americans for a 10-year period.

does that sound simple? and that it is. we could not eliminate the child tax credit. we could not stop people from receiving benefits by a long list of to-do's. we could not jeopardize states that have an 8.5% unemployment, like ohio, who are desperately running out. we could be the kind of america that peter spoke of in the greatest generation. we could answer that with the idea that the young people that are here today are beginning to build their own story of greatness and be everyone thetic and sympathetic to their plight, with degrees and no jobs or maybe they had jobs during the summer and maybe they're at home with parents who run employed, just pounding on top of themselves, just one bad luck after another. . i'm calling upon my

colleagues to find a pathway of agreement and look at what we have done in the congressional black caucus and look at the amendments we have introduced, one including studying whether this bill that comes to the floor will impact the elderly and minorities. i offered that amendment with mr. cleaver, mr. towns and jackson lee. fair, simple amendment. i can only call upon the graces of this nation and members of congress, the recognition, my friends, that our jobs, our responsibility, is to shed ourselves of the crisis of partisanship, the shack wills of partisanship and be more concerned with the pain of the american people and they don't have any time to wait and going back and forth, fiddle around

and send it to the senate and fiddle around -- the president suggested a veto, who will win, while rome burns. while the people that we love, family members that some of us even know of, we face the same human conditions that all of america faces. i'm sure one member of congress will tell you of somebody in their family who is in hard times. this is not to benefit us, but to bring about compassion and understanding for someone close to us. so if we could get that compassion and understanding and just experience what a democracy is all about, democracy that has lived and survived for 400 years, an economy that has thrived and given people an

equal opportunity and pull yourselves by the boot straps and say to america, that we don't have that drome for you anymore, that we are going to slash and burn and not going to be fair and throw states in a condition where they cannot overcome, not going to honor our commitment to our soldiers, providing for them and their families. all we're going to do is constantly be engaged in partisanship and mr. speaker, my time has ended and it is a call for coming together in the american way. i know we can do it and we can pass a fair, clean, unemployment extension and payroll tax for the american people. and my friends to my right that we ail love and admire. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain a motion. ms. jackson lee: i move that we now adjourn. ism the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly th >> this week continued debate on 2012 federal spending. current funding expires this freddie. you can follow c-span tomorrow when members return for legislative business. president obama met with the white house with iraqi prime minister maliki today. they talked about the relations between the countries as the u.s. withdraws from iraq. then newt gingrich and jon

huntsman debate. then at the nuclear arms control program created 20 years ago. >> for the past few months we have examined political lives of the contenders, 14 people who lost the presidency. this friday we will talk to a historian, and at the door, and a historian to see what they learn from the serious. friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. .org/thecontenders.r >> the president obama and the

iraqi prime minister talked about the relations between the united states and iraq. this is about 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the prime minister of iraq. when i took office, nearly 150,000 american troops were deployed in iraq, and i pledged to end this war responsibly.

are coming home every day. this is a season of homecomings, and military families across america are being reunited for the holidays. in the coming days, the last american soldiers will cross the border out of iraq, with honorafter nearly nine years, our war in iraq ends this month. today, i'm proud to welcome prime minister maliki -- the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic iraq. we're here to mark the end of this war, to honor the sacrifices of all those who made this day possible, and to turn the page -- begin a new chapter in the history between our countries -- a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. iraq faces great challenges, but today reflects the impressive progress that iraqis have made. millions have cast their ballots -- some risking or giving their lives -- to vote in free elections. the prime minister leads iraq's

most inclusive government yet. iraqis are working to build institutions that are efficient and independent and transparent. economically, iraqis continue to invest in their infrastructure and development. and i think it's worth considering some remarkable statistics. in the coming years, it's estimated that iraq's economy will grow even faster than china's or india's. with oil production rising, iraq is on track to once again be one of the region's leading oil producers. with respect to security, iraqi forces have been in the lead for the better part of three years -- patrolling the streets, dismantling militias, conducting counterterrorism operations. today, despite continued attacks by those who seek to derail iraq's progress, violence remains at record lows. and, mr. prime minister, that's a tribute to your leadership

and to the skill and the sacrifices of iraqi forces. across the region, iraq is forging new ties of trade and commerce with its neighbors, and iraq is assuming its rightful place among the community of nations. for the first time in two decades, iraq is scheduled to host the next arab league summit, and what a powerful message that will send throughout the arab world. people throughout the region will see a new iraq that's determining its own destiny -- a country in which people from different religious sects and ethnicities can resolve their differences peacefully through the democratic process. mr. prime minister, as we end this war, and as iraq faces its future, the iraqi people must know that you will not stand alone. you have a strong and enduring partner in the united states of america. and so today, the prime minister and i are reaffirming our common vision of a long- term partnership between our

nations. this is in keeping with our strategic framework agreement, and it will be like the close relationships we have with other sovereign nations. simply put, we are building a comprehensive partnership. mr. prime minister, you've said that iraqis seek democracy, "a state of citizens and not sects." so we're partnering to strengthen the institutions upon which iraq's democracy depends -- free elections, a vibrant press, a strong civil society, professional police and law enforcement that uphold the rule of law, an independent judiciary that delivers justice fairly, and transparent institutions that serve all iraqis. we're partnering to expand our trade and commerce. we'll make it easier for our businesses to export and innovate together. we'll share our experiences in agriculture and in health care. we'll work together to develop iraq's energy sector even as the iraqi economy diversifies, and we'll deepen iraq's

integration into the global economy. we're partnering to expand the ties between our citizens, especially our young people. through efforts like the fulbright program, we're welcoming more iraqi students and future leaders to america to study and form friendships that will bind our nations together for generations to come. and we'll forge more collaborations in areas like science and technology. we'll partner for our shared security. mr. prime minister, we discussed how the united states could help iraq train and equip its forces -- not by stationing american troops there or with u.s. bases in iraq -- those days are over -- but rather, the kind of training and assistance we offer to other countries. given the challenges we face together in a rapidly changing region, we also agreed to establish a new, formal channel of communication between our national security advisors. and finally, we're partnering for regional security.

for just as iraq has pledged not to interfere in other nations, other nations must not interfere in iraq. iraq's sovereignty must be respected. and meanwhile, there should be no doubt, the drawdown in iraq has allowed us to refocus our resources, achieve progress in afghanistan, put al qaeda on the path to defeat, and to better prepare for the full range of challenges that lie ahead. so make no mistake, our strong presence in the middle east endures, and the united states will never waver in defense of our allies, our partners, or our interests. this is the shared vision that prime minister maliki and i reaffirm today -- an equal partnership, a broad relationship that advances the security, the prosperity and the aspirations of both our people. mr. prime minister, you've said it yourself -- building a strong and "durable relationship between our two countries is vital." and i could not agree more.

so this is a historic moment. a war is ending. a new day is upon us. and let us never forget those who gave us this chance -- the untold number of iraqis who've given their lives, more than one million americans, military and civilian, who have served in iraq, nearly 4,500 fallen americans who gave their last full measure of devotion, tens of thousands of wounded warriors, and so many inspiring military families. they are the reason that we can stand here today. and we owe it to every single one of them -- we have a moral obligation to all of them -- to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. mr. prime minister.

[speaking in foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] >> your commitment to everything you have done. everyone who observes the nature should continue to say the relationship will develop. in 2008, the relationship

between our two countries. success in our mission, nobody envisioned we would succeed. the necessary steps in order to succeed in the secondary state. the educational and commercial, the judicial. it relied on its old security apparatus.

but it remains in need of cooperation with the united states of america in security issues and information and combating terrorism, and in the area of training and the area of equipping, which is needed by the iraqi army. and we have started that. and we want to complete the process of equipping the iraqi army in order to protect our sovereignty, and does not violate the rights of anybody -- or do not take any missions that sovereignty of others. today, the joint mission is to establish the mechanisms and the commitments that will expedite our -- we have reached an agreement, and we have held a meeting for the higher joint committee under the chairmanship of mr. biden, the vice president, and myself in baghdad, and we spoke about all the details that would put the framework agreement into implementation. and here we talked about it and its activation. and there will be other discussions and other meetings with the higher committee here in washington in order to put

the final touches regarding the necessary mechanisms for cooperation and achieving the common vision that we followed, which was based on our common wills and political independent decision, and the desire to respect the sovereignty of each other. and we feel that we need political cooperation as well, in addition to cooperating in the security and economic and commercial fields. we need a political cooperation, particularly with regard to the matters that are common and are of concern for us as two parties that want to cooperate. the common vision that we used as a point of departure we have confirmed today. and i am very happy, every time we meet with the american side, i find determination and a strong will to activate the

strategic framework agreement. and i will say, frankly, this is necessary and it serves the interests of iraq, as it is necessary and serves the interests of the united states of america. this makes us feel that we will succeed with the same commitment, common commitment that we had in combating terrorism and accomplishing the missions, the basis of which iraq was independent. iraq today has a lot of wealth and it needs experience and expertise, and american and foreign expertise to help iraq exploiting its own wealth in an ideal way. iraq is still suffering from a shortage of resources, and we have established a strategy to increase the iraqi wealth. and we hope that the american

companies will have the largest role in increasing our wealth in the area of oil and other aspects as well. iraq wants to rebuild all these sectors that were harmed because of the war and because of the adventurous policies that were used by the former regime, and we need a wide range of reform in the area of education. we have succeeded in signing several agreements through the educational initiative, which put hundreds of our college graduates to continue their graduate studies and specialized subject in american universities. and i am putting it before everyone who is watching the relationship between the u.s. and iraq. it is a very -- it has very high aspirations. and i would like to renew my thanks for his excellency the

president for giving me this opportunity, and i wish him more success, god willing. thank you very much. >> we have time for a few questions. i'm going to start with ben feller of ap. >> thank you, mr. president, and mr. prime minister. mr. president, i have two questions for you on the region. in syria, you have called for president assad to step down over the killing of his people, but prime minister maliki has warned that assad's removal could lead to a civil war that could destabilize the whole region. i'm wondering if you're worried that iraq could be succumbing to iran's influence on this matter and perhaps helping to protect assad. and speaking of iran, are you concerned that it will be able to weaken america's national security by discovering intelligence from the fallen drone that it captured? prime minister maliki, i'd like to ask you the question about syria. why haven't you demanded that assad step down, given the slaughter of his people?

>> first of all, the prime minister and i discussed syria, and we share the view that when the syrian people are being killed or are unable to express themselves, that's a problem. there's no disagreement there. i have expressed my outrage in how the syrian regime has been operating. i do believe that president assad missed an opportunity to reform his government, chose the path of repression, and has continued to engage in repressive tactics so that his credibility, his capacity to regain legitimacy inside syria i think is deeply eroded. it's not an easy situation. and i expressed to prime minister maliki my recognition that given syria is on iraq's

borders, iraq is in a tough neighborhood, that we will consult closely with them as we move forward. but we believe that international pressure, the approach we've taken along with partners around the world to impose tough sanctions and to call on assad to step down, a position that is increasingly mirrored by the arab league states, is the right position to take. even if there are tactical disagreements between iraq and the united states at this point in how to deal with syria, i have absolutely no doubt that these decisions are being made based on what prime minister maliki believes is best for iraq, not based on considerations of what iran would like to see. prime minister maliki has been

explicit here in the united states, he's been explicit back in iraq in his writings, in his commentary, that his interest is maintaining iraqi sovereignty and preventing meddling by anybody inside of iraq. and i believe him. and he has shown himself to be willing to make very tough decisions in the interest of iraqi nationalism even if they cause problems with his neighbor. and so we may have some different tactical views in terms of how best to transition to an inclusive, representative government inside of syria, but every decision that i believe prime minister maliki is making he is making on the basis of what he thinks is best for the iraqi people. and everything that we've seen in our interactions with prime minister maliki and his government over the last

several years would confirm that. with respect to the drone inside of iran, i'm not going to comment on intelligence matters that are classified. as has already been indicated, we have asked for it back. we'll see how the iranians respond. [speaking in foreign language] >> difficult in syria, and perhaps in other states as well. but i know that peoples must get their freedom and their will and democracy and equal citizenship. we are with these rights, the rights of people and with their wills because we have achieved

that ourselves. and if we could compare iraq today with the past, we find that there is a great difference in democracy and elections and freedom. therefore, we honor the aspirations of the syrian people. but i cannot have -- i do not have the right to ask a president to abdicate. we must play this role, and we cannot give ourselves this right. iraq is a country that is bordering on syria, and i am concerned about the interest of iraq and the interest of the security of the region. and i wish that what is required by the syrian people would be achieved without affecting the security of iraq. and i know the two countries are related to each other, and we must be very prudent in dealing with this matter. we were with the initiative by the arab league.

but, frankly speaking, because we suffered from the blockade and the military interventions, we do not encourage a blockade because it exhausts the people and the government. but we stood with the arab league, and we were very frank with ourselves when they visited us in baghdad, and we agreed on an initiative. perhaps it will be the last initiative that we'll see in this situation and will achieve the required change in syria without any violent operations that could affect the area in general. i believe that the parties, all the parties realize the dangers of a sectarian war in iraq, in syria, and in the region, because it will be like a snowball that it will expand and it will be difficult to control it. we will try to reach a solution, and i discussed the matter with his excellency, the

president, president obama, and the secretary general of the arab league. and there is agreement even from the syrian opposition, who are leading the opposition in syria, to search for a solution. if we can reach a solution, it will avoid all the evils and the dangers. and if we don't, there must be another way to reach a solution that will calm the situation in syria and in the area in general. >> [speaking foreign language] establish a new relationship -- to establish the characteristics of a new relationship with the united states after the withdrawal of the u.s. forces from iraq? relying on the strategic

framework agreement, have you reached a specific mechanism for the implementation of the framework agreement? your excellency, president obama, you said that there will be long-range relationships with iraq. can you tell us exactly, will iraq be an ally of the united states or just a friend, or will have a different type of relationship? thank you very much. >> definitely, without mechanisms, we will not be able to achieve anything we have. these mechanisms will control our continuous movement. therefore, the framework agreement has a higher committee, or a joint committee from the two countries that meets regularly, and it has representatives from all the sectors that we want to develop relationship in -- commerce, industry, agriculture, economy, security.

so the joint higher committee is the mechanism in which the ideas will be reached in relationship between the ministries that will implement what is agreed upon. we believe through these two mechanisms, the mechanism of the joint committee and the mechanism of contact between each minister and his counterpart, we will achieve success, and this will expedite achieving our goal. >> as the prime minister described, i think our goal is to have a comprehensive relationship with iraq. and what that means is, is that on everything from expanding trade and commerce, to scientific exchanges, to providing assistance as iraq is trying to make sure that electricity and power generation is consistent for its people, to joint exercises

militarily -- to a whole range of issues, we want to make sure that there is a constant communication between our governments, that there are deep and rich exchanges between our two governments -- and between our peoples -- because what's happened over the last several years has linked the united states and iraq in a way that is potentially powerful and could end up benefiting not only america and iraq but also the entire region and the entire world. it will evolve over time. what may be discovered is, is that there are certain issues that prime minister maliki and his government think are especially important right now -- for example, making sure that oil production is ramped up, and we are helping to encourage global investment in that sector.

i know that the prime minister has certain concerns right now, militarily, that five years from now or 10 years from now, when the iraqi air force is fully developed or the iraqi navy is fully developed, he has less concern about. our goal is simply to make sure that iraq succeeds, because we think a successful, democratic iraq can be a model for the entire region. we think an iraq that is inclusive and brings together all people -- sunni, shia, kurd -- together to build a country, to build a nation, can be a model for others that are aspiring to create democracy in the region. and so we've got an enormous investment of blood and treasure in iraq, and we want to make sure that, even as we bring the last troops out, that it's well understood both in iraq and here in the united states that our commitment to iraq's success

is going to be enduring. christi parsons. >> thank you. you were a little delayed coming out today -- i was wondering if you could talk about any agreements that you may have reached that you haven't detailed already. for instance, can you talk a little bit more about who will be left behind after the u.s. leaves, how big their footprint will be, and what their role will be? and, mr. president, could you also address how convinced you are that the maliki government is ready to govern the country and protect the gains that have been made there in recent years? i also wonder if, on this occasion, you still think of this as "a dumb war"? questionake the last first. i think history will judge the original decision to go into iraq.

but what's absolutely clear is, as a consequence of the enormous sacrifices that have been made by american soldiers and civilians -- american troops and civilians -- as well as the courage of the iraqi people, that what we have now achieved is an iraq that is self- governing, that is inclusive, and that has enormous potential. there are still going to be challenges. and i think the prime minister is the first one to acknowledge those challenges. many of them, by the way, are economic. after many years of war and, before that, a brutal regime, it's going to take time to further develop civil society, further develop the

institutions of trade and commerce and the free market, so that the extraordinary capacity of the iraqi people is fully realized. but i have no doubt that iraq can succeed. with respect to security issues, look, when i came into office, i said we're going to do this in a deliberate fashion. we're going to make sure that we leave iraq responsibly, and that's exactly what we've done. we did it in phases. and because we did it in phases, we were continually able to build up iraqi forces to a point where when we left the cities, violence didn't go up in the cities, when we further reduced our footprint, violence didn't go up. and i have no doubt that that will continue.

first question you had had to do with what footprint is left. we're taking all of our troops out of iraq. we will not have any bases inside of iraq. we will have a strong diplomatic presence inside of iraq. we've got an embassy there that is going to be carrying out a lot of the functions of this ongoing partnership and executing on the strategic framework agreement. we will be working to set up effective military-to-military ties that are no different from the ties that we have with countries throughout the region and around the world. the iraqi government has already purchased f-16s from us. we've got to train their pilots and make sure that they're up and running and that we have an effective iraqi air force.

we both have interests in making sure that the sea lanes remain open in and around iraq and throughout the region, and so there may be occasion for joint exercises. we both have interests in counterterrorism operations that might undermine iraqi sovereignty but also could affect u.s. interests, and we'll be working together on those issues. but what we are doing here today, and what we'll be executing over the next several months, is a normalization of the relationship. we will have a strong friend and partner in iraq. they will have a strong friend and partner in us, but as one based on iraqi sovereignty and one based on equal partnerships of mutual interest and mutual respect. and i'm absolutely confident that we're going to be able to execute that over the long term. while i'm at it, since this may be the last question i receive, i just want to acknowledge --

none of this would have been successful, obviously, without our extraordinary men and women in uniform. and i'm very grateful for the prime minister asking to travel to arlington to recognize those sacrifices. there are also some individuals here who've been doing a bang- up job over the last year to help bring us to this day. and i just want to acknowledge general lloyd austin, who was a warrior and, turns out, is also a pretty good diplomat -- as well as the ambassador. both of them have done extraordinary work on the ground, partnering with their iraqi counterparts. and i'm going to give a special shout-out to my friend and partner, joe biden, who i think ever since i came in has helped to establish high-level, strong links and dialogue between the united states and iraq, through some difficult times. and i think prime minister maliki would agree that the

vice president's investment in making this successful has been hugely important. >> thank you very much. i believe the remaining of the question that was given was answered by his excellency the president. and i also -- i said at the beginning, the dialogues that were to confirm the confidence and to move into the implementation of the framework agreement, and to find the companies and to train our soldiers on the weapons that were bought from america, and the need for expertise in other civil fields, and the protection of their movement in iraq. we talked also about the political issues, which is a common interest for us. and we spoke also about the question of armament. as the president said, iraq has

bought some weapons and now is applying for buying other weapons to develop its capabilities in the protection of iraq. these are all titles of what we discussed, but it was done in an atmosphere of harmony. >> mr. prime minister, you stated that there is cooperation in the area of armament. can you tell us the amount of military cooperation between the united states and baghdad in this area? specifically, have you received any promises from president obama in this regard, specifically -- of the u.s. embassy in baghdad? there is argument going on inside iraqi politician now regarding the size -- it's 15,000.

and i wonder if you discussed with prime minister to reduce the number of the diplomats. thank you. >> definitely, we have raised the issue of iraqi need for weapons, for aerial protection and naval and ground protection. we have a lot of weapons, american weapons, and it requires trainers. and we received promises for cooperation from his excellency the president for some weapons that iraq is asking for, especially those related to its protection of its airspace. and we hope that the congress will approve another group of f-16 airplanes to iraq because our air force was destroyed completely during the war that iraq entered into. and this is not all. we also need technical

equipment related to the security field. these are issues that are being discussed by the concerned people in both countries, between the ministers of defense and interior, with their counterparts in the united states, and we received promises and facilitations. and we agreed on how to make this relationship continuous in the security field, because both of us need each other and need cooperation, especially in chasing al qaeda, which we started and was not defeated anywhere except in iraq. and we hope to cooperate with all those who feel the dangers of this organization -- to cooperate with us as well. >> our view is a sovereign iraq that can protect its borders, protect its airspace, protect its people. and our security cooperation with other countries i think is a model for our security

cooperation with iraq. we don't want to create big footprints inside of iraq -- and that's i think demonstrated by what will happen at the end of this month, which is we're getting our troops out. but we will have a very active relationship, military-to- military, that will hopefully enhance iraqi capabilities and will assure that we've got a strong partner in the region that is going to be effective. with respect to the embassy, the actual size of our embassy with respect to diplomats is going to be comparable to other countries' that we think are important around the world. there are still some special security needs inside of iraq that make the overall number larger.

and we understand some questions have been raised inside of iraq about that. look, we're only a few years removed from an active war inside of iraq. i think it's fair to say that there are still some groups, although they are greatly weakened, that might be tempted to target u.s. diplomats, or civilians who are working to improve the performance of the power sector inside of iraq or are working to help train agricultural specialists inside of iraq. and as president of the united states, i want to make sure that anybody who is out in iraq trying to help the iraqi people is protected. now, as this transition proceeds, it may turn out that the security needs for our diplomats and for our civilians

gradually reduces itself, partly because iraq continues to make additional progress. but i think the iraqi people can understand that, as president of the united states, if i'm putting civilians in the field in order to help the iraqi people build their economy and improve their productivity, i want to make sure that they come home -- because they are not soldiers. so that makes the numbers larger than they otherwise would be, but the overall mission that they're carrying out is comparable to the missions that are taking place in other countries that are big, that are important, and that are friends of ours. ok? thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

what is today, i am proud to what some the prime minister, the alleged leader -- >> today, i am proud to welcome the prime minister, the leader of iraq. we are here to turn the page, begin a new chapter in the history of our countries. a normal relationship between sovereign nations. an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. >> as american troops prepared to leave iraq, look back at key people and event of the nearly nine year war on line at the spanish video library. -- at the cspan video library.

it republican house proposal to extend the tax cut. later, sarah kliff will talk about inflated medicare payment cuts to doctors. those are set to go into effect january 1. each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. next, republican presidential candidates newt gingrich in jon huntsman sit down for a discussion on foreign policy and national security. mr. gingrich served as house speaker from 1995-1999. jon huntsman was u.s. ambassador to china and utah governor from 2005-2009. they spoke about iran, china, israel, and the airbus bring. this is moderated by pat

griffin -- and the arab spring. this is moderated by pat griffin. >> we are the hosts for tonight's debate. some of you may have noticed we are in a different location. the institute is down the street. 10 years ago, our president strutted the institute with the hope of creating a place -- started the institute with the hope of creating a place that would allow civic and political dialogue. the father is here, he is over by the board. if we could recognize him. [applause] the institute is run by grants and donations from private individuals. keep in mind as you go into the end of the year. tonight co-sponsors of the college republicans -- tonight's sponsors are the college

republicans. stand up thr, drew. the college republicans and democrats work well together. they really set a model for what could be done in washington. as you will note, we have exams on campus this week, in particular, today. that is why we left the outside for a little while. there were exams going on in here. that is the way it goes on a college campus. some of you might have googled the word "lincoln-douglas debate." 1858, there were seven debates across the illinois. that is the format for tonight. in new hampshire, we do town hall meetings. the audience is a practice banned.

that is not the case today. -- the audience is a participant. that is not the case today. i am staying at an audience that needs to be quiet. i am asking that no cell phones, no conversation, no breaking out in any way. you will be removed from the audience. that was made clear in an e- mail. i am sorry to be hard about it. that is the way it goes. please check of your cell phones. i'm going to introduce patrick griffin, our senior fellow and an author here. he will serve as moderator. patrick. [applause] >> thank you. good evening. thank you very much. welcome to the epicenter of new

hampshire politics. the institute of politics. a couple of quick things, tonight, two candidates in a debate. tonight is in there will house. both of the dead men like a long form format. -- is in their wheel-house. both of these candidates like a long-form format. we have 10 topics tonight. they include afghanistan, pakistan, iran, the arab spring, the debt deficit, eurozone banking, the mexican debt war, and russia. nobody will ask them to come up with a solution for all of that. the candidates have worked together to produce this event.

i am fortunate to be hosting it. this is unprecedented, having been involved in presidential campaigns, to see two campaigns work together to bring their candidates to the floor. i think both campaigns deserve a hand. [applause] this is essentially a loose format tonight. in order to get to as many topics as possible, we have set up a format that allows our candidates some guidelines. the first person to speak will have five minutes to offer their thoughts. the other candidate will have a chance to rebut. each candidate will be given a three-minute open and close. if at the end of speaking in the bottle the other candidate has something to say, -- speaking

and rebuttal, the other candidate has something to say, we will allow it. and as you hold your applause. to me in welcoming our two candidates -- please hold your applause. join me in welcoming our two candidates. jon huntsman. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. [laughter] thank you very much. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, speaker newt gingrich. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you. >> what you guys want to talk about? how can we function? in a coin toss, it was determined that we would allow, speaker, he won the coin toss. speaker gingrich will open this evening with a three-minute opening. after that, governor, we will give you three minutes. mr. speaker. >> let me say that i appreciate you posting this. i think it is going to be an interesting hour and a half. i knew governor huntsman when he was governor. we talked health policy in his

office. he was doing a tremendous job. he hosted as the second day he was in beijing. they were still unpacking. they allow us to spend some time. the governor is fluent in chinese and has served in singapore and beijing. the reason i give thee this background, is seldom have an opportunity to have two people with a passionate commitment to america's role in the world and have experiences that allow us to have the conversation we can have here. one of the great weaknesses of the campaign up to now, of the debates, was in the absence of serious discussion about the nature of the world, the nature of the world market, the nature of the challenges we face, and the nature of america's role. today, here, we have a chance to have a dialogue and take on some ideas and cover some ground. from trade to diplomacy to

national security, the very identity of our country, i think we will cover a lot of ground. i think it is going to be very interesting. i think it will go places that neither of us can predict just because having two people who care this much fiji to places -- places.u tompla >> it is an honor to be with the. it is terrific to be with so many folks. i cannot tell you what an honor it is to be here. reflecting on the mock-caucus that was held here. i want to tell the speaker what an honor it is to be with him. what a joy it was to be able to talk about u.s.-china relations. i also want to tell you all that

i hope you understand my english. i have acquired this new hampshire accent having spent so much time here. we just did our 120 public event in the state. i have enjoyed getting around and making new friends and engaging in the most significant political event in the run-up to choosing our next president. that takes us to where we are today. i am honored to be part of this discussion. as for me, i think our foreign policy in national security posture going forward needs to be based on an extension of our value system. as for me, i packaged them around a the things that are going to guide everything i do. it breaks down to, first, fixing our core. if we do not have a strong core, we are not able to protect the

values we are famous for in the world, democracy, liberty, human rights, and free markets. if we want to affect the national security strategy, we have to fix our core. second, i want a foreign policy that leads by economics. when was the last time we had a full and policy that but economics first? third, we have an ongoing challenge called terror. that is not going away. we need to structure a priority is that allow us to engage realistically. s --tructure -- structure priorities that allow us to engage realistically. it has been a long time since we reminded the world what it means to be a friend and ally. i want to drive those home. thank you all for being here. >> opening remarks done.

let's begin with the subject of afghanistan and pakistan. governor huntsman, you going to start us on this. you have five minutes. >> let me begin with this, we are 10 years into the war on terror. we have given this effort at all as a nation. in some cases, families have given the ultimate sacrifice. it is to them we pay our respects and give our sincere gratitude. i say we have achieved some very important outcomes in afghanistan. i believe it is time for us to come home, to recognize what the mission moving forward is. it is not about nation-building. it is not a counter-insurgency. it is a counter-terror effort. when i look at afghanistan, i say, first, we have been able to

run the taliban. number 2, we have been able to have free elections. number 3, we have been able to uproot al qaeda. and finally, we have been able to kill osama bin laden. i say, i want to articulate as president what it means to have achieved those very important outcomes. beyond that, i say it is time for us to bring our men and women home. i want to realize the threat ongoing is a counter-terrorist threat. i want to make sure -- we do need a counter-terror effort, i want to make sure we have the ability to raise it and collect intelligence. i want to make sure we have a

trained special forces capability. i want to make sure we have an ongoing commitment to training of the afghan national army, knowing we have done a good job. we have been able to establish more of a robust civil society. i am always reminded of a conversation, we are in his office. he has had a -- he says i am not sure you fully understand what it means to be president of a country like mine. you see, we are a tribal c ountry. i have a hard time going back to my native region. i am not respected. i started reflecting on that reality. we have been able to build infrastructure. we have been able to expand rule

of law. we have been able to fortify civil society. i think we have done the best we can do. i think we should be proud of what we have done. it is time to move on. it is time to come home recognizing we have an ongoing commitment. that takes me to pakistan. i think we need to recognize that pakistan, sadly, is nothing more than a transactional relationship. i wish we could say it is more. again, it has evolved with the highest of expectations. you look at, july of 1971, henry kissinger passed through islamabad on his secret mission to china. he got sick, went to the summer palace. those were the good days with pakistan. then, after the soviet invasion,

we ran our operations through pakistan. the aftermath of the soviet withdrawal in the 1980 post. -- 19080's. we have a complicated set of circumstances. the ministry of defense, which runs isi, the most powerful body in the country. and of course, your secular government. a very young demographic with 180 million people. a thriving movement that gives rise to anti-americanism. you have to stop and say for all of the money we have put into pakistan, are we seeing as -- in a better light? the answer is no. let's recognize it for what it is. it is a transactional relationship. we do have interest. it is a nuclear country. we want to make sure it does not

give rise to a proliferation problem. they make to quote break with -- they need to cooperate with us. i want to make sure that our relationship recognizes the concourse of the u.s.-pakistan relationship. it is what it is. it is transactional. any aid money that goes in there should be tied specifically to outcomes. to careful cooperation on the part of the pakistani government. in the end, they are not going to succeed until they can shore up their civil society, until they can take power away from the military and the isi and give it to their civilian government. >> five minutes, almost exactly. your thoughts? >> and not sure i can meet his timing skills. >> you were a speaker before this.

>> as speaker, i usually allowed myself to speak as long as useful. when i was a junior they had a strict one minute rule. i was at a conference a few years ago and the head of the institute who was an algerian born american, a great doctor, made the comment that we live in a world where you can have a four seasons hotel in a third- world country. one block away, you can have a slum where people have come in from the jungle. you have people who fly in who are used to western models of vaccination. the person down the street is living in a totally different world. we have compressed several hundred years into neighbors by

the different in developmental rates. that is part of what karzai was saying in afghanistan. this is a much harder problem than anybody in washington in either party is willing to deal with. let me give you the most obvious example. if you had come to me a year ago and said, where do you think bin laden is? i would have said, my guess is he is in northwest pakistan, probably in a cave probably deeply entrenched. he might have gotten to somalia. it is not likely. that would have been my guest. if you said, he has been living -- my guess. if you said, he has been living in a large compound in the military city, i would have

said, that would only be helped as stock possible -- only be possible if they were protecting him. when we found him, and we killed him, the first reaction of the government was not, i am so glad you got rid of this man. the first reaction was to be angry at the people in pakistan who helped us. if you want to be realistic, you have to ask yourself, what of the underlying lessons of all of this? what it tells me is that across the region, we have a much more profound problem than we think we do. there is a real question of whether we are in the business of having a transactional relationship with an afghan government is president finds it advantageous to attack us to

float on top of the tribes. whether we are in the business of the dignity -- of modernity which will break down the tribes. it is a much longer process. it is not primarily military. i look at a rock -- iraq. in the years since we liberated the country, the number of questions has dropped -- christians has dropped. it is hard for me to see that as a success story. we have no idea what is going to come out in libya, egypt, syria, tunisia -- we were with some friends who had served in the intelligence agency for a long time. in 1947, because we had a theory of the cold war, we went into

france and italy covertly. we supported everyone who was not communist. we defeated the soviet effort to take over both countries. if they had won those two campaigns, we would be in a different world today. we do not have a theory today of what it is we are doing. we are randomly using our forces. we are randomly using petitors'. we do not have any clear understanding. the obama administration issued instructions that terrorist training should not mention islam. how you describe rudderless -- radical islamists? i think you have to go to the basics and start over and say, we are weaker economically. we have lost young men and

women. we have lost money. it is hard for me to argue we are any safer than we were 10 years ago. as governor huntsman said, they keep producing nuclear weapons. we do not know whether they can control those weapons. the of iranians are getting closer to having a weapon. they will use it. a movement that has been at war with the sentiments of nine -- with us since 1979 is a movement you have to be cautious of. i want you to think about how serious this is. a movement which recruits its own children to learn how to be suicide bombers and sends them into a restaurant to blow themselves up in order to kill you is a movement that, with nuclear weapons, would use them in a heartbeat. there is no deterrent deterrent.

it is a crisis we have to confront deeply and come up with a new strategic understanding. >> thank you. just a little over five minutes. not bad. anything to add to that before we leave this topic? >> i would say that we have to be very careful as a nation in identifying what our core national security interests are in that region. we have to do it based upon where we sit with pakistan. based on our relationship to date, where we are with afghanistan. our nation's interests include nuclear weapons in pakistan, the implications of those getting lost or fallen but to proliferation. number two, a big problem is pakistan is a failed nation state. i would sit at the stand is a candidate for failed nation

state that is. -- i would say pakistan is a candidate for failed nation state candidate. -- status. being a training ground for terrorist is something we must work with them with. as we analyze pakistan, as we try to put into perspective what it means to get along, as reformat what our aid, support will be, i think we have to take seriously these three areas. they are in america's interest. we will have to shore up relationships. i think the relationship with india is a prime example of a relationship that is waiting to broaden and expand its links with the united states. it is us another platform, another set of eyes and ears. it gives us a hedge in the region.

it allows us to recognize and complement a nation state that shares many of our bellies. -- values. is it a lively and colorful during election time? absolutely is. they share our values. as the level of uncertainty plays out, indeed with afghanistan, as the players began to position themselves to fill a void, russia will want to play a role. china will wonder what is going on. the chinese will say, we have never had the situation on our per free without the united states being involved. the chinese will have to wake up and say, do we get involved? that will be an important moment in chinese decision making. it will be a first. for us, in securing our

interests, looking out for those three primary -- areas, shoring up a relationship with india is what we need. >> any last thoughts? >> we have four immediate needs. we need an american energy policy that expands our independence and our capacity to be reserved source of energy. the iranians announced they are engaged in an exercise to practice closing energy. only an american energy policy that maximizes our production. i agree with the governor, there is no stability on the planet. you cannot be the arsenal of democracy and less you have an arsenal. third, we need to liberate our

intelligence capabilities. we rely on foreign countries to provide as far too much of our intelligent. they are not giving us the truth. they are giving us what we want us to believe. lastly, we need to have a national conversation and a national dialogue about creating a strategy for all the radical islamism. these forces are growing everywhere. the saudis have been the leading purveyor of hatred around the planet. that requires us to think about what is our strategy for dealing with the problem, not just one country at a time. >> flaky.

i promise -- thank you. let's move on to another interesting topics in foreign affairs. mr. king bridge, you start on this one, the issue of iran. give us your thoughts on that country. >> i think the iranian thing is simple. are you willing to accept them having nuclear weapons or not? everything else becomes secondary. accept andoing to heavy weapons, you have one set of possible strategies. if you are determine they not have weapons, you have to peak for regime change because there is the practical scenario in which you can take out their weapons systems without them rebuild them. he cannot take them out every four years because the world

will not tolerate it. furthermore, i see all these studies. i was asked to come in and read the reports on wmd, and i read the rachel reports. -- the original reports. the soviets were very far off on the pakistani atomic bomb. the idea that we have lots of extra time is baloney. they have hardened their systems, put them underground, they took the conclusion from the israeli raid in 1981 and said if we build buildings above ground, the americans will find them and killed them. they have huge and degrasse facilities. some of them are under mosques. the idea you are right to wage a campaign that takes out all the

iranian nuclear program is a fantasy. it would be a gigantic mess with enormous civilian casualties'. you have to say to the iranians, you dismantle your program or we start down the road toward steps that will stop you. the first steps are serious economic steps, serious political and psychological steps and diplomatic steps, and i mean they import 40% of their gasoline. they only have one refinery. they have to import 40% of their gasoline. the serious steps mean giving communications equipment to every dissident. two films showed the joint alliance of margaret thatcher, ronald reagan, and the pope to defeat the soviet empire -- we crowded it on every front.

it is one of the reasons i have been using clear language recently. there was a book was about a hostage crisis of 1979-1980. this is 1979. their senior leadership has seen themselves as being at war with us for over 30 years. we keep finding excuses, they have killed americans in lebanon, saudi arabia, and we believe they have supplied al qaeda in the embassy bombings in east africa. they have had a consistent pattern of being our enemies, and we have had a consistent pattern of denying it. i believe we cannot allow them to have a nuclear weapon, so we have to be for regime change,

and i would adopt the strategy that said i must they agree to unilaterally disarm, which are going to replace their receive, ideally, non militarily, but we will not tolerate an iranian nuclear weapon. >> i agree with a lot of what the speaker has put forward on iran. let me say i believe that iran is the transcendent issue of this decade from a foreign policy standpoint. in terms of the big picture, afghanistan is not our future. iraq is not our future. the future of this country really is how well prepared we are to meet the 21st century competitive challenges and they are economic, education, and they are born to play out largely over the pacific ocean, and countries i have lived it. if you are to step back from that grand picture, you would have to say that transcendent issue of this decade, the threat

from a foreign policy standpoint is iran. we forget we had a much different relationship with iran pre-1979 pick is than an element of society that would constitute a revenue -- reservoir of good will? perhaps. i think we missed a huge opportunity with the persians bring in 2009, a huge opportunity missed by this president. we go into libya where we have no definable national security interests. we scratched our heads over syria, and we lecture israel all the while. i say during all this the centrifuges continued to spin in iran. they are moving inexorably toward nuclear status. i believe mullahs have made the decision they want to be a nuclear power. it is instructive for them to

look at to north korea, and they have looked at libya and said libya has taken a different journey. they gave up their program. they concluded that wanted the credibility, leverage that a nuclear weapon gets that. the centrifuges spin and it local from enough and lower and that reached -- and rich material to make a bomb. united states will need to create a reality of what to do, and as the speaker mentioned, the question for all the us is, can we live with a nuclear iran? the chinese have said they can. i think the russians are less certain about that. they care more about proliferation concerns. if you can live with a nuclear iran, you have to conclude that saudi arabia is going to go nuclear, turkey, probably egypt,

although we did not know who is in charge, the backbone which would be military mission. that presents a scenario that is unsustainable in the near east, in terms of the real proliferation concerns, particularly the language very real used by the government in tehran against israel. if you cannot live with a nuclear iran, and i cannot, you have to say, what to do? all options are on the table and i believe we will have a discussion with israel. what is can have it be on the consultations? i say in the next one to three years, and we need to be prepared. and of intelligence leads us to believe there is enough fissile material in a bomb. there is an economic component,

security component, and a dahlias compound. there is a regional stability component. i would have to agree all options and need to be on the table, and mullahs need to know all options are on the terriabl, and no blue sky in terms of where we are with israel. >> mr. speaker, can you touch on that as well? clearly, the iranians have made clear their feelings about is rural. -- about israel. >> if you are the chinese and think the iranians have a nuclear weapon, they might take out is general -- israel.

the chinese do not see any threat to them from the iranians. they are committed to a gradually weakened america. these are not primary threats to them. what i tell people about the iranian thing is two steps -- if you are an israeli prime minister and you remember the holocaust and you think about the death of millions of jews and you look at the idea of two or three nuclear weapons is a holocaust. israel is a very small country. no more than three weapons would be required to equal a holocaust. he say to yourself, am i going to take a risk of presiding over the second holocaust, virtually the end of judea's and on the planet? they are not going to take the risk. you call the president and say i have these choices. if you will help me i will go

conventional. if you did not help me i am using as many nuclear missiles i will need to take out the iranians. you need to decide whether you sat to one side or will you help me. but i will not do is i will not corral -- not allow israel to be subject to the threat of a holocaust. i agree with the governor, this is a not very far down the right decision. my first official meeting with a foreign leader after i became speaker, i was not yet sworn in, and speaker foley said the prime minister rabin coming to the states, would i see him? we sat down and a former chief of staff said to me, iran is an existential threat to israel and cannot deal with it by ourselves.

it is too big. the reason i'm trying to reach a deal with the palestinians is to clear the space to focus on air around. -- iran. that was 17 years ago, and we have still not clear the space, and the clock is running, and i agree with the formulation the governor had. this is the biggest national threat of the next 10 years. china is a challenge in a long run, not necessarily a threat, largely economic. iran is the problem of the near future. >> any last words? >> i would to say there will be talk about additional sanctions with respect to the relationship with iran. my sense is that will do no good at all. the president will talk about layer after layer of sanctions, which has been tried for a while. it will not work because mullahs

have decided to go nuclear, and the chinese and russians are not going to do it. they will not work with us. you have sanctions in place now. in order for them to have impact would be to go down to the aneex portion of the sanctions, and this companies and banks. they will not go that far. they like the oratory language. when you get down to the specifics of sight individuals, that is not going to happen. we need to conclude that this is going to be the united states doing our way at the end of the day, which is not all bad. we work better when left to our own devices. with respect to israel, when you look longer term, at some point we have to figure out how to improve the region. we are in tactical mode right now. you say we got israel as are

centerpiece relationship. we need to remind the world what it means to be an allied and maximize the values in that relationship. you say there is iran. the transcendent challenge of the decade, and syria, because they are a subsidiary, and on the brink of disaster in the become a conduit to which get material and support for hamas thatezbollah, a regime does not even have support of those in lebanon and iran, longer-term, how do you put pieces back together? that is where the u.s.-israel relationship will be in port. because we have a free-trade agreement with israel. it is the oldest we have as a nation. it goes back to 1975. why do we have -- take a run off the table -- why the arab

spring? white the uncertainty playing out now? it is that way because you have two things in place. one, you have the problem of longstanding dictators who would not the way, whether tunisia, egypt, libya. second, you have pockets of discontent. you had no economic growth, no opportunity, the possibility for jobs in parts of north africa and middle east, so what to do? you rise up and joined these causes to take on the longstanding dictator, and the only by google put these pieces back together is by doing what this country has not done in a long time, and that is beginning to pull the levers of the economic power. we do not do trade agreements anymore. we do not engage in investments and economic relationships anymore. israel provides an opportunity to take the agreement and expand

it and have it spoke over an impact some of the region that today we see through a lens that is troubling. bogard term as people were crushed to have to say how do we put those pieces back together? how do we bring opportunity to people who today did not have them? >> the question is the arab spring, which became the arabs summer, which became the arabs fall and winter. let's talk about the arab spring. where does it lead us from here? we still have problems, obviously. what is next, where do we go, and what can we see our role being in this as these countries begin to stand up to dictators that you just talked about? >> we are in a period of uncertainty right now. you cannot force history. the speaker knows that.

things are wrong to have to play out. we make a mistake as a nation by intervening and trying to pick winners before we know who is going to be up and down. the events following the end of the ottoman empire, the era of the periods of uncertainty is going to play out. as it plays out, the rest of the world was taking note. longstanding dictators, lack of economic opportunity -- guess who is paying attention to that. the chinese are pay attention to that. they were concerned about what this might mean in terms of long standing dictators and regions of china that were not getting an economic lift. they had purist on high alert. they're looking out for anyone who might be gathering under the banner of jasmine revolution. they banned the u.s. ambassador's name from the internet because i was

associated with american values. the world was watching this all played out. we have to look out for groups that share our values, then we have to make sure they did not become something that is inconsistent with our values, and that is the challenge of picking winners early on. i was against the united states what they did in libya. i could not seek a discernible american national interest there. the offense are going to play out, they would have played out as they did anyway. with syria, i see it differently because it is a pipeline used by iran for a complete to the of trustees -- activity of destabilization in the region. that makes it a national security issue that we need to pay attention to. we need to be cautious about how this transformation occurs. we have to be careful about who

we end up supporting and throwing our that's behind, and i know this -- while the breeze of change is blowing and the great uncertainty is there, we have certainty in the relationship with israel, and i go back to anchor have in the region, that we need to somehow remind the world once again what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states, to allow the world to understand there is no blue sky between the united states and israel. we cannot force, push the peace process. why would they want to negotiate any kind of agreement with egypt, showing no signs of who is going to be up or down? you cannot expect to make any progress at all, and we should not force it. we should be a facilitator, look at what happened after the up madrid accord of 2001, or 1991,

and the following one with oslo in 1998, saying we have a context for a two-state solution here. you cannot force it. let's take the advice of the leadership of israel before we know when it is right make a facilitating role. >> mr. speaker, you have a number of spots in the last few days on is rural. your thoughts? >> i think there are three large pieces that we could learn from the arab spring. the first was the way that the obama administration got rid of mubarak shook everybody. the governor has made an important point that people have to have a sense if you are an ally of the united states, there is some staying power.

mubarak had been an ally for a very long time. the iraq campaign probably could not have occurred without mubarak. they consistently helped us in the israeli-palestinian environment. the israelis had not had to defend their southern border for a long time. obama dumped in in an unceremonious way. we were talking to secretary shultz who was concerned about the whole pattern this administration deals with people, because he said everybody else watches you. you are the saudis and when an american president dumps and ally, other allies start thinking, can i rely on you? there are ways to have gotten him to retire with dignity would not have indicated a capricious willingness to dump somebody who had taken the heat. that is the first thing you have

to think about. second, it is a problem to have an intelligence system as crippled as ours is by the way lost at deval since 1975. we do not know who in benghazi, the leading city producing and anti-american fighters, we have no idea who these people are. our intelligence is not good enough. this is true across the whole region. congress has so crippled the intelligence system we sit in our embassies talking to the local people who tell us what they want us to know for their reasons. it is an enormous problem. the third difficulty is when the governor alluded to, which is if he did not have a strategic plan, if you're not try to shape the culture, look at what we did after world war ii in japan,

korea come in europe. we had a very large and comprehensive effort, things like the fulbright scholarships. you could imagine a strategy that says we want to maximize the liberation of women, we want to maximize economic growth, we want to maximize people who understand modernity, so what would you do? you create the u.s. information agency as a freestanding agency. you would maximize efforts for college scholarships to come to the u.s. so you have a generation growing up that understands something under than sharia. and then you have a 20-year world view. when we visited a few years ago, this is an amazing country, south korea. it is self-governing. it has a reliable press. it is one of the wealthiest

countries in the world. it did not happen overnight. as late as 1969 it had the same per-capita income as ghana, and then suddenly it took off. to have a long view, you have to find non-military engagements that are sustainable that on a bipartisan basis you can explain to the american people that lead them to decide this is a commitment they are willing to make. >> governor, anything else you want add to this? >> i can see my daughter nodding off over there. [laughter] let's move on in the interest of your daughter. i want to get to my next -- >> key is also my senior policy adviser. >> another important point. >> she was nodding off until i

spoke. >> i want to talk about all of this and how this relates to something you both have talked a lot about, which republicans talk about all the time, which is reducing the debt, which is a huge burden on our country, but doing that in a way that does not destabilize america's place in the world and our foreign interests and particularly our military and. debt and defense spending. >> first of all, you ought to decide what threatens you in the world and what your goals are in the world, and you ought to build strategies' and structures to meet that, and that is the first priority of government. if you are not safe, being defended come if you are not strong enough that no enemy decides to attack you, you have

the most expensive decision to make. i am deeply against the sequester which is a gimmick to unable the president and congress to slide because they did not have the will to get anything positive done. the idea of your are going to cut the defense because it was a political deal strikes me as the worst possible way to approach this. in 1981 i helped found the military reform caucus during the reagan defense buildup. i am a cheap hawk. i think i have been a big advocate of a strong america now, which is a group that -- you ought to apply it to the state department and the defense department, too. there's no reason to justify waste in defense because it is in uniform or it has defense on that, and when you think about how rapidly pipettes and iphones have changed today, and looked

at a weapons systems process that takes up to 20 years, you know it is wrong. there is a lot of stuff we can shrink, but i will start by sank crete the defense system you need to create the foreign policy unique, then let's talk about how we get to a balanced budget. you want to do it as inexpensively as you can. getting to the balanced budget, folks who are strong americans now say you can save $500 billion a year by modernizing government. that is at a minimum the correct number. there are ways you can reform entitlements. we have proposed the right of every younker american to have a personal social security savings a can. you would have a huge impact on spending. there are steps you can take on medicaid and medicare that are huge. i would not look on, i would never say the richest country in the world cannot sustain what it needs to do in foreign and

defense policy, but we ought to do it as efficiently as we can, and that is not the key to balance budgets. >> with two boys in u.s. navy, i think about their future. it puts it in a different context altogether. first, debt. it has to be seen as other than just debt, but something akin to a national security problem. because you do not grow. it has a sluggish impact on your ability to get on your feet. if you want to see what coming attractions are on the debt side, they are entering their third lost decade of economic growth because of structural

barriers and debt in japan. look around the bend in europe and look at italy. i would have to say that that issue is such that all spending programs, everything has to be on the table, and for folks to save medicare should not be there, we are on tap to make it a sacred cow -- nonsense. we cannot afford that luxury anymore. you look at defense, at 700. uc billion bucks. it is a function of priorities. i agree with newt, which is what ever we do on the defense spending side must follow a strategy, and that strategy must be part of keep us safe. and keep us safe has to be

consistent with being in the second decade in the 21st century. when i listed the four components of a foreign policy that i would follow up front, the next thing, we got to get our economy right to project power, to pay our bills, second, having an economy that leads our foreign policy. it used to but my heart sitting in beijing, king at neighboring afghanistan, 100,000 troops there. i said there's something wrong with this picture. we secure the environment and people benefit economically from it. we need to have a strategy, a national security strategy that is driven by economics. third, counter-terrorism. that is going to have a huge impact on our defense

priorities, spending, deployment patterns, national sturdy structure. as far as the eye can see, we have a problem called a terror. is going to be in southwest asia, the horn of africa, yemen, and we have to be real about that, and that means not only the way we spend, prioritize our defense programs, but also the friends and allies we reach out to be part of that as well let me just say as we follow a strategy that is consistent with being the second decade, we have to be smart enough to say there's a whole lot of waste in the purchasing side of the pentagon. if you ponder where we've worked post-world war ii, where we had an 1100-ship navy, i look at

where we are today, we have 25,000 people producing up to five or six ships a year, and you look at the cost of land at 8-18 -- cost of an f-18. it's got something happening on the procurement side, the red tape, the numbers involved, the purchasing practices, whether that is competitive or sole said, but there is a huge opportunity to lift up the hood of the car and make fixes that are going to be much better for our people come longer-term, as we need to find greater efficiencies in government. >> mr. speaker, any final word on debt and defense? you would call it a false premise, in order to decrease the deficit we have to somehow deal with defense.

we got to do with a lot of things, but what are your thoughts? >> first, you ought to put defense spending and state department and agencies for the national public spending under the same test you put anything else. once you decide you want to something -- that was stationed in germany and we were there to stop the soviet union from occupying west germany. the soviets were right down the road. there is no soviet union. there is no east germany. we still have headquarters in stuttgart. where we sitting there? other than have it, the africa headquarters is in stuttgart. i used to teach geography. [laughter] you look at these guys and say, give me a break. let me start with that.

second, it is important to pick up on what the governor said about per terminal. -- procurment. we now have a policy that says we would like to study it for 10 years to decide whether or not we can study it for 10 years -- you have nasa which currently has no vehicle to get to the space station. as it occurred to you what the billions are for put they sit around and they think space. do you know how hard it gets to the get to this period where you have no money and no vehicle to get into space? it is the opposite of a sound system, and there could be a deeper overhaul which would make the defense department and the state department function

better. we will get better defense with a thoroughly modernized management system than we have today. >> let me say, finally, if you look at the map, at last count 700 installations in 60 countries around the world. 50,000 troops still in germany. 20 installations. you have to say, the russians are not coming anymore. at some point we have to recognize that. we have to recognize the rights of the asia pacific theater, and we're not looking at a massive land war anytime soon. we're looking at more asymmetric threats. you've got the rise of the asia- pacific region, that is 3/4 of our trade. whenever we focus on, and it is not just -- nobody is being

isolationist about it, it is being a realist about where we have insulations, containment from 1946 as compared to where we need to be today. >> we started into a nice se gue. we have time for one more question. if we pick up the pace a lot, which might get to it. i will leave that to you guys. governor, he started on this one. -- you start on this one. >> it is unfair to put me into these kinds of decisions. >> i'm a volunteer. i'm not with the press. [laughter] governor huntsman, he started speaking about china. our next topic is china and the pacific rim.

if we cut a minute off with my, into our next topic. >> the relationship of the 21st century will be the u.s.-china relationship. looking more at the pacom, the asia-pacific operating area, whether militarily or whether from an economic policy standpoint, it is to be some that we need to know a lot about. a couple things we need to be mindful of that will inform us as we develop a relationship that is workable overtime. we have elections next year. the chinese do not do elections. they have leadership changes. when you ponder the nature of the changes that taking place, you say up to 75% of the top 200

leaders are going to be turning over. you look at the standing committee of the politburo, seven of the nine members are can be turned over in that body. the most sweeping changes since 1949. what that will be the rise to power of the fifth generation. i know members of the fifth generations. they are cubistic nationalistic generation. they did not remember the events from 1960 to 1964, the great leap forward. they barely remember the cultural revolution, 1966 to 1976. they have been terribly informed by 30 years of 10% economic growth, blue sky. their time has arrived, that is collected present a challenge all by itself for the united states because unlike the earlier generation that lived through the cultural revolution

and sought china's at its most chaotic, they were hobbled by that and they never wanted to see that again. you have a different generation that has a much different world view. second, what should be our objectives? two things i think we need to cite as objectives. china's account is going down from a t.d. standpoint. inflation is up. the cost of production are on the rise up to 15% per year. there will be political uncertainty because of the unemployment. when you have an opponent that rises, in a country that is going from 800 million farmers to 600 million farmers, how would you like to have 200 million farmers roaming the countryside and puts stresses and strains on city centers. that is destabilizing. that is the nightmare scenario for the communist party. i am not sure they can avoid

that. the investment that always drops itself into china from manufacturing is going to see the risk profile is different. it is something i might not want to bet on longer-term. i want to find another market. that takes us right here to our home base. we would be crazy in this country if we did not recognize the tectonic shifts that are happening in the macro economic environment and say we are going to do but we need to do to fix our competitive environment and when that investment here at home. where i was earlier today, other places in new hampshire's, to think we can bring to life the old brick buildings that lost the energy and vitality because manufacturing -- we can win at back of we are smart about it, because that investment dollar is " to flee risk wherever it is and fight a safe haven somewhere. if you are a risky environment,

it will go elsewhere. we need to embark on a strategy that allows us to win back our manufacturing base, because i believe our country is on the cusp of a manufacturing renaissance if we did it right. that will come out of china's hi de. dialogue with china. it is a large and complicated relationship. the list goes on. the u.s. government goes in, we hit one issue at a time without realizing every issue impacts every other issue. the chinese see them in total. they are the greatest long-term strategic thinkers and abroad. where are the best short-term tactical thinkers in the world. we have to match these cultures and figure out how to make it

work. 40 years in the relationship, nixon changed that dynamic and a war, and we have to figure out how to develop a dialogue that is similar to what we did in the days the soviet union. we regularized the dialogue. it is not on the margins of apec. it is dedicated to a relationship that is going to lead the world in terms of importance. we need to get from them a better sense of what their intentions are in the region. we need to get a better sense of them, where they are spending their defense dollars, and what their priorities are. we have to sit down in his meetings and salsa nitrate issues, because every issue acts every other issue. after they have leadership changes wrapped up in 200012,

they will need one year to consolidate power which is what happens every new leader position in china. they will have a year to consolidate power. some014, we will have running room in which we can begin to put a relationship together. we will have greater flexibility without politics playing out. the chinese used to love to tell me -- in china, we have politics c, too. will be devoid of politics 2013, and we will have the ability under the right leadership to forge a relationship that will allow this kind of dialogue, but i believe will bring stability and opportunity to the world and our people. we should count on that. >> mr. speaker?

>> governor huntsman knows far more about china than i did pick these to say that to me, too. i think he is knowledgeable on this topic. i am largely agreed with him. the most important relationship for the next 50 years is the american people and the chinese people, which is not the same as the two governments. there are times when we will have tension with the regime in reasons that go to our core values, but we have to be careful not to get involved in the long term split in which the chinese people conclude we are their enemies. if the people are positive toward each other, the plan that will be vastly better than if we decide on some kind of bipolar conflict. the boston consulting group did a study and said by 2015 south

carolina and alabama will both be less expensive as centers of manufacturing than coastal china. we think total cost. there is an opportunity where the chinese are becoming more expensive, we're becoming better at manufacturing, and there's a chance we will become a genuine competition. there are a couple challenges that are partly military. most of the campaigns we fight in europe or in the middle east are very short range. the pacific is enormous. this is a major problem on how we recapitalized our military. whinnies -- we need much longer- light aircraft. the objective for cards in europe and middle east are short legged. on the one hand you're being

pulled into counter-terrorism in terms of public think about strategy and investment. to do with the chinese you have to recapitalize and modernized in the navy, air force, space, cyber capability, and so there are different requirements and the challenge is to be able to the both of them. we have to be good at counter terrorism and recapitalize to compete with the chinese. to go back to that thing we started this afternoon but, if you do not rethink what we're doing here, you cannot compete with china. if we do the right things here, china cannot compete with us. if we are determined to be domestically stupid, it is impractical to ask the chinese to match us in stupidity. [laughter] i will give you examples. a report which i helped create

came back and said the greatest threat to united states was a weapon of mass destruction " of any city probably from a terrorist. the second greatest threat is our failure to modernize our education has her h. rebuilding the arsenal of democracy is unbelievably important. we have to look at doing our job and recognizing in a real way the zero went to the entire human race. i dub it was telling when the president went to brazil and told them how proud he was they were drilling offshore and he said, we want to be your best customer. i thought he had exactly backwards. we do not hire a president to go

around the world to be a foreign purchasing agent. we hire them to be a salesman, and one of the places the governor and i are in total agreement is we have ended the era when the scale of the american economy allows us to help everybody else on the planet, and we have entered an era where we have to take every morning about exports, trade agreements. we have to be as sophisticated as any of our competitors, and that is an enormous change in both parties, a democrat and republican, from where we have been, and will require great institutional change to develop that attitude and executed in a way that lets us remain the most powerful economy in the world. >> governor, i will give you the last word on this. >> let me throw this out, because this will be important going forward, and taking it out of washington and beijing, where it has been for 40 years.

people live elsewhere. we have huge opportunities on a sub-national basis to get governors and governments gather, because the driving force in china today in the party, it is their citizens, who are able to access information about the world, and who are driving conversation. this is a country with 500 million internet users about 80 million bloggers. i sat down with a dinner with the top 12 bloggers, two of whom have readership each of 125 million. the conversations about political reform and human rights and religious tolerance and the role of the internet in society in ways that would have landed anybody in prison and a few short years ago. i want to see more of what i was able to capture when i visit a high school out of bedford, and this is the chinese language

program. they invited me into talk to the students in chinese, which was a lot of fun. there was growing curiosity and interest in people-to-people think. we got to keep something going that allows access come opportunity, allows the united states to continue doing what it always does well, and that is lead by its values. the world is still looking for our values, and our values still shapes and bold events. our values still change history, and we will be responsible for some of the changes that take place because of the people-to- people interaction. >> we have gotten exactly halfway through our 10 points. i think is pretty good, right? how about that? i think that is pretty good. [applause] we're going to have closing statements, unless you guys want to go for a lightning rod of five questions.

probably not. i am stand. i was just joking. closing ahead to the statements. each of about three minutes. take more or less. we begin with you, speaker. >> i want to thank governor huntsman for chatting about it and agreeing to do it together. there were not any efforts to track each other, but people who look at the totality of this dialogue will agree it is problably and candid discussion in the world as you have seen in any recent presidential campaigns. i want to thank the governor who is extraordinarily knowledgeable. this is what we should have a lot more of, because this is a substantive. we are a country in enormous

trouble, and we need leaders who are willing to talk to citizens at a pretty sophisticated level, because that is where we are. we are not on to solve these things with the 30-second -- it is naughty, and this is not a reality show. this is reality. we're trying as a people to have a conversation to enable us to have this kind of future that solves our problems and brings us together. this is what i said if i become the nominee, i will challenge the president to 73-hour debate because this format is enormously helpful and allows you to get things out you cannot get out in the short bites. i want to thank you for participating and allow this to become possible. >> thanks, mr. speaker, for the good speaker to become the nominee. he will have to become --

overcome our formidable operation in new hampshire. to date which was rolled to the tune of 140 of our volunteers, pretty remarkable. it is a great privilege to be here, and thank you very much. again, this is the window, new hampshire, this is the window through which the rest of the country gets to see, analyze and assess the candidates running for the highest office in the land. when you make a decision, come january 10, the rest of the world looks, and they tend to look at it now because you have the opportunity to see the candidates up close, to experience these kinds of things. i am honored that i have been allowed to participate in one that allows us to share some thinking about america's role in the whole world.

maybe we can do another round with the other candidate, which i think would be a great thing, and i cannot wait to compare and contrast this format with the donald trump debate in the coming days. [laughter] the thing that has gone through my head, do not ever underestimate the extent that the light that and that's from the united states transforms the world. where 25% of the world's gdp. we have the most productive worker on earth. we still have values that are the envy of the world -- never become a democracy, human rights, free markets. we project that when we are strong. the world as a better place when america is strong. whatever happens, whoever becomes the nominee, made a good republican go on to win and a the first order of business in

the area of foreign policy and national security priorities be fixing the core of this good country, because we deserve in as people. thank you so very much. [applause] >> this was a truly great discussion, and we thank you for joining desperate mr. speaker, idea challenging the president to seven -- i bet you $10,000 he does not show up. [laughter] thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for joining us. [applause]

>> the students wanted you to have the uniform of an exam time. >> there you go. >> thank you. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you very much. thanks for being here. >> thanks for tuning in. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i am here to say they are

wrong. >> we want to move back toward a balanced budget? do we believe in rewarding those who create jobs? >> friends, washington is a mess, and we need to send mitt romney to washington to fix the mess out there. >> read the latest comments from candidates and political reporters. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> x, senator richard lugar and former senator sam nunn speak about the nuclear arms control program they created 20 years ago. tomorrow, we would discuss a

republican proposal to extend payroll tax cut. tom cole and karen bass of california join us. later, sarah kliff will talk about inflated medicare payments to doctors. "washington journal," to morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c- span. >> we examined the contenders, 14 men who lost, but had a lasting impression on american politics. we will see what historians learned from this series. is it c-span.org -- visit c- span.org/thecontenders. >> efforts to secure weapons of

mass discussion - -destruction over the last 20 years. dick lugar and sam nunn talk about current challenges. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> afternoon. i would like to ask everybody to take their seats. we're going to begin the program in a few moments. i am vice president of "national journal," and i like to welcome you to this program. i would like to take a moment to welcome our video viewers who are watching at our website. it is also being broadcast on c-

span2. so we can have your full attention, i would like you to silence yourself on street we want this to be a lively discussion. we welcome your suggestions. we will also be coming around with a microphone during the "q&a" session. we ask that you say your name and your organization if you have a question. the event would not be possible without the generous support of the nuclear threat initiative, the sam nunn school, the center for nonproliferation studies, and the elliott school for international studies at george washington university. for the past 10 years, "national journal" has been a proud partner to publish global security newswire, a critical resource. here from the nuclear threat

initiative, we have the president and chief operating officer. while arriving leadership to all programs, she also personally directs the secretariat for the nuclear security project, led by former secretary of state george shultz, william perry, former secretary of state henry kissinger, and former senator sam nunn in their efforts to galvanize will action -- global action. [applause] >> thank you, connie. i'm delighted to be here today to represent the nuclear threat initiative. and to congratulate our ceo and co-chairman, sam nunn, and senator dick lugar on the 20th anniversary of the nunn-lugar program. 20 years ago, the senator showed

tremendous foresight and statesmanship in recognize in and working to prevent a potentially catastrophic threat by proposing a joint u.s.- russian effort to help moscow and the states of the former soviet union keep control of their weapons, materials, and know how. 10 years ago, senator nunn, having left the senate tne ted turner founded the nuclear initiative. ntri is a non-partisan association working to strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. guided by a prestigious international board of directors, including former senator pete amenity, who is with us here today, as well as our former president charles curtis, who is with us today.

nti focuses on closing the gap between global wmd threats and the global response to those threats, recognizing that governments have most of their resources and authority on the large-scale work of truck production, nti emphasizes leverage. it is not just what nti can do, it is what we can persuade others to do. we use our voice to advocate solutions, undertake direct action projects that demonstrate new ways to reduce threats, and foster new thinking about these problems. nti has also worked to develop public education initiatives that reached a range of audiences, from officials around the globe to ordinary americans concerned about the safety and security of their children and grandchildren. one of the key partners in this effort has been the "national journal" group, a host of today's event. when nti was founded in 2001,

public awareness of the threat posed by nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons was low, while the reality of those threats was high. we felt that an independent news source would best serve the public and nti's mission, particularly in what was a changing media environment. launched on october 1, 2001, weeks after 9/11, global security newswire has become an award winning resource, produced independently by the "national journal" group and underwritten by nti. we are confident that is more people read the global security newswire and become educated about global security issues, more of your will become engaged in helping to find solutions to these challenging problems. i would like to recognize and

think our next speaker, dr. bill potter. bill has been a tremendous leader on these issues for many years and a valuable partner over the last decade. borderlf of the nti directors, we are honored to be part of the special event. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. please, everyone, enjoy your laws. i would like to welcome dr. william potter to offer some additional remarks. he serves as a professor of nonproliferation studies and founding director of the founding director at the monterey institute of international studies. is the author of numerous books,

including "nuclear policies of the non-aligned movement," and the "for faces a of nuclear disarmament." dr. potter? [applause] >> it is a great honor to speak to this distinguished audience on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the cooperative threat reduction legislation sponsored by senator sam nunn and richard lugar. i believe it is fair to say that few legislative initiatives have had such a profound impact in promoting u.s. and international security. although that assessment is widely shared today, it was much more problematic in december, 1991, when the soviet union dissolved and four of the

successor states possessed literally tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, massive quantities of weapons usable nuclear material, huge stocks of chemical munitions and biological agents, and a staggering quantity of delivery vehicles for weapons of mass destruction. senators lugar and nunn recognize that this weaponry might be coveted by both nations and non state actors who also might be emboldened as the collapse of the soviet union left successor states with depleted capacity to decommission and even guard their arsenals, much less provide adequate pay to their weapons scientists and nuclear custodians. in short, a vast supermarket of wmd material, hardware, and know how have been opened as a consequence of the soviet union 's demise and presented the post

cold war world with an immediate challenge. senators nunn and lugar's extraordinary leadership in recognizing this thread, and conceiving, legislating, and sustaining an unprecedented program to reduce this danger is what i have had the privilege repeatedly to nominate this dynamic duo for the nobel peace prize, an award they risk the desert and i hope will someday soon -- they which we deserve and hope to someday receive. i am used to being given five minutes to testify before the senate committees. in my concluding remarks, i would be remiss if i did not highlight the importance they have both attached to education as a vital but underutilized tool for promoting non-

proliferation in the united states and internationally. it is my great fortune to contribute to this shared objective of training the next generation of non-proliferation specialist in my capacity as sam nunn and dick lugar professor of non-proliferation study at the monterey institute of international studies. as director of the center for now perforations studies, i am pleased to note how delighted we are to include in our audience a group of 15 young russian, chinese, and american scholars as part of the joint-cns- georgia tech project on promoting strategic stability at lower numbers. i believe this project supported by the carnegie corporation represents the best hope for building an international community of nonproliferation specialist who will work cooperative way to sustain the tremendous advances in peace and security achieved during the 20

years since the visionary nunn- lugar legislation was enacted. thank you. [applause] >> of like to ask our speakers to join us on stage. our moderator for today's discussion is a "national journal" senior editor james kidfield. he is a three-time winner of the gerald r. ford and the award for distinguished reporting. most recently for his firsthand reporting of the afghan war and other ongoing conflicts. he has twice won the military reporters and editors association award and the top p rize for excellence in reporting. joining james, we have two senators. to date, the nunn-lugar has

decommissioned 7,000 nuclear weapons. senator sam nunn attended georgia tech and emory university where he graduated with honors in 1962. after active duty in the u.s. coast guard, he served six years in the reserves. he presented politics as a member of the georgia house of representatives in 1968. during his tenure anin the senate, his legislative achievements included the landmark department of defense reauthorization act drafted with the late senator barry goldwater. u.s. senator dick lugar is the ranking republican of the armed services committee. he was elected in the u.s. senate in 1976 and won a sixth

term in 2006 with 87% of the vote, his fourth consecutive victory by a 2/3 adored. he has been instrumental in the ratification of treaties that reduced the world use, production, and stockpiling of nuclear, cocoa, and biological weapons. -- nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. >> thank you, all, for showing up to that. it is really an honor for me to be with these two chairman on the 20th anniversary of nunn- lugar. one of the advantages of being around the town and doing what i do is to acquire a long memory in a town that has short memories. from covering defense in the 1980's, i would say nunn-lugar has proven to be the most effective, but partisan project i have seen on national security in my time here, along with goldwater-nickels. it is the kind of things we see

too rarely now. it is fitting that we come here 20 years later and think about what this program means and what it has accomplished. as i said, we have short memories. we are in the post-9/11 era. we had the post cold war erea. when nunn-lugar came around, it was at the tail end of the cold war era. we forget at the time, so much joy in the crumbling of the soviet union about how dangerous that period was. we had an empire crumbling, which frequently leads to other wars throughout history. but this was the first time you had an empire crumbling bid at 30,000 nuclear weapons, 60,000 bombs worth of material, 40,000 tons of chemical weapons, smallpox, tens of thousands of scientists who suddenly did not have a paycheck and had a lot of nuclear know-how.

at the same time, you had a little group called al qaeda that was just getting established, which had a very realistic vision of the world and an appetite to acquire weapons of mass destruction. you could imagine what was in play here. the threats really work existential. at that time, senator, you traveled to the soviet union. you met with mr. the protest at a time when he just survived a military -- mr. gorbachev at a time when he just survived a military coup. >> thank you, james. it is great to be here. first i want to thank "national journal", george washington university, bill potter, and all the people that made this anniversary possible. i was in budapest at a meeting relating to an east-west dialog and dave harmburg was head of

carnegie and they sponsored a series of meetings with members of parliament and leaders from the soviet union as well as the united states and europe meeting together. during the middle of the meeting, are soviet friends got on a plane and went back because gorbachev had been taken captive. it was an attempted military coup. two days later, after one of my friends had left -- he flew back in an emergency situation -- he called me on the phone. by that time,. >> gorbachev had just been released. yeltsin was the hero. they had gathered around the russian white house. he said, you have to come to russia. i said, i do not have of these. he said, we will have your visa and 30 minutes. nobody in the soviet union has ever done anything and 30 minutes, i said. it is impossible. sure enough, he had the

ambassador to hungary come to the lobby and hand me a visa. i got on a plane and went to frankfurt. when i went to frankfurt, the american embassy page me and told me not to come because they could not handle it. it was chaos. i said, i have a russian friend who will take me around. i went on. sure enough, my friend, who later became number 2 and the russian department of defense, he took me around for three or four days. that was during the period of time -- and they were debating the breakup of the soviet empire. gorbachev was there. i had the chance to meet with him, which was a very interesting meeting. one thing i asked him. i had been with him several times before. i asked him, mr. president,

during a time you were in captivity did you have full control of the nuclear weapons? was there a danger of command and control? he did not answer me. that was a huge answer, because we tell our tough had always been a very frank person. -- gorbachev had always been a very frank person. all of them had nuclear weapons in their own territories. really trying to decide the breakup of the soviet empire. it made a big impression on me. i will never forget one other little incident that happened during that time. i was sitting in the audience listened to that kind of debate. i had -- my interpreter was a fellow and he was so wrapped up in the reform and the opportunity for change in russia that he basically could not help but editorialize as he went along. i have never had an interpretation like that. he would tell me what they had just said and then he would say

under his breath, lying s.o.b. [laughter] long story short, i get on the airplane and as i head home, i basically decide if i could get my colleagues to do something with meat i, that we would try o tackle the subject of lewioose nukes. there were thousands of nuclear weapons, tons of chemical weapons, a huge amount of nuclear material that could be made into weapons, and smallpox and ready to be put on a missile in some cases. that was a condition we found. i came back, and i introduced the legislation. we will get to the story later, but it was interesting, because we already had the senate armed services past -- this was august, 1991. the house armed services bill that passed. we were in conference. les aspen was trying to put some

kind of humanitarian aid in the bill. i called him and we decided in a conference to put in a package in on the humanitarian side and one that would also deal with nuclear and chemical weapons. that conference committee report was basically a attacked by the left and the right. at that stage, i was like a preacher once said, man, if you think you are a leader and you look over your shoulder and following, you are just taking a walk. i found up pretty quickly are was just taking a walk. that is when i recruited karl marlantes. dick lugar. we had to send a conference report back. later on, we put it on the appropriation bill, because dick lugar as an indispensable and credible person, joined in a completely on the subject and we worked hard and got it passed.

>> great, great story. senator lugar, are what you did talk about that period when senator nunn comes back. you know better than i that there were a lot of cold war warriors that had no interest in spending money. they founded the that we would -- they found it abhorrent that we would spend money on that. there were a lot of people that would "let the soviets drowned in their source." -- in their sorrows." >> it started in 1986, when we were part of a delegation to meet in geneva, switzerland. a great congressional delegation, but we both found that we had an intense interest in the subject. so as a result, in subsequent

years, sam and i banded together to visit often with delegations of russians who we met in geneva so we could begin to see the unraveling of the soviet union and the dangers that were clearly there that were not being met by arms control, which was very helpful. i mention all of this because our remember vividly russians coming to sam's office. the roundtable around which we met. they in essence made the point that they were not going to be able to bring security for their weapons. as a matter of fact, the army was not getting paid. people would not defend it. who knows what would happen? they said, this is a big problem

for us security-wise, but it is a big problem for you. you spent trillions of dollars to contain as. >> and they are aimed at you. >> yes. these meetings with the russians were very helpful, because they gave some credibility to our efforts in dealing with colleagues. for five years, we had been dealing with the russians. it was counterintuitive on two counts. first of all, that a great superpower like the soviet union would ask another super power to disarm it. that will always be a story, one of these things that people ponder. how in the world could such a thing happen? the other thing is that this was not it administrative initiatives. some of the cold warriors were not just in the congress who did

not like the russians. some were also in the administration. as a result, this was going to have to be a congressional initiative. i know ash carter and other people who were very helpful to us. they often made this point, that this was a congressional an initiative. almost foundered for awhile, but after we gained passage on the 20th anniversary of d-day, even the president had signed it, and was concerned about what to do with it. nor was his secretary of state. i see david in front of us. he was on a plane that went out back to russia and ukraine and belorus, as we tried to convince general burns, and others that

this was for real. so it was not to stick question of passage of the legislation. -- it was not just a question of passage of legislation. fortunately, we developed an of credibility with the administration, as well as with our russian -- i would not say friends, but there were persons with whom we had to have dealings -- to get the ball rolling. >> one other tidbit. i remember when we were debating the legislation in december, 1991, are remember crucial moment where it could have gone in any direction. pete domenici stood up on the floor and said this makes sense. he had some credibility. his speech made an pit incredible difference. -- an incredible difference. nunn-lugar-domenici fall that.

pete helped stimulate the work between the laboratories in the department of energy. i consider him a huge partner and all of this. >> it is great to have him here. >> you had the vision of the threat. you passed the nunn-lugar 86-8. 2 weeks later, the soviet union collapses. you get the thing implemented. are you sure that was washington? [laughter] >> of course it was. >> you have a long memory, too, senator. what arguments did you use to convince the russians? you talked about, yes there russians and the security services that knew there was a vulnerability here. but there were some really staunch, anti-american feeling and russian as well.

the idea of opening up the nuclear apparatus to u.s. scientist was anathema to a lot of them. how did you get russia and other satellite states to embrace this thing? >> it was mixed, because a number of security officials realized what a problem they had. some of them had been over here talking to us about the dangers and the problem beforehand. and like my friend -- he was an outside ngo without a lot of influence before the yeltsin takeover. later, he was very and floyd. many of the military people understood how dangerous it was. you still had kgb. you still have a lot of suspicions. it took three years of work to gain that kind of trust, but one of the amazing things that happened during this was there was a trust that develop between

our military leadership and trust that developed with the laboratories and that made a difference. it makes a difference is still today. people working together on projects that it had historical animosities and distrust, working together makes a big difference. andy webber sitting at the head table. hold up your hand. he's in the trenches working on chemical and biological problems. i tip my hat to those out there in the field in the executive branch who made it happen. trust is built very slowly. >> yes, it is. i think it is forgotten that if it did not been for nunn-lugar there is a very good chance that ukraine would still be a nuclear state. >> 3 countries gave up all their weapons -- u.k., belarus, and kazakhstan -- ukraine.

they had more nuclear weapons than china, great britain, and france put together. other people do not realize because it is going on still today is that the nuclear materials that came of of the ukrainian missiles, the way they agreed was to get their part of the economic value for the highly enriched uranium. as they took those apart, both the u.s. and russia entered into an agreement where the material coming from the missiles, the ukrainian portion would be reimbursed in terms of value. we bought that material. russians and blended it down. we use it in our nuclear power plants today. that is still going on. if you look at the light bulbs up here. 20% of electricity in this country is nuclear power and 50% of the material that is generating those nuclear power plants as coming from the missiles and the highly enriched uranium blending doed down durie

cold war. light bulbs is coming from nuclear material. >> sam and i didn't lack nerve. we were not to kazakhstan to see the present. the president ask, what is ukraine going to do? we went to see president yeltsin again. this was just after the election of president carter had won. he was very unhappy with those above -- with both of us. we could not know what the translation was, but i think he was saying, we will bomb the hell out of them if you do not give it up. he said, i know you guys are going down there. so we had a dinner with the

president of ukraine and others. i suggested the idea that the united states might have a hundred and $50 million that we could work with ukraine. -- $150 million that we could work with ukraine. we had a press conference with just two reporters. senator dick lugar just offered ukraine $175 million. sam will not remember. all right.be i went back to the white house to see president bush that was somewhat disconsolate over his selection problem. nevertheless, a good sport. i asked him to write a letter to the president of ukraine offering him $175 million to work on this, which he did.

i suspect we spend four or five times the amount by the time we were finished. thewse are vignettes that led to people asking us to come out and see the typhoon submarines. they did not have to do that. >> i kept -- they kept thinking you're going to write them a check. >> that's right. [laughter] >> i do not want to play poker with that russian. you mentioned that trip to see the typhoons, where they were dismantling. did you understand then that you have lost something, a pebble to start an avalanche? if you look at the scorecard, 7000 plus warheads, 2000 missiles, 105 bombers, 674 missiles, 2200 tons of nerve agents. if nunn-lugar itself or for a

strike weapon, you would be the most successful in history. did you understand there was something historic taking place? >> we did not have time to worry about that. it was a question of accepting these invitations. they came because we were available to talk to the russians. they developed a certain amount of trust. and the fact that we understood them, and secondly, we were beginning to be able to deliver something. hathey would not allow me to take a picture of the typhoon. but a russian did take a picture, and about six months later, sent a large one to our office, which is the first time are intelligent people had seen a picture of a typhoon in that form. but that is a long project. only three of the six have been

dismantled to this day. a complex business. >> i knew that it was succeeding -- charles curtis was sitting in the audience. he was deputy secretary of energy when we started nunn- lugar-domenici program in 1996. i knew that what was happening was very unusual because the military-military working together, understanding we had a common problem and the laboratories working together. people who developed and were the stewards of the nuclear weapons and stockpiles. when we started that program in 1996, one of the reasons we started it, the second program, was because we were being eaten away by the opposition to nunn- lugar. so we were busy. there was still a considerable amount of opposition to the nunn-lugar concept in congress. the reporting more restrictions

on every year. i knew i was leaving. i felt we had to go on the offense. it was the first domestic terrorism bill. we started helping local fire departments, and police forces, on the theory that people in this country had needed to understand we needed to be prepared at home. the best defense from having a nuclear incident at home was to help countries secure material were ever is. that concept continues today. the easiest place to secure nuclear material and prevent nuclear terrorism is not in the u.s. it's too late then. it's hard to find then. charlie played a big role in that. pete and david played a big role in the. nti is still playing a role. dick lugar has expanded that concept. now it's global.

>> sam and i, before we got into it very far, were being invited to go out in to the countryside and see the chemical weapons. the russians always denied they did biological weapons. we saw lots of laboratories. that remains a real problem. the nuclear business, these are big. it will be hard for terrorists to carry a nuclear warhead through the u.s. it is another thing to carry packets of horrible diseases that could be applied not only in africa but likewise in the united states. as a result, under ash carter and kenny myer, they have gone into kenya and uganda, and to

put security around laboratories that were very vulnerable. the work continues. that is true all over the world, where people have developed some type of chemical predicament. the huge situations there in siberia where we have been working with the russians for a long time, just to go through all of the chemical weapons a ton by ton and bituminize it and bury it. there was a day, sam and i saw shells lying in a sporting goods store. it was unguarded and dangerous. it could happen elsewhere other than russia. >> 1,900,000 shells of nerve gas in one store to a a a facility. we went in with gas masks. low land, swampland.

the buildings were sinking. they have opened up that chemical construction plant. ash carter computed that if the -- there was enough nerve gas that could kill everybody on earth four times over, that one site. god knows how anybody could have thought we needed that kinda nerve gas. we were producing chemicals, too. >> that arms race was out of control. you mentioned lab to lab. doing stories in the late 1990's, where the u.s.-russian relationship was going south. i went out to los alamos. i got the sense that one of the byproducts of that was when the political relationship caught in tough times, there was still

trust at that level that kept us on an even keel. i wonder if you think that is one of the residual benefits of nunn-lugar. >> we need to restore that now. it's interrupted, since all the allegations about chinese spying. not only the chinese -- but also the russian-u.s. got interrupted. steve hecker did a tremendous job. he still travels around. it is not nearly as good as it should be in terms of that kind of cooperation. i know that we have to protect secrets and technology. so do they. but we have to continue to find ways to work together, because we basically, with russia and china and others, we really have enough powerful weapons to destroy god's world. that is the stakes here.

>> sam is on the nit board. having russians who are prominent, as well as the president, but also representatives from china and india and other places on earth that likewise foresee potential problems. these people may not have positions in government, but they are well respected in their countries. a good avenue for each of us to keep track of what the agenda ought to be paired >> we have a few more minutes. i will ask some questions from the audience. please prepare if you have a question. >> you wrote this op-ed, saying that the draft template for

asian had gotten so concerning that he thought that's if something is not done and the united states did not express a vision of a world without nuclear weapons, that we would face another down slope and proliferation. that was a very dire pronouncements you may. what brought you to that moment? >> my position on this evolves over a period of time. before we wrote that a op-ed, working with george shultz and kissinger, concluded we had to take a number of steps in the world. we talked about them today. to protect the american public. that the only way we could take those steps is by corporation. we could not do it singlehandedly. what any defense program that would single-handedly, just united states, protect our public. we had to have corporation. we could not get cooperation in taking those steps without repeating and reiterating that we were really pledged to a vision of a eventually getting rid of nuclear weapons, because

that is what we signed up to and the non-proliferation treaty. that is what we signed up for every president since then. but we had not taken it seriously. the world knew we were not taking it seriously. nuclear powers and other countries were hypocritical about it. so most countries in the world that had nuclear material were basically saying, we're not worried about it. terrorists are more likely to hit you than they are us. you do not stick your pledge. why should we worry? sort george schultze and henry and i came to the conclusion that we had to lay out that vision and say we are serious about it. and that we will work to altman be read the country and the world of nuclear weapons. it will not be easy. everybody knows the number of steps. i will probably not be alive when it happens. that is the top of the not. we have to get a base camp. we are not even at base campe -- we need to get to the top

of the mountain. children willmy get to the top of the month. we are in their raa race. >> without the cover often your who could never have been accused of being soft of defense, a lot of this could never have happened. >> four leaders have taken the model that and written op- eds. the real breakthrough came when the president obama led the u.n. security council to endorse the steps. >> he certainly embraced it. >> this profile in courage to my right had to fight for new s.t.a.r.t.. you stood up against many of your own priority.

arty. talk about how you envision the climate for non-proliferation treaties. were you more optimistic that new s.t.a.r.t. has passed? >> i am trying to work in a very modest way along the pathway. i admire sam and the other three and four, but the facts of life are that is the old s.t.a.r.t. treaty died before the end of the bush administration and nothing further was negotiated. it is very important, because american boots on the ground, our military and civilian personnel, are dependent on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. they were dismissed from russia. it is all well and good to talk about trust but verify, but the verify part was out of it. the obama administration and

negotiated swiftly with the russians, but it was not until the latter part of the year that they came to a place where a treaty could come before the senate. by that time, many people said there has been a new election. there are new members coming in. furthermore, it is christmas. how dare you bring up something like this. it was not a nice atmosphere. >> no, it wasn't. >> but nevertheless, we got 71 votes for the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. but there is still little bit of a testy relationship with our russian friends. various other issues have come into this. nevertheless, the boots are back on the ground. i still get a month of reports from the pentagon of how many warheads were taken off of missiles, how many missiles destroyed, how many silos and submarines, which i treasure, because this is not over. this is a situation working with the russians that is very, very

important. alternately, at least the number of my republican colleagues agree that this, and i hope they will stay with us, because we will have some more discussions. we face a preparations each year for nunn-lugar, and all the rest of that. sam made a good point. in the old days, when so many restrictions were placed on nunn-lugar that they did not do anything. there were so busy filling out reports. the whole year passed. this has gone through several administrations and the ups and downs. this is why it is very important. we remind everybody of where we were and how we have come along and what we need to do. >> just like sam nunn offered cover for a lot of people to come along. i do not think new s.t.a.r.t.

would be here today without you. >> we would not have had the treaty or any verification. we would be two superpowers with thousands of nuclear weapons with no way to verify. your military gets paid to assume the worst case. dick lugar deserves a huge amount of credit for getting that s.t.a.r.t. treat through the senate. [applause] >> one last question. and then i will go to the audience. when i was going back and thinking about nunn-lugar through the years, you had two statesman, you had a vision, you had effective politicking to get over ideological resistance, and your reached across the aisle and did something historic. it strikes me that we see too little of that in washington.

we have a brutal year and this town, reaching impasse over and passed. i am curious. do you think this town is still capable of producing something like you are capable of? if so, what are the elements weeken can point to? not, what is missing? >> i am confident and optimistic we can do it. nevertheless, there are some days that are better than others in this business. we have talked about it a lot, but this was over 20 year period of time. there are days and months where things were not going smoothly. one of the nice things about the initial thing was that they invited 14 members of the senate, 7 democrats and seven republicans to come together and hear ash carter give a paper.

that was helpful, may be essential. there were many of those included in those situations who have seen what has occurred and are very proud that they were. i think all senators have to recognize the dangers of biological and chemical weapons. he violence of inidadia and pakistan apart from what may happen in north korea. it picks up allies in many committees, not just for relations and armed services. i would emphasize the need to share that responsibility and to share the load and share the credit if something occurs. >> senator, do think our politics are capable of? the word? >> i worry about it, because i saw an unusual opportunity to

get our fiscal house headed in the right direction, which will take 10-20 years. the super committee given all sorts of power, and it came up with a big zero. i thought it was discouraging. i agree with dick. i think our american political system is stronger than the congress or administration. we do not allow of vacuums to exist to a long in american politics. we have a huge vacuum right now. i compare the two parties with a plane flying along with all wings and there is no center. the center has to rise up. at some point will. i hope it's this election. i believe the vacuum will be filled. i think there are a number of people in congress that can work together, but the atmosphere is

poisonous bite out. the two party system has served us well historical. if it does not begin working better on matters on fiscal and energy and environment and finding ways to work together and compromise, i think there will be an outside force. the american people will not let keep on going. >> it is not working. we will open up to questions from the audience. just raise your hand and state your name and affiliation, please. microphone, please? >> sam, thank you so mcuuch for mentioning it. i would like to share a couple of things that were interesting. well into this spending of american money on the russians for various other activities of the type we are talking about,

one big expenditure was to give the russians money to secure the facilities. once the soldiers left, they had no security. inside, you did not know. so when that left, nobody knew what would happen. we had a program put in place where they could count what went in and out. i was over there once, and i could not believe what i ran into. in one of the closed gates, there was a camera. we had to teach them how to take pictures. i looked up at it, and it said, made in albuquerque, new mexico. some of the people there got excited about the russian exchange of activities, because i was, and they went over there and do business with them and they built these cameras. all of your work to try to get highly enriched uranium to get

it shipped over here so it could not be re-used, i happened to fall upon that. one afternoon, i took a bill for $375 million. never hearing on the matter. i ticket to a subcommittee. presented it and said, this will buy highly enriched uranium from russia and it will feed our electoral power plants for god knows how long. it will not have very much left when they are through buying. he said, why did it take so long? i said, if you tell me it's ok, we'll buy it. he quickly said, if you are not voting with me i will call the democrats back and we'll do it. the republicans will be for, too. with that, we bought all of their uranium.

>> we are still doing it. >> 5% to 10% of lights in america comes from that. the people that impressed me the most were the leaders of the national laboratories. sig hecker at stanford. those kind of people, if we can still find them, we can do the cooperating that you are talking about. without a doubt, they have real friends over there. >> and charlie curtis helped enable those programs, too. >> that's true. ones that paid people to come over here and get educated so they would not be developing weapons. we had an industry to industry program. they all fall in the footsteps of nunn-lugar. >> if they could focus on the energy policy, we would appreciate it. >> there is an energy policy on

iots own. >> other questions? i see one in the back there by the camera. >> hi. i'm richard from radio free europe. i wanted to ask senator lugar, if he could follow up on new s.t.a.r.t. you said the relationship with the russians on non- proliferation is still a bit testy. some people would say it is a lot worse because the russians have even threatened some people in russia to pull out of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty citing problems with the missile shield. that that could tip the balance of power. house security think the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty isa?

? can it withstand the pressures being put on it? >> i think it can. you make a good point on a side issue. the missile defense with regard to europe is going back and forth and not with very good resolution. as a result, work that might be occurring in russia to further the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty has been stalled. this is not the first time in a 20 year period these sorts of things have occurred. it is not that i see this as any less serious. i always take very carefully the russian arguments. at the same time, i perceive it as a part of the overall debate we are still having as two countries with our nato allies in the middle. the potential for iranian nuclear missiles being at the

heart of the question that our european allies want protection. the russians may not be convinced that the iranians are a threat to them or anybody else, but we think they may be. so we are going to have to continue to discuss this. it is just important we keep in touch with our russian friends throughout all of this and understand that all of these stallings and difficulties will occur, but we will overcome them. >> questions? right here? her first, then you. >> from the center for nonproliferation studies. you both stressed that this is an issue of paramount importance and that it is going to require a long-term commitment in the next generation. i would like to ask you as people experience with the congressional process, is there something that you as the congress could be doing to ensure that we have long-term,

and educated citizenry, and educated next generation of leaders who will be invested in these kinds of issues and specialists? we made a number of commitments through the review process, the security summit, to the need for nonproliferation and disarmament education, but we do not currently have a process for high-to aoccur at the school level or in general. perhaps we need some kind of legislation to mandate that. >> i would comment quickly that there are a number of high schools in our country that have been debating this and learning about it. it is quite remarkable. we see a good number of the students and their teachers coming through our offices. but i see bill potter here. bill is prepared to teach all of these students. i would commend enrollment at his center. he is very serious about it. these are potential leaders for

the next generation and maybe beyond that. i am heartened by that and other efforts that bill has been associated with. >> i think education is critical. it is one of the issues that the laboratories themselves are worried about, that there is not a new generation of scientists because there are no tests anymore. that is the idea behind the stewardship. a question -- i'm sorry, senator. >> i know you are already doing great work at monterey on educating young people. there is a lot of work going on in russia as we speak. there are 50 million internet users in russia. the biggest number in europe. that has a lot to do with the climate right now where people are demanding accountability in government and demanding that there be an attack on corruption in russia. i see some real hope in this. i see hope of young people

communicating. because the new generation, they are going to have to deal with these problems in the future. the more we can solve know, the better your future will be. russia and the u.s., the chinese also. the young people really need to form bonds and the internet gives us a way of doing that without necessarily having to do it through governments, who sometimes breakoff relationships when they are having difficulties politically. >> question over here. >> thank you. my name is miram mazer, and i am here on behalf of pew -- nunn-lugar was intended for the former soviet union and territories associated with it, but a number of other countries have created their own nuclear weapons today or are on track towards creating a. i was wonderg