been any efforts to extend the trading to other nations that size or possibly form of a treaty with similar terms inspired by it in >> the answer is yes. dick lugar has expanded it. it is global now thanks to dick lugar. our threat initiative team about a year ago went over and briefed the chinese, the japanese and south koreans on the concept so that if north korea were ever willing to terminate their nuclear program, the nun-lugar program could apply to north korea. that is a big if. but it does apply globaltly and dealing with such things as biological dangers in africa. i know dick has led that personally. >> do you have any comment? >> i commend sam for his

compliment. [laughter] >> we have one last question here, and then i will get to you in the back. >> my name is valerie, and i ropet one of the organizations that implement c.t.r. you spoke about the importance of building and maintaining relationships. obviously there are a lot of stories about different relationships. for those of us on the implementation side who will continue working under the c.t.r. umbrella, what would you suggest will be the key components of successful international cooperation in the future, maybe two or three things we should keep in mind, lessons you have learned through your career that will help us to successfully continue implementing the program? thank you. >> great question. >> well, i would suggest that essentially we are going to

need to continue to work carefully with our military people in the department of defense. for example, we have had briefings recently from general dempsey and others who have stressed that we are going to be involved in much more connectedness with intelligence services, with friends and foes alike, and that as opposed todd perhaps sending divisions and battalions of troops, we are going to be using drone aircraft a good bit more. this is the military side of that. in a less military point of view, with this intelligence, as we are able to send scientists to various countries and define really what is being developed by countries or various groups of people, we

will have a back up of the united states military. but likewise, diplomacy, and smart diplomacy, and ways really of making certain that the rest of the world knows that we want to try to coordinate safety with regard to weapons of mass destruction, whether they are chemical, biological or nuclear. this is not meant to be vague, but it is i think in the process of being formulated as to how -- i mentioned the defense threat reduction agency presently, working with the department of defense. they are trying out all sorts of new avenues, and i think with some success. i'm eager on the legislative front to try to back them up, making sure they have the money and congressional authority to do that. >> let me mention a couple of things. broadly speaking, with all the problems we have in the world

today, and we could list numerous problems, iran and north korea among those, middle east problems and so forth. but if you back off, the way i view history and look at the great powers today, and there are a number of those great powers, europe, japan, china, soviet union, of course the u.s. we have got more in common with the great powers than i think we have had at least in my memory of history. but we have the and mossities. we have historical reconciliation that has never happened. we have left-overs of the cold war. we have china's fears. but we have all these fears and and motities, but there is a reason for young people to look at it whether in europe, russia, japan, chinese or the united states, we have to work together because we have so much in common. i view that as the inevitable

sweep of history if we will get behind that kind of concept, and i think the younger generation can do that. one thing we can do now, the nuclear threat initiative is non-governmental. governments have to do the heavy lifting here, but governments have not been able to come up with any kind of measure or common way of determining how secure nuclear materials are, any best practices, standards and so forth. our organization is going to publish an index. we have teamed up with an economist unit in london, and we are going to publish an index. there are 32 countries that have weapons grade material. we are going to score them in several categories, 18 ways of scoring. we are going to have a list sometime in the middle of january of countries and how well they are doing, comparing some countries with another.

we are not putting one at the top and others at the bottom, but that will happen because of the list. we are giving some scoring criteria. as we go to the south korea summit, they will begin to discuss how we should have a baseline of judgment, and how we should measure improvement in securing nuclear materials and preventing catastrophic terrific. there are a lot of things outside government that the government can't do. i am hoping the government will start debating this. so yes, there are a lot of things that can be done. but i repeat, the nuclear powers as well as other countries in the world have more in common if we just can back off our historical animosities and distrust to work together. >> last question. i think we have time for one more in the back there.

>> edward roder, sunshine press. it seems that in 1991, had you not been able to attach this to a conference committee report, it probably never would have happened. imwondering if, looking at today's politics and how broken things are and how we can't even pass a budget, does the breakdown on capitol hill and the inability to deal with an issue such as this one represent a threat to national security? >> i believe the head of our intelligence agency said not long ago that the fiscal problems are the biggest threats to our national security, and the europeans would say the same thing. it is not physics. it is not chemistry. it is math. it is simple arithmetic.

you have to have restraint in entitlement growth. there is no question about that. simpson son and bowles said that. you have to have restraint in a lot of other programs. you have to have revenue. you have to have both. if we can get on a trajectory physical kelly, we will be ok. >> one of the problems presently, and we are commemorating the 20th anniversary, but the bulk of congress have come into congress in the last 20 years. they were not around at that particular point or the first five years and so forth. for the moment, understandably, our national and political attention is on our domestic problem of jobs, job creation and so forth.

but nevertheless, all of us have a responsibility to not necessarily be educators, but to try to bring up the history we are discussing today. that is why i cherish this moment and the attention that is being paid. it is an opportunity for members who have been involved in debating the debt ceiling and other things, to consider really the issues that are here. i appreciate the ties with the national journal and the ability every day to inform members of congress to at least give information that is occurring so that when these debates do occur -- and that was true in the historic situation. it wasn't so much that the people were opposed to new starts. they had not really thought about the subject. i'm not sure they wanted to at that time before christmas. but it is necessary really to have this ongoing educational

process. i think n.t.i. has been helpful in this respect in bridging the congress and the layers in between. >> i cooperate agree more. give a hand to my two wise men of washington. [applause] >> great. on behalf of national journal, i would like to thank the different areas here. thank you our audience for joining us. for a video, visit nationaljournal.com/events, and thank you very much for coming. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

where are president obama met at the white house with iraqi prime minister maliki today.

then newt gingrich and jon huntsman debate foreign policy and national security in new hampshire. >> an estimated $1.2 billion in customer funds is missing from the financial firm m.f. global. the company filed for bankruptcy in october. tomorrow the former c.e.o. of the company, jon cor stnch ine and executives will testimony. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> for the past few months on c-span, we have examined the political lives of the contenders, 14 men who vied for the office of president but lost and had a lasting impact on american politics. we will talk with gene backers, karl cannon and richard norton smith to see what they learned from the series. to watch the episodes, visit

c-span.org/thecontenders. >> next, president obama and iraqi prime minister rashard mendenhall -- maliki discuss the future of iran -- of iraq. this is 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the prime minister of the republic of iraq. >> please, have a seat. good afternoon, everyone. when i took office nearly 150,000 american troops were deployed in iraq. i pledged to end this war responsibly. today, on several thousand

troops remain there, and more are coming home every day. this is a season of homecomings . 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 honor and with their heads held high. after 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 are 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 and 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 lexis -- elections. the prime minister leads iraq's most inclusive government yet. they are building things that are efficient and transparent. economically, iraqis continue to invest in their infrastructure and development, and i think it is worth considering some remarkable statistics. in the coming years it is 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. mr. prime minister, that is a tribute to your leadership and the skill and 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. what a powerful message that will send throughout the arab world. people throughout the region will see a new iraq that is determining its own destiny, a country in which people from different religious secretaries and ethnicities can resolve their differences peacefully through a democratic process.

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 an 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 in keeping with our strategic framework agreement. 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 had iraq is seeking democracy, a state hood of citizens and not secretaries. we are partnering to strengthen the institutions upon which your democracy depends. a free press, strong civil society, strong 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 are partnering to expand our trade and commerce. we will make it easier for our businesses to export and innovate together. we will share our experiences in agriculture and health care. we will work to help them deepen they're integration into the global economy. we are partnering to scommand the ties between our young citizens. we are welcoming more iraqi students and leaders to america to study and form friendships that will bind our nations together in years to come. we will 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 are partnering for regional security. just as iraq has pledged not to interfere in other nations, other nations must not interfere in iraq. iraq's sovereignty must be respected. the draw will have dawn has allowed us to refocus our resources and put al qaeda on the path to defeat and prepare for the challenges that lie ahead. make no mistake. our strong presence in the middle east endures, and well never waiver from our alleys or

our interests. an equal partnership, a broad relationship that advances the security, the prosperity and the aspirations of both our people. mr. prime minister, you have said it yourself. building a strong and durable relationship between our two countries is vital, and i could not agree more. so this is an 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 have 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 native tongue]

>> thank you and appreciate you for your commitment to everything that you have committed yourself to, and anyone who observes the relationship between the two countries would say that the

relationship would not end with the departure of the last american soldier. it started when we signed in 2008 in addition -- [inaudible] >> we have had a very unique success. nobody imagined that we would succeed in defeating terrorism. we have established the necessary steps to succeed in the second stage, which is the dual relationship under the framework -- as well as education, cultural, judicial and security cooperation. iraq now has relied completely on its own security apparatus

as a result of the expertise it gained during the confrontation and the equiping. but it remains in need of cooperation with the united states of america and the security issues and information, and combatting terrorism, and in the area of trading, and the area of equiping, which is needed by the iraqi area, and we have started that. we want to complete the process of equiping the iraqi army in order to protect our sovereignty and not violate the rights of anybody. we would not undertake any mission to violate the sovereignty of any others. we have the commitments that will expedite. we have reached an agreement and held a meeting for the higher joint committee under the chairpersonship of haven't

biden and myself in baghdad, and we speaking of all the details that would put the agreement in movement. there will be other discussions with the higher committee here in washington regarding the necessary mechanisms for cooperation and achieving the common vision we followed, which was based on our wills, our political decision and desire to respect the sovereignty of each other. we feel that we need political cooperation as well in addition to cooperating in the economics fields. we need political cooperation particularly in regard to the matters that are common and are a concern for us as to parties

that want to cooperate. the common vision that we used as a point of departure we have confirmed today. i am very happy to -- every time we lead with the american side, i find determination and a strong will to activate the strategic framework agreement. i say frankly this is necessary and deserves the interest of iraq as it is necessary and deserves the interest of the united states of america. that makes us feel that we will succeed with the same common commitment that we had in combatting terrorism and accomplishing the missions, the bases -- the basis of which iraq was dependent. iraq today has a lot of wealth, and it needs experience and

expertise, american and foreign expertise to help iraq exploit 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 the sectors that were harmed because of the war and the adventurous policies used by the former regime. we need a wide range of reform in the area of education. we have succeeded in signing several agreements through the educational agreement, which caused hundreds of our college graduates to continue studying

in american universities. i am putting it before everyone who is watching, the relationship between the u.s. and iraq. we have very high aspirations, and i would like to renew my thanks to his excellence eans the president for giving me this opportunity. thank you very much. >> we have time for a few questions. i am going to start with ben of a.p. >> 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 assaad to step down over the killings of his people, but prime minister maliki has warned that that could lead to civil war that could destabilize the whole region. do you think they could be speaking of iran's influence in

this area. speaking of iran, do you think it will be able to weaken the u.s. intelligence because of information from the drone. prime minister, why haven't you demanded that assaad step down given the slaughter of his people? >> first of all, the prime minister and i discussed syria. we share the view that when the syrian people are being killed, or are unable to express themselves, that is 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 assaad missed an opportunity to reform his government. he chose the path of repression and has continued to engage in repressive tactics, so that his

credibility, his capacity to regain legitimacy in syria is deeply eroded. it is not an easy situation. i expressed to prime minister maliki my recognition that given syria is on iraq's borders, that iraq is in a tough neighborhood. well consult closely with them as we move forward, but we believe that international pressure, the approach we have taken, along with partner around the world to impose sanctions and to call on assaad 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 on how to deal with syria, i

have 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 has been explicit back in iraq in his writings and commentary, that his interest is maintaining iraqi sovereignty and preventing meddling by anybody inside of iraq. and i believe him. he has shown himself to be willing to make very tough decisions in the interests 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 have 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 will see how the iranians respond. >> syria and perhaps in other states as well, but i know that

people must get their freedom, and their will, and the democracy. we are with these rights, the rights of people. we have achieved that ourselves . if we compare it with the past, we will find there is a great difference in democracy. we are the aspirations of the syrian people. but i do not have the right to ask the president to abdicate. iraq is a country bordering on syria, and i am concerned about the interests of iraq and the interests of the security of the region. i wish that what is required by the syrian people would be achieved without affecting the

security of iraq. 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 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 in the visit to baghdad, and we agreed on an initiative. perhaps it will achieve the required change in syria without any violent operation that is could affect the area in general. i believe that all the parties realize the dangers of a

sectarian war of iraq and syria in the region. it would be like a snowball that would expand and would be difficult to control. we will try to reach a solution, and i discussed the matter with his excellency, president obama. and there is agreement even from the syrian option, leading the opposition in syria. if we can reach a solution, we can avoid all the evils and the dangers. if we don't, there must be another way to reach a solution that would calm the situation in syria and in the area in general.

>> establish new relationships, establish the characteristics of a new relationship after the withdrawal of the u.s. forces from iraq. relying on the strategic framework, have you reached specific mechanisms for the framework agreement? you said they will be long range in the relationship with iraq. can you tell us will iraq be an ally of the united states or just a friend, or will we have a different relationship? thank you very much? >> definitely without mechanisms, we would not be able to achieve anything. these mechanisms will control our continue was movement.

therefore, the framework agreement has a joint committee from the two countries that meet regularly, and it has representatives from all the sectors that we want to develop relationship with, congress, agriculture, economy, security. these are the mechanisms in which ideas will be reached. a relationship between the ministries that will implement what is agreed upon. we believe through threes two mechanisms, we will achieve success. this will expedite achieving our goal. >> as the prime minister described, i think our goal is to have a comprehensive relationship with iraq. what that means is that on everything from expanding trade and commerce to scientific

exchange, to providing assistance as iraq is trying to make sure 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 exchange between our two governments and between our peoples. what has happened over the past 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 world. it will evolve over time.

it may be discovered that there are certain issues that prime minister maliki and his government think are especially important right now. for example, makingshire that oil production is ramped up. 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. our goal is to make sure that iraq success. we think a successful democratic iraq could be a model for the entire region. we think of an iraq that is inclusive that brings together all people, sunni, shiah and occurred, can come together to

build a democracy. we have 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 is well understood both in iraq and here in the united states that our commitment to iraq's success is going to be enduring. kristy? >> thank you. you were a little delayed coming out today. i was wondering if you could talk about any agreements you may have reached that you haven't tailed already? could you talk more about who will be left behind after the u.s. leaves, how big their footprint will be and what their role would be. mr. president, could you address how convinced you are that the maliki government is ready to govern the country and protect the gains made there in recent years.

i wonder on this occasion if you still think of this as a dumb war? >> i will take the last question first. i think history will judge the original decision to go into iraq. but what is absolutely clear, 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 free trade, commercial and the markets 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 said we are going to do this in a deliberate fashion. we are going to make sure that we leave iraq responsibly, and that's exactly what we have 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. the first question you had, had to do with what footprint is left. we are 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 have an embassy there that is going to be carrying out a lot of the functions of this ongoing partnership and executing on the strige -- strategic framework agreement. we will be working to set up effective military-to-military ties that are no different from the ties we have with countries

throws the region and around -- throughout the region and around the world. the iraqi government has already purchased f-16's from us. we have to train their pilots to make sure they are 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 could also effect u.s. interests, and we will be working together on those issues. but what we are doing here today, and what we will be executing over the next several months is a normization 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 museum interests and museum respect. i am absolutely confident we are going to be execute that over the long-term. while we are on that, i just want to acknowledge none of this would have been successful , obviously, without our extraordinary men and women in uniform. i am grateful for the prime minister asking to travel to arlington to recognize those sacrifices. there are also some individuals here who have 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 department mate fpblgts as well as ambassador jim jeffries. both have done extraordinary work on the ground, partnering with their iraqi counterparts. and i am 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. the question that was given was answered by his excellency the president. there were the dialogues to confirm the confidence and to move into the implementation of the framework of the agreement, to provide the companies and to train the soldiers and the weapons that were bought from

america, and the expertise needed in other civil fields. 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 the capabilities for 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 there is a cooperation in the area of armament. can you tell us the amount of military cooperation between the united states and baghdad. have you received any promises from president obama in this

regard specifically >> there is argument going on inside iraq politics now regarding the size. it is 15,000. i wonder if you discussed with the prime minister to reduce the number of diplomats. thank you. >> definitely. we have raised the iraqi need for weapons. it is for air protection and ground protection. we have a lot of american weapons, and it requires trainers. we received promises for cooperation from his excellency the president for some weapons that iraq is asking for, especially those related to the protection of its air space. we hope that the congress will

approve another group of f-16 airplanes base our air force was exploit completely by the wars we entered into. we also need technical equipment related to the security field. these are issues being discussed by concerned people in both countries, between the ministries of defense and interior with their courpt parts in the united states. we have received promises of facilitation. we have agreed to make this relationship continuous in the security field because both of us need each other, and need cooperation, especially in chasing al qaeda, who was not defeated anywhere except in iraq, and others who feel the

dangers in this area will help as well. >> our goal is a sovereign iraq that can protect its borders, protect its air space and people. our security cooperation with our countries i think is a model for our security cooperation with iraq. we don't want to create big foot prints inside of iraq, and i think that is demonstrated by what will help at the end of this month, which is we are getting our troops out. but we will have a very active relationship, military-to-military, that will hopefully enhance iraqi capabilities and will ensure that we have 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. we understand some questions have been raised inside of iraq about that. look, we are only a few years removed from an active war inside of iraq. i think it is 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. as president of the united states, i want to make sure

that anybody who is 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 gradly reduces itself, partly -- gradually reduces itself. i think people can understand that as president of the united states, i am putting civilians in the field in order to help the iraqi people build their economy and improve their productivity, i want to make sure 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 are carrying out is comparable to the missions that are taking place in other countries that are big, that are important, and that your

friends of ours. thank you very much, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> today i'm proud to welcome prime minister maliki, the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic iraq. we are 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, to begin a new chapter in the history between our two countries. an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. >> as mesh troops prepare to leave iraq, look back at key events of the nearly nine-year war online at the c-span library. it's washington, your way. on tomorrow's "washington journal," we will discuss a republican house proposal to extend the payroll tax cut. aren't tom cole and karen bass will join us. last a "washington post" health care reporter will talk about medicaid cuts to doctors, those are set to go in effect on january 1. "washington journal," each 0

morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> there is much more to the newly designed c-span.org. more video with 11 choices, making it easy to watch today's events. mour features. it has a three network lay out so you can quickly scroll through all the program on the networks and receive an e-mail alert. more access to programs like "washington journal," campaign 2012, book tv, and american history tv. use our handy channel finder to see where our three c-span networks are available on cable or satellite systems across the country. click on products for d.v.d.s, books, mugs and more. >> next, republican presidential candidates newt gingrich and jon huntsman sit down for a discussion on

foreign policy and national security. in fwritch serve who is house speaker from 1995 to 1999 and hasn'tman was utah governor. this forum is moderated by pat griffin of the new hampshire institute of politics. it runs about an hour and 25 minutes. [applause] >> we are the hosts for tonight's debate. some of you may have noticed that we are in a little bit different location. the institute is down the street. about 10 years ago our president started the institute with the hope of creating a place in new hampshire that would create civic and political dialogue. i think he has been president successful at that. father jonathan is here. he is over near the board, if

we could recognize him. [applause] the institute is run by grants and donations from private individuals. so keep that in mind as you go into the end of the year if you know what i mean. tonight's sponsor are the college republicans, led by drew. stand up, drew. right down here. [applause] the college republicans and college democrats worked very well together on a series of events throughout the campus and throughout new hampshire and set a model for what could be done in washington. as you will note, we have exams on campus this week, and in particular today. that is why we left you outside for a while because there were exams going on here. i'm sorry if you had to try your cold weather gear, but

that is what happens on a college campus. some of you may have googled the lincoln-douglas debate. that is the format which we take tonight. the difference is in new hampshire we do town hall meetings where the audience is a participant essentially. that is not the case today. i am staring at 500 people who need to be completely quiet. there will be two chances for you to applaud. when the candidates are introduced and at the end of the event. other than that, i'm asking that no cell phones, no conversation, no breaking out in any way. in fact, interruptions, if they continue, you will be removed from the audience. that was made clear in the e-mail, and i'm sorry to be hard about it, but that is the way it goes. please shut off your cell phones. i am going to introduce tonight patrick griffin, low is our senior fellow and author here

at the institute of politics who will serve as [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. 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 entitlem 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. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] pic. >> 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. >>

with no adequate explanation. >> can i ask you, does britain's new position in europe concern year given the historic breach the u.k. has offered? >> i have to say and does not. i think the role that the u.k. has played in europe will continue. we welcome that. our concern has not been over the position that the u.k. has

taken, it is whether the decisions by that eurozone countries will work. we want to encourage that. we hope it will send the right signal and have the results. i said perhaps the -- separate the economic issues. that is this something that is particularly going to change. from the political work, we do almost every day with the u.k. and with the eu. i do not see any spillover. thank you.

>> a house panel yesterday voted to move to the full house, a plan to expand the tax cut which is set to expire. that is next on c-span. on this morning's washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern. the house will debate that measure today. it comes in at 10:00 eastern. >> for the past few months, we have examined the political lives of the contenders, 14 men vying for the office. this friday, we will talk with gene baker, carl cannon, and richard smith to see what they learned from this series.

>> there is more to the new c- span.org. making it easier for you to watch today's events live and recorded. more features. we have a layout sequel quickly scrofula of the programs on the c-span networks and received an e-mail alert. more access to our popular series and programs like washington journal, book tv, and american history tv. use our finder to see where the networks are available on cable or satellite systems across the country. click on the c-span products for dvd is and the books -- dvds and books. >> the house rules committee voted out a house republican plan to extend the payroll tax cut and delay a cut in medicare. the house will vote on a plan

today. house republicans have also added a decision on the keystone oil pipeline between canada and texas. it is chaired by david dreier of california. >> we are here for consideration of hr 3630. thee happy to welcome distinguished chairman of the committee, my good friend. please come forward. we are awaiting day of arrival of the ranking member. in light of the fact we have a quorum, i would not want to keep our members waiting. we will say that any prepared statement will appear in the record. we welcome your summary. prepared statement will without objection appear in the record and we appreciate your summary. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.

thank you for having me here. the middle class tax relief and job creation act. there are four important facts about this bill. it's about strengthening our economy and getting americans back to work. two, it prevents massive cuts to doctors working in the medicare program to protect america's seniors and the disabled. three, it adopts a number of the president's legislative initiatives which represent the bipartisan cooperation americans are demanding and fourth it's fully paid for with spending cuts, not job-killing tax cuts. the cbo table shows the bill saves about a billion dollars and adding in the flood prevention savings, the savings is closer to a billion dollars. many provisions are in the ways and means commit tee and here today to outline those visions. this bill extends for one year the payroll tax holiday to help

families struggling in this economy. a worker would see his or her takehome pay decline by about a thousand dollars in 2012. compared to 2012. employers are helped, too. job creators see more demand for their products and the president has endorsed both of these po poli policies. the bill would extend unemployment benefits skemed to expire at the end of the month reforming the program and windsing down recent expansions of the program. since 2008, past extensions of unemployment benefits added $180 billion to the debt. this program, hour, is paid for and contains significant reform such as, one, allowing states to screen and test ui recipients for drug abuse, overturning a 1960s-era department of labor ban on doing so. requiring all unemployment recipients to, one, search for

work. two, be in a ged program if they have not finished high school. three, participate in reemployment services. implementing measures and giving states a flexibility to design their own reemployment programs similar to flexibility of the president referenced when discussing the georgia works program. in addition to reforming ui, we extend the program and reduce the maximum number of benefit weeks by mid-2012 reflecting the normal level typically available following recessions. fazing out 20 of those weeks is the president's policy. we also end ui for millionaires, the bill says earning $1 million you have to pay back your unemployment benefits though not in the jurisdiction of the committee, the bill applies a similar policy to food stamps. next, the legislation prevents a 27% cut to doctors serving medicare patients and replaces it with 1% updates in 2012 and

2013. the update is the longest that congress has provided since 2004. which will give us time to develop a permanent solution. in addition to the medicare doc fix, the legislation extends temporary medicare payment programs. four extended and we are making reforms to some of those programs and requiring additional studies of cms to get better data of how they're working. the programs are therapy cap exception process, qi, ambulance payment add-ones and adjustments for physician office visits sometimes called gpci. in the health care world the legislation also adopts a recommendation from president obama that reduces subsidies to high income seniors by requiring them to pay a greater share of the part d and b premiums. this reduces spending by $13 billion in the next decade. exchange subsidies. similar to previous good government changes enacted by overwhelm bipartisan majorities

and signed in to law by the president. and repeals provisions in current law that hurt physician-owned hospitals. the legislation extends through september 30th, 2012, the temporary assistance for needy families which is set to expire on december 31st of this year. the extension is bipartisan, bicam ral reforms and close the current strip club loophole of funds not accessed at atms and strip clubs, liquor sfotores an casinos. it makes necessary change to child tax credit program requiring one spouse to include a social security number on their tax return to claim the credit. just as you have to do filing for the earned income tax credit. second, this legislation reduces social security overpayments by improving the coordination with states and local governments incorporating another

recommendation from president obama. the middle class tax relief and job creation act incorporates more than a dozen proposals the president offered, supported or assigned in to law in one variation or another. more than 90% of the bill is paid for with such policies. the bill's paid for, it's bipartisan and will help get our economy back on track. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, chairman kemp. i want to say to you, congratulations. obviously, we have a really serious -- we've been joined by mr. levin. if you would like to offer some thoughts, mr. kemp completed his testimony. without objection, any prepared statement you have will appear in the record. we welcome your summary. yep. >> yes. >> it was the abridged version.

>> i'm sorry i missed your statement. it is. well, though i didn't hear the statement, i think the path is clear. and that is, instead of trying to find common ground here, we're headed for a confrontation on the floor tomorrow. the president has already indicated his objection as we have. so let me just highlight a few of the issues. one relates to unemployment insurance. in this period of historically high unemployment and long-term unemployment, this proposal

would reduce the federal program from 73 to 33 weeks. >> if you could move the microphone back. >> back? okay. it's too loud. so it would cut it more than half. and we don't have the final figures yet, but it is clear that well over a million people would be deprived of unemployment insurance. at a time when people are looking for work. the estimate is four people for every job. and i find this to be if i might say so a heartless and i think a mindless and i think a reckless way to proceed.

so, i don't know how that's defended. also, there are provisions that allow a waiver to ten states to move away from unemployment insurance altogether. and then there are other provisions. i don't understand why they would be there. you lose your benefits unless you're working towards a ged. i think it's important for people to have geds, to make that an absolute requirement for unemployment benefits. so i think we're essentially at this moment of the historically highest percentage of people who

are unemployed long time, this is in record, in our records. we had none in the depression. we're essentially cutting the federal program by 40 weeks. the majority of states would be affected, including the state that mr. camp and i live in. and i don't see how people can go home and have voted for this. and look people in the eye and tell them that they're out in the cold. essentially, if this were to prevail for the holiday, you have an empty package. so i very much oppose what's provided here. i think we need to also take a

careful look at the health provisions. i think they in many respects are a mistake. i don't know if anyone has thought through carefully enough the changes that would be made relating to medicare. and over time what would happen to those on medicare and the premium that they would pay. and while income relating has been discussed by the president, it was part of an effort at a basic reform and essentially what you would do would be to have a forever provision for senior citizens in terms of their medicare provision for one year reduction. so some of the extenders are

included but others aren't. and it's hard to understand why some are in there and some are not. in terms of provisions relating to hospitals, i think there is an essentially harsh impact by the omission of some of the provisions and the bad debt provision that is in here. and i think it's interesting that someone has inserted in here a provision relating to physician-owned hospitals. this is what we used to call in the ways and means committee a kind of a rifle shot. so we only saw this bill on friday. there was no effort to sit down and work on this in a bipartisan basis. we're now in the process of

working on a substitute and i would ask this committee to agree to let us present a substitute if that's what we decide to do. >> well, thank you very much, mr. levin. appreciate your being here and i have to say that your testimony was not quite as bul yebt and encouraging as the testimony from mr. camp as he is attempting to address, i believe, the exact same goal of ensuring that people do have access to those benefits, but at the time if you look at the fact of $180 billion as he said in his testimony added to the deficit since we have had this, bringing about reforms, not just ged but looking at the other kinds of reforms i think is a responsible way so i happen to believe that this is a package that has been discussed and

considered for a long period of time. a number of these reforms have been out there. mr. camp has been a great proponent to both of those. i say thanks to both of you. you described the proponent as a confrontation. i hope very much that the president will be supportive of this. the democrats will. i mean, i have heard a number of democrats talk positively about some of these proposals that have been before us. and so, it's my hope that we'll be able to move ahead, get this done and ensuring that the american people who truly are in need will have access to benefits, but at the same time bring about reforms and as the title of the bill says, focus on job creation and economic growth which is -- >> i don't think cutting a billion people from unemployment -- >> if i may finish my statement. >> okay. >> thank you very much. i believe that if we can focus on the issue of job creation and economic growth, getting to the

root cause of the problem here, which is, i believe, what this legislation is designed to do, will go a long ways of addressing the concerns of the people about whom you are talking today. and so, i don't have any questions for you, gentlemen, other than to say thank you very much for being here and i do appreciate the time and effort and i hope very much that we can enjoy bipartisan support on this. mr. sessions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome both of you, the ranking member and the chairman of the committee of the ways and means committee. we have received good bit of legislation that has been very important to this committee. we have had some success in our ability to more fully understand the ramifications of job creation and the reason why republicans continue to bring bills to the floor of the house

of representatives with job creation, investment opportunities, tax advantages to employers and the chance for us to streamline programs to the benefit of employers since our nation is in key need of job employment numbers to rise. i would note today and i think the chairman of the committee aptly stated this. that our country is facing a very difficult time with the long-term unemployment that comes as a result of excessive washington spending, too many rules and regulations. and an administration that i believe is tone deaf in understanding the part of this equation that has contributed to the demise of our economy. today, i note, mr. chairman, that you have brought us a bill that also talks about keystone pipeline. which would be a job creator,

which would allow the united states to have an advantage, i believe, in the coming years. if, in fact, any sort of problem occurred in the middle east, where we had a delay in receiving needed and necessary oil, it would reduce our oil dependency by some 8%. i've been led to believe. it would provide us with a catalyst for many, many more jobs. it would provide us with the opportunity to ensure a stable supply of energy from our neighbors to the north. and it would provide this country with the benefit of having less cost in the price at the pump. and so, i believe that all of these things added up along with the compromise as you suggest about the things which the

president indicated that the president wanted are all to a package that while may be not perfect, maybe i would not have written everything the same way, i think it's a real advantage and i wonder if the chairman would take a second and highlight those things which might be involved in job creation, job enrichment and the advantage to taxpayers and consumers with the pipeline. >> thank you, mr. sessions. the pipeline issue's not in the jurisdiction of the ways and means and committee, but it is one that i think will be very moving forward and i strongly support and i think the key thing is we have a decision. it requires that the president issue a permit for the pipeline within 60 days and/or find it's not in the national interest to proceed. right now, the issue is delayed until after 2013 and given the difficult nature of people's

ability to find jobs and the high level of unemployment we have, certainly to have a project of this size and magnitude -- i was just at an event this morning with an area chamber of commerce in my district and talked about the jobs created in michigan if, in fact, this project were to go forward. so it would be a very positive thing in terms of, obviously, energy independence, but also, for much-needed job creation. i think that's why you're seeing groups as varied as the teamsters and afl-cio come on board and say it's essential that we have this pipeline and it's not enough to wait until 2013 and pass this along. there's tens of thousands of pipeline under this area in oklahoma that is already of concern. we just think it is so important for jobs moving forward. i'm glad it was included in the bill and look forward to supporting it strongly on the floor. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i believe the kinds of

legislation that republican chairmen have beening to the rules committee again highlight the commitment i believe your party and my party has to putting ideas forth on the table that will provide us an opportunity to have ab agenda to work with the president. i believe job creation is among the most important. i want to thank both of you for being here today. i yield back my time. >> getting ready to recognize the ranking member, glad to welcome bob slaughter to the committee again. we're happy to have him. merry christmas to you. >> actually, he does. we discussed it pretty thoroughly on a nine-mile ride down from rochester to washington. thank you very famuch. i appreciate both of you gentlemen is.

i agree with mr. levin there's not a lot we'll be able to do here. i think this is one of the most punishing bills i've ever seen. we're saying to people who are unemployed, how dare you lose your job! the nerve of some people to lose their job, we're not going to help had you out a bit. i can't understand that attitude. they're suffering enough out there, yet we're saying we don't care. we've already invited a nation scorned hearing the debt limit debate and cr continuing resolution crisis and now you are returning to the well the same exact brinksmanship that let to our nation's credit downgrade. instead of extending a tax cut to the middle class and assistance to the unemployed, which normally the congress of the united states would do without a whole lot of grief, majority is holding the middle class hostage in order to extract concessions for their friends and big oil. furthermore, instead of asking those with the most to help

those with the least, today's bill asks millions of seniors to pay more for health care to pay for it and in exchange the majority will graciously continue the unemployment insurance programs even though they're cut by more than half of the maximum number of weeks provided in these programs as a usual matter. they cut these needed benefits during one of the longest economic slumps in american history, and paul krugman, nobel laureate and great economist said today we are in a depression. adding to the fact that the united states' economy is in such bad shape, the economies of europe and our concern about them. why can't this grand ole party help the middle class without demanding a quid pro quo? why can't they serve the middle class without playing secret santa for special interests like the keystone xl. we don't know where that oil is going to go. i've heard most people saying

once it removes itself from the united states and refined in texas it will be put on ships and likely sent to asia. it would be nice if we knew that before we insisted on putting that pipeline through. the good news is the majority's holiday giveaways will never make it past our colleagues in the senate, and they face a near-certain presidential veto. and with any luck this bad movie will come to an end and we can finally take serious steps to help the middle class families and provide unqualified assistance to the unemployed who are struggling simply just to live. thank you very much. i have no questions. i don't think it would matter. >> thank you very much a, mr. chairman. it is amazing the use of language in this committee. i think there probably is no

committee that has more distortion of the american language -- the english language than here in the committee. i wanted to go over some points with the chairman for a moment and ask him if i have the essence of this bill, because i think it is important that we emphasize that. but before i do that, comments the ranking member made, made me think that we must always remind our colleagues about a little history. when they took over the congress in january 2007, we had a 4.5% unemployment rate. so, while they decry the unemployment rate, we have to remind the american people that it's a result of their policies that we have such a high unemployment rate. it was only after they took over the congresses that the

unemployment rate started going up. it's a pretty close correlation with their policies on spend spend spend that we saw the unemployment rate go up. but, mr. chairman, check me if i'm wrong because, as i talk to the people in my district are, i want to be able to give, again, the essence of this bill. i want to boil it down as much as i possibly can. fi first of all, the policies here are bipartisan. i believe i heard you say that 90% of what's being proposed has been proposed by either the president or our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> it reduces waste, fraud and abuse in several different areas. it reduces unnecessary rules and regulations. it helps to create an environment where jobs can be created so that we can go off after this horrible unemployment rate created by our friends

across the aisle, who so much decry these policies. it will deal with something my constituents are very concerned about, and i get a lot of letters about, and that is drug screen i screening that would be required before people can draw these generous benefits that they get. it will help us bring down energy costs. it will help the unemployed get skills that they need. i see job -- i see -- all over my district i see advertisements for jobs. all the time. so it's a little hard for me to understand why we have sufficient a high unemployment rate. it cuts the deficit and, contrary to what our colleague said, it really asks the wealthy to do more in terms of paying for their benefits. tell me what i've left out, mr. camp, in trying to summarize this. >> well, you've hit on a lot of

the points. 90% of the bill that funds the bill are from the prison's bipartisan policies. in particular with regard to ui, it is very important it that the unemployment insurance program not just be about writing checks but be about finding reemployment for people who are out of work. that's why it's compared with the reforms that i think are needed in this program. one, having a meaningful requirement to search for work. there's a patch work quilt of responsibilities, and my friends on the other side made basically the entire after the average of 26 weeks all a federal program in terms of unemployment benefits. this was shared between state and federal. because it has become, with stimulus, virtually all a federal program beyond 26 weeks we think it's important to have standardization in terms of

searching for work. obviously there are exceptions to the ged requirement if in fact a reare sip yent is too old. so we've tried to bring some commonsense exceptions to some of these exceptions. but if you don't have a job, it's important to get the training and skills and get that ged so you will be employable in the future. states have been really are asking for the flexibility to be able to do these re-employment programs if they apply they can receive waivers for. i think that's going to be essential to actually getting people who are receiving a benefit into the job market. one of the concerns -- the president has suggested reducing this this program by 20 weeks. we think it's important to go back to the historical level of 59 weeks, which is more than half of the current plan. so my colleagues are wrong when they say this is cutting by more than half. it's not accurate. >> i said the federal program. federal program is 73 weeks, cut to 33. >> you'll have an opportunity. the entire program will be 59

weeks, but four states even after six months, this is a gradual phase-down to 59 weeks, many more states will be at 79 weeks and at the end four states will still stay on a 79-week plan. but it's important because i hear from many employers and business people saying, look, 99 weeks is just too long because people are out of the market for too long. they lose their skill set. then the fast-changing economy, we need to have an effort to really get them back, get them ready for work, get them back into the workforce sooner than that. this goes down to the historical level that in past recessions, '82, '92, this is more the historical level of unemployment levels that were offered. in the '80s, the recession, unemployment rates spiked up as high as they have been in this long recession. yes, they're higher, in '82. but the unemployment level was

about where we hope to move to, but it's a gradual phase-down to it, not all at once. i think it's an important thing to do. so i think particularly on the unemployment side. and we're extending benefits here to more than 5 million recipie recipients. they want to talk about who's being denied, but we're extending these unemployment benefits and we're paying for it and we're not doing it in an irresponsible way, which added $180 billion to the deficit over the nine various extensions that were given since 2008. >> well, i can remember when unemployment benefits were 11 weeks. i was never on unemployment but my father was, and i remember it very well, had whwhen it was on weeks. then it gradually got more and mored and more and more. and it -- i think what you're doing is the appropriate thing to do, and i want to say i

appreciate what you and the committee staff and the other committee members have done in order to bring us what i think is a very sensible bill which attacks, again -- provides much to the adding to the deficit, which we know is the biggest concern people have. >> also, we add data standardization, a bipartisan proposal to really get at the waste and fraud and abuse in some of these program ares. some of it is checks are going to the wrong people. it's not all fraud, but some of it is. if we can standardize the data, we can actually bring program integrity to this program are, something very important that we do. we also deny unemployment insurance to millionaires. that's a loophole that's been allowed. there's actually -- if we enact this provision, it reduces federal deficits by $20 million between 2012 and 2021.

so a significant number of millionaires have been receiving unemployment insurance. we think that's wrong, that it should be stopped. that's part of the reforms we're trying to bring to this program. >> accountability is another issue that's major with i think our constituents in bringing some accountability. i think the approach that we take to not give benefits to people of means as opposed to taking more money from those people to give to the federal government when there is no accountability is the right provo. thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you both for being here. >> thank you. let me just begin by making it clear that there are millions of people in this country who are struggling. and they have been waiting for us to do something, to help them out, to help them get through this difficult time as they look for a job. really it's shameful that we're here at this late hour trying to find a way to extend a helping

hand to people in need, trying to find a way to extend a payroll tax cut to middle classes families. we should have done this a long are time ago. before i get into the substance, let me talk a bit about the process here. it's my understanding that this bill was presented on friday, am i correct on that? just a cull ouple of days ago, . it's also my understanding that this bill has been referred to 12 out of 21 committees, am i correct on that? that's half the committees so it's been refer are ered -- how hearings on this presented bill have we had over the weekend? has there been a markup on this? one of the committees by the way is the rules committee. we didn't do a hearing or markup on this bill either. this bill, just so my colleagues understand this, is 369 pages,

both sides -- here it is -- already i understand there's one drafting error, that is pretty substantial that needs to be fixed with a self-executing rule, an amendment to automatically be put in. i don't know how many other errors are in here. as we put this thing together in this rapid fashion. i point this out because i recall that the republican pledge to america, which stated that they will end the practices of packaging unpopular bill with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the american people. instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time. but that's a broken promise. that promise has been broken with this monstrosity we have here today. you know, i -- you know, i don't know how many other mistakes are in this bill that will have to

be fixed at a later date, but i remind my colleagues there was a time when they were concerned about bills of this magnitude being rushed to the house floor without proper vetting. there's no hearings, no markups. half the committees in this entire house of representatives received a referral for this bill, including the rules committee. and here we are bringing this bill to the floor. over the weekend i was -- before i understood what was happening here i was a little bit heartened because i heard the minority leader mitch mcconnell and i heard the speaker of the house had said that at long last they favored afternoon extension of the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment insurance. i'm a little puzzled. if they're for these things, then why are they demanding a ransom in order for us to get these things? it's a pretty big ransom here.

you know, ranking member ms. slaughter mentioned a number of them, but this bill is pretty comprehensive. i mean, it rolls back the clean air act rules by the epa. i don't even know which ones they are. it's being rushed to the floor. i'm told there's a number of rolebacks in this bill. there are chaks nges in terms o eligibility for certain benefits that, again, one would like to think would have to go through a very thoughtful hearing process before they're all of a sudden made into law. we have -- i mean, a whole bunch of policy writeriders in here. but basically in order for middle classes families to not pay higher taxes next year and in order to make sure people unemployed get something, although it's been much reduced

as mr. levin pointed out, and in order to make sure seniors have access to doctors through medicare, then in order to get that we've got to dismantle the clean air act, dismantle health care reform, force approval of a massive controversial pipeline and make it harder for working families to claim the child tax credit and more and more and more. i mean, my expectation is that this is so off the mark that, as the ranking member said, the senate will not approve this. but that we're wasting time as we're coming to the end of the year going through this exercise. maybe it's some red meat for the base, but i think people are tired of that at this point. i think they want us to similar spli do what is right, and that is to extend the payroll tax cut to help people with their un unemployment insurance and get this doc fix in place so we can

move on and hopefully actually do something about jobs. i strongly disagree, you know, with the statements of my colleagues on the republican side that this congress is about jobs. it's been about everything but jobs. and i think the record on job creation out of this congress is lousy. and i hope that, you know, once we get through all this that perhaps we will get serious about the issue of jobs and putting people back to work. but this, this is like political extortion. if we accepted this, accept all of these other provisions that have nothing to do with what the issue at hand is, which is middle class tax relief and helping people with unemployment insurance and getting this doc fix in place. but all this other stuff, again, look how long -- i mean, who's read this? who's had a chance to go over this? one drafting error had already? i don't know how many more are

going to be in here. this is not the way we should be doing this, and i regret very much that we're not dealing with the clean bill, we're dealing with this christmas tree. i guess we'll bring it to the floor tomorrow and dispose of it one way or the other and then have to come back here, if we're serious about providing an extension of the middle class tax relief. we'll have to come back here and do it again. mr. levin? >> i just want to read the number of states that would lose 40 weeks of unemployment benefits next year under the bill -- alabama, california, connecticut, d.c., florida, georgia, illinois, idaho, indiana, kentucky, michigan, missouri, nevada, new jersey, north carolina, ohio, oregon,

rhode island, south carolina, tennessee, texas, and washington. and the other states would lose between 14 and 34. so when it comes to unemployment insurance, this is the opposite of a christmas tree. >> right. >> and i just want to say one word to take michigan as an example. in a misguided way, the state reduced the state benefit to 20 we weeks. you add 33 to 20, it ththat's 5. and some of those 53 weeks under our federal program will be diminish diminished. this, mr. dryer, is the highest number of long-term unemployed in the record of this country. so to compare it with early 2000

and the '90s and '80s in terms of unemployed is frightfully misguided. [ inaudible ] but take how long it's lasted. >> and, as many on your side said, if we only pass stimulus, our unemployment rate would be 6%. >> okay, look, we can argue -- i'll take back my time. >> your policies certainly haven't worked very well. >> let's not argue about the policies because i think you're wrong. >> it's a fact. >> focus on the unemployed. >> you promised 6%s unemployed. focus on the unemployed in the state of michigan. >> i am. frankly if we hadn't passed the stimulus bill, we'd be better off. >> i appreciate you yielding. >> mr. mcgovern, any more questions you'd like to ask?

>> yes. >> please proceed. >> i don't want to get into policy either because i don't think the bush tax cuts produced any jobs, and i do think the stimulus package actually helped us avoid even a worse catastrophe. the sluggish economy is trying to get better, i hope it is slowly but surely. there are millions that are struggling. or for the life of me, i can't understands how it's so hard under this leadership in the house of representatives to help he the middle class and help those who are poor. it's always so difficult to be able to move anything forward, and, again, the price that we're supposed to pay in order to move some very flawed help forward the way it's drafted here i think -- i think this is going to be dead when it goes to the senate. we're groing to have to come back here. i regret we're wasting time. >> could i just ask the gentleman. does the gentleman believe we should be at 99 weeks with no reforms in the program?

>> what i believe is we should be focused here on trying to help create jobs so people can go out and find them. i'm like dr. foxx. in my district, there aren't all these jobs available for people to take, to be able to support their families. it's still a very sluggish economy. our unemployment rate, by the way, is better than most of the other states in the country. so what i'm asking -- what i'm saying to the gentleman is, we all are are talking about jobs today. we ought to do something about jobs. and allowing people who can't find a job to all of a sudden be cut off of unemployment and how they're going to survive and pay their mortgage and all that stuff, they won't. these are extraordinary times, and quite frankly we need to be focused on measures to get people back to work. we've done everything in this house from reaffirming our national motto to make it easy for people to carry guns across

state lines. farm dust, which is not a problem. you know, everywhere i go people say, when are you going to do something about job ss? so extending the payroll tax for middle class families is very helpful during this economy. helping people who are unemployed get through this difficult time until they can find a job would be very helpful. and i think we should -- the rest of this stuff -- again, you know what? maybe there needs to be some reforps, mr. camp. but you know, not a single hearing on this bill. not a single hearing. and half the committees in this congress had this bill referred to them. let's do this thoughtfully, not in the back room where a couple of people make the decisions. let's bring this through committee through regular order and see if we can improve the system. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

before i give my campaign speech, i do have a couple of questions i'd like to ask. first of all, mr. chairman, how long has this bill been online? [ inaudible ] >> which exceeds what we said -- thank you. ms. foxx already asked you the question that 90% of this has been some part of a bipartisan agreeme agreement. my friend from massachusetts was complaining about the length of this. this bill is still smaller than some of the amendments that were thrown at us on the day of the debate on that amendment so i'm glad we're actually putting this online for five days so people -- or six days so people finally have a way of looking at this. >> would the gentleman yield? >> if i must. apparently i must. >> let me point out there are 13 democrat amendments to this bill so obviously a lot of people had a chance to read it and decide

on offering amendments. >> well, and maybe that's a nice segue into the question i have for you, mr. camp. it's allu ae's alluded to nobod reading this bill. i understand you have the keystone pipeline division it. am i wrong in saying that we actually did discuss that when we passed it on the floor? >> it has been publicly debated on the house floor. >> let me ask you about a few of these -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'm wondering if it's the same bill. >> not yet. let me get through it. you've had five days to look at it. i think we can do that. >> the boiler mac provision are, was that a bill that passed this house? >> correct. bipartisan vote passed the house. >> the unemployment insurance reform, is that similar to 1745 that went through the ways and means committee? >> yes. the reforms that are incorporated here are reforms that were aired in open hearing, in the markup in the ways and

means. >> i'll try and move this it faster so we can get through before votes take place. the spectrum, jump-starting opportunity for broadband spectrum, was that heard in a subcommittee and marked p up? >> in a different committee, yes. >> what about the change to temporary assistance for needy families? hr-2883, was that part of this bill also marked up in a committee? >> it's a bipartisan reauthorization. >> what about the loophole? was that part of senate bill 943 that's gone through the senate? >> the gentleman's correct. >> what about the flood insurance reform act? was that part of 1309? >> i believe the gentleman's correct. >> so the preventing abuse of the refundable child tax credit, part of mr. johnson's bill introduced in may of this year? >> yes. that's been introduced for many months. >> so i guess the bottom line is, this bill has had a few discussions as time a's gone on. but i did want to ask another

question, if i could, it that nobody here has addressed and was something i found of interest to me and i wish you had because it is a significant issue. mr. camp, the offset that is in part of this bill that deals with federal employees as far as the freezing of their c.o.l.a., i've heard this has been three years. is this a three-year provision or is this the third year of a three-year provision? >> it extends through december 31, 2013, the krflt c.o.l.a. freeze. >> so this is a third year. >> yes. >> and this has been across the board with all federal workers. >> yes. >> look, this is where the speech comes in. before i came here i was a public schoolteacher. i'm still listed in those rankings as one of the least financially well-off members of congress so i guess i'm appreciative of the idea that i'm now one of the rich people around here.

it's nice to be called that even though it's not true. but i do understand the feelings of those who are in this situation, especially when they have decision it's imposed topdown manner upon them. so the extensions that we're talking about here for the tax breaks, it's wise. the programs in here that will create jobs, that's wise. having offsets in here for the program, especially in the financial situation we're in, it's wise. and the fact that you're trying to share the burden with everyone, including members of congress, i find that wise. i do wish, though, that this c.o.l.a. freeze on civilian workers was actually not part of the extension that was here. when the obama administration first proposed this, i wish they had come up with something a little more original than simply putting a freeze on salaries of all those who work for the federal government because our goal should be not simply a temporary budget practice that can be reversed but to actually do some kind of long-term

reduction. now, i know in our code we already provide goals and bonuses to people within the agency -- agencies within the federal government to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. the federal government is big, there will always be waste, fraud and abuse because we're just that big. what i would like to see is some kind of systemic practice that's changed. for example, the air force in their depo work decided to implement ideas of the lean program sometimes called stigma or theory of constraint, all of them tied together. what they basically did is go to the people on the ground who know what was going on and allow it them to come up with a way that would reduce costs and increase efficiencies and they did it extremely well. that same program which should be done by the administration could easily imposed on every element of the federal government, on every work force to try to reduce the footprint, our supply cost, efficiency and responsing, even the number of

personnel we have using programs. if we were to actually empower citizens, we could allow them to be rewarded for fiengd ways of cutting the spending and giving them financial bonuses for doing that, not just for waste, fraud and abuse, not just a temporary freeze, but actually allowing them to go forward and find efficiencies within the system. i intended to attempt an amendment to this process. i realize this ought to be something that is pushed by the administration. this is clearly an executive branch function. however, it's not being done. i realize mr. leatham and burgess have bills to try and encourage this. i would like to go one step further and allow the opportunity for congresses to establish a rewards system to allow our employ yoees to find ways of receiving bonuses by finding the efficiencies within the system for a truly systemic change in what's going on. and i intend to take their bill and basically introduce something in january where we can get the words accurate and right so next year we can do it, so we can come up with some truly long-term reforms.

because i am frustrated with the temporary freeze that we places on people who are what i was before. i don't think that is the proper approach. i was frustrated when president obama decided to incorporate that as one of his ideas. i think we can do better and we ought to and we should work to do better. i think in the next session i would be very happy if we could all sit down and try to come up with a program that actually empowers our citizens and our workers to find ways of being more efficient to create real long-term changes in the way we do things. i'll yield back because i've rambled too long. >> thank you, mr. bishop. let me say we have votes coming up in just a few minutes on the floor and i'm hoping very much we might have aare an opportuniy to report this measure out before the last vote. mr. hastings? >> mr. chairman, the entirety of

my service on the rules committee has been with you, mr. chairman, mr. sessions, ms. slaughter, and mr. mcgovern. we've all been here a number of years during the times of democratic control of the house of representatives and republican control of the house of representatives. if i've learned nothing, i've learned during that period of time that promises made are not always promised kept. and i ask you, mr. chairman, did your party, when you gained control of the house of representatives, make a pledge to america that said that

must-pass legislation would be taken one at a time, and do you, mr. chairman, consider this to be must-pass legislation? >> i thank my friend for yielding. let me just say that i think it's very apparent -- i don't know exactly -- must-passes legislation can be characterized in any way. i mean, someone can determine something is must-pass legislation and somebody else may be vir lintly opposed to it and doesn't believe it's must-pass. i think that's in the eye of the beholder. the other point i would make is we have a crisis here. mr. levin and mr. camp have both talked about the imperative that we face to try and get this economy going and generate jobs. we also are provoing t are appr of the year. as you know, this friday we have

the continuing resolution that expires. we very much want to ensure that we don't see the expiration of those benefits for people who are unemployed. and that we extend the payroll tax holiday. and so there are lots of things that i believe democrats and republicans alike want to have happen. we believe very strongly that getting to the core issue of creating jobs is essential and that's the reason that the bipartisan keystone pipeline issue is part of it. so i would say that we're at the end of the session. i don't want to get into the position of comparing. mr. bishop alluded to what we had in the past. i can tell you about sitting here in the last four years, instances. but i don't want to point the finger of blame and say -- well, i think independently while we haven't been perfect i believe that we actually have done better than we'd seen in the