is, the u.s.-china relationship, around two vehicles. they are related. one is energy, the other, the environment. the united states and china are the number one and #two consumers of energy and the number one and #two polluters of the planet. are there ways we can work together? the disposition of many in this country is to see things in competitive rather>> good. maybe we will take one more. there is at hand there in the back. yes. >> thank you very much. i am just wondering if the panel could comment on chinese

bilateral engagement with individual european countries, specifically on the periphery. there has been some investment deals with greece. how do you foresee this affecting overall e.u. policy toward china in the areas of human rights, an apartment? maybe to jump the gun, out the use the european high-technology transfers toward china? what does china what in return? is it too far to jump the gun to say that? do you see that as a possibility of opening up? this was an issue in the past, and how do you see this playing out in the future? >> maybe a heater you want to start off on the question -- maybe, peter, you want to start this off on the political

question, u.s.-china, the basis, etc., how do you see that? >> it is an area of great concern to the united states, to the whole world. the global shifts about we are speaking are also reflected in strategic changes. as you mentioned, i am not so sure the chinese know exactly where they're heading then selves. they have expect -- they have expressed were raised about the american presence in durbin. do not forget only 30 years ago

these questions were completely outside the radar screen of the most senior chinese. nobody gave it any thought. we should be careful not to jump to conclusions about china's attitudes on these changes of strategic patterns. my sense is that they wish to become a global power, that they will wish to become not only by financial power, but also a military power. that poses enormous challenges for the u.s., more than for any other country. it will require a lot of patience and wisdom to deal with these challenges in a way that will channel these energies in a stable direction. these challenges are facing china as they are facing the u.s. >> i will add a few things.

on a geopolitical stage, this is a tough issue for china. they also see the pivot is something that they actually inadvertently encouraged, because it took relatively a hard line and did relatively foolish things of the last few years. the government realizes is the best way to deal with the pivot, what i would call the military- security issues is to try to soften china's image in the region in a way that is seen more as a collaboration. otherwise, it would encourage more of these situations . they did not want war stress. longer-term is more complicated. the longer term depends on what the u.s. reaction is to what evolves, and when you have a new government in china, what their

priorities are. on the climate change issue, i would like to issue -- at the size it is an interesting thing, and in the united states we have a heated debate about climate change and the implication on a scientific basis. there is not a heated debate in china on this. the reason is there is 95% technocrats. do not have a personal opinion. they say there must be a climate change, and there must be a problem. it united states, the leadership likes to debate a lot of things, and much more personal opinion. china is hung up on issues of targets, whether they should be treated the same as developed countries. the commitment is there. there is a strong commitment in the public's sense in the united states, said there should be some way to collaborate.

the form of collaboration is tricky. the technology aspects continue to be developed here, but you have a problem because the manufacturing aspects of that policy are likely to be done in china. the the question is, is there potential for a collaborative relationship? yes, there is. technology -- everything is developed in this country. apple products are manufactured in china. that is a win-win in some way. that is the same issue as climate change technology. right now politically the united states does not feel that it is gaining what it would call the necessary share to make it a

true partnership. >> to fall on the climate change issue, and how you achieve more cooperation to solve the global problems and provide a global public more cooperation between the united states and china, but more generally more cooperation between the height-income countries and the developing countries. what is needed is there will be a fundamental change in the dynamic of the process. until now, the process has always been that the high-income countries come up with a global solution, given to the developing countries, and they say, that has too much of the characteristics of the vested interests thehigh-income countries. i'm not interested. it is your problem, so thank you very much. in many areas, you have the same

kind of dynamics where high- income countries are thinking globally, and then try to push it through in the other countries. what has to change is developing countries start thinking globally, not just about their own economy, but think about the global problem and work from the vested interest of developing countries will still need to grow, which still haven't poverty, a global solution. put that on the table. the high-income countries should start reacting to that. i think what we saw in durban is a small step in that direction, where china was under a lot of conditions, but much more committed than before, and also other developing countries are to think you're being part of the global solution, and then you change the dynamics. we're not there yet for two

reasons. first of all, many developing countries, including china, have not found their voice yet to think globally. but it is absolutely necessary to get those global solutions. >> does anybody want to pick up on the european investments? what the europeans want? >> the way i understood the question, what is the chinese relationship with the individual european countries in addition to their relationship with brussels? my sense is the chinese are playing both sides and have their active relationships with individual major european countries, as with the european institutions in brussels. there is a high-level strategic

dialogue between brussels and pga which -- beijing which proceeds the relationship with united states and china for a long time. this was instituted in the late 1980's and has been gone on ever since. the american dialogue was started on a high level by secretary paulson in the george bush administration, and is an important one. from china's perspective europe is important. it is a very important source of new technologies, as well as technical assistance, and that comes from brussels. >> other questions? yes, the gentleman there in the middle. >> i just got back from two weeks in beijing.

i had a lot to do with young people, and for the first time i heard desissent. they were expressing their irritation on the controls come on internet come on various things, and i was wondering what the panel thought that was an exception or something new that was happening in the country. >> come down here in the front, and then the lady. >> take you very much. i have a comment followed by two questions. we have seen a tremendous shift of power in china and how the government is able to deal with issues. my first question, we see this risk of - increasing.

to what extent do you think that the coming elections this will engender a protectionist reaction? we see is systemic thing, the success of the system that people did not think would perform so well. we've seen a crisis of market- oriented democracies that are having trouble dealing with fundamentals, not the china factor, but the fundamental of the economy is in terms of population, coming out of a fiscal crisis. when do you think the west will get real with stealing about this? their focus is very much on short-term, and the politicians do not want to talk about that kind of belt tightening. what is it going to take for this to happen? >> the last question was related to china, right? or was it more broadly --

>> we have china doing very well. we see a market-oriented democracies having lots of trouble with the things that have to be done to better deal with the fallout of the financial crisis in a much more interdependent global economy, and we see a lack of reality in washington in europe in dealing with this issue. what will it take for this to sink in and for the majority to come to deal with this? >> good, there was a lady -- and there. >> i am from the university of maryland. i wanted to go back to go eurozone crisis and push a little bit on the assertion about the coordination problem and to date we have heard evidence that there seems to be

a great coordination problem. everybody thinks the europeans, the european development bank is a major source of issues, but at the same time the u.s. needs to step in and the chinese need to step in, but the chinese are waiting for everybody else. the u.s. is caught in its own problems. the imf does seem to be sitting back and waiting for europe to be the central motivator for this. my question is looking for a sliver of hope about how this nation problem can be solved, both in the europeans going to a greater extent to solve the problems. where is this initiative going to come from beyond just the europeans doing what they need to do to get the multilateral the great power cord nation?

-- the great power coordination? >> have a question on protests and the internet, and we have a question about protectionism in china. we have other questions. >> quickly on the issue that concerns about restrictions on the internet that the individual life, it is obviously increasing in china. yet to realize this is to essentially the generation coming that has no direct contact or context of the cultural revolution and the aftermath. basically saying it accesses have to be dealt with very hard because they have had problems. they do not see that as a

necessary aspect of their country. the government coming down much harder on these restrictions is a problem that will increase. it is going to increase because of the employment opportunities is getting more serious in the coming years. as a general sense i think the university crowd is getting restless. >> good. protectionism, the risk of protectionism under the new government? peter, will it make a difference? >> did not know how the government will look like. how the whole government will change and its policies and attitudes on trade is very hard to predict at this point. you have a wholesale change at the politburo level and the

central committee sometime in the fall of 2012. if anybody feels confident predicting what impact it will have on china's trade policies, i am not one of those. i came away from my most recent visit, key people i talked to were keenly aware of the imports of china's of the open trade channels. they would like -- to the u.s. from time to time, duties on certain heavy vehicles, trucks and suv's. i do not know how much this is a reflection of new thinking, but not much at that the prevailing of opinion is going to an open trade system as much as they

can. they have been attended from the open trade system more than any other developing country. there are few people in beijing the question that. yes, there will be trade frictions, particularly with the u.s., but on balance i would expect china to open up even further. >> good. do you want to take a step up the second question on the structural reforms that needed to reflect this big global change and why they are not happening? >> let me link it to other questions. let me start with the coordination issue in europe. it is to some extent a structural change, also. first of all it is important the observation that it is a coordination problem, not

everybody agrees with this, and analysts at the moment say the problem of europe is too much coordination and you do not have the flexibility in individual countries to do your own stuff and have your concurrency and react in europe only to your problems. i would agree with you get is a coordination problem. the fundamental problem is your is the individual countries, are too small and they are to integrated to individually deal with problems. one of the big problems in europe at the moment is you have to rescue banks and you have to supervise banks, and this is still down at the individual country level, and that creates all the fiscal problems in many countries that then has to be solved and goes back to the banking sector, and because it is all organized in individual countries, it is typical to get court nation because there are different interests in different

countries. i am ultimately optimistic that also european leaders but also ultimately the european parliament understand that the only solution is to have certain issues more sensibly organized. in that sense, i must say europe is now ahead of the united states in attack in the current issues because in europe at least both for the european union, steps are taken to stop this war longer-term issues, and if you look at individual countries like italy, portugal, if you look at the reforms they are implementing at the moment, a lot of these long-term elements are in there. that is indeed ultimately what is needed, and the big problem in the high-income countries is this discussion is about now and backward looking and not based on a division where you want to be. the final question on the point of the social unrest and the

inability of governments to deal with that, i think peter said it also already, but it is interesting to observe that that is not just the problem when there are adverse developments. it is a problem when you have a success story. in china, you have the educated people that now are in a very different way educated than even 10 years ago. in china, you have the emerging middle class that must have a say pick in the middle east, it was not just poverty. it was the fact that a lot of people came out of college a higher degree than in the past but could not get a job. many of those examples where it is very difficult to deal with the consequences of progress, and i think the ultimate example you see in high-income countries at the moment, where east have a lot a progress, but the politics is no longer able

to take the next up and you are stuck now and you're losing your competitiveness with the rest of the world. >> good. before i ask for another round, if there is one, on the euro question, the process, i think the first step the process is -- has made progress in the last week or two. first step of the progress, the first step of the progress is the europeans have put in a significant additional took of change. the european central bank has significantly stepped up its support of the banking system, issuing now three-year loans against less demanding collateral requirements.

is very much a part of the safety net, and everybody knows, although it is not official, explicit , or admitted, that the european central bank is acting now to stabilize the bond market spirit and that i think for very good reasons. there is no explicit policy on that in order to maintain pressure and the countries in the periphery to undertake reforms. the first that is there. second-- i think ande the second step would come from some kind of g-20 coordination, where one serious question took place, and the last meeting said the first europeans have to get their house in

order. i do not think they have done that to the extent they showed, but they have made the progress they have done so far. to be perfectly frank, i doubt whatever process you put in place that you are going to get a very large involvement outside of europe unless the united states is in the lead. you place your bets. how might it happened? unfortunately, it might happen duress, you -- underdres like the program was first rejected by the congress and caused a financial panic and then accepted by the congress a week later. that kind of circumstance might develop, and then i think the

treasury's around the world are going to be on the phone to each other and the key senators are going to be called, etc., and in the situation might change. i do not know. i do believe that it is very unlikely that a large package will be negotiated without u.s. involvement. any other questions? i think we will take one more round, and then we're going to close. if there is one, the lady there. >> thank you. i am with the china central television, washington bureau. i will ask a question on the u.s. economy, because in recent months we have seen economic indicators that are up, including surging housing data, the unemployment rate, and also

the gdp numbers being released will be probably positive as well. can we take these signs of u.s. economic recovery, because as you mentioned the upcoming presidential election next year, what efforts do you think that government should make the most to prop up the u.s. becoming? >> will take one more, and then turn it over to the panel. i will ask them to make any final 30-second intervention. >> i follow up with her questions and would like to raise some points spoken about earlier. the euro-asia youeuro

markets, and would you touch on the issue of the u.s. gdp come out channel would react to that, and related to energy and jobs at her question about the economy, how would you see the future investment of china in the u.s. in manufacturing and trading jobs in this country? >> ok, that is a large number of questions. i will ask you to pick a couple of them. first, hans, do you want to comment on the question of the united states and also give us your 30-seconds parting message? >> the positive news in recent

days in the united states is good news because it shows that the u.s. is not sliding together with europe into a recession. it is not good news because not all the problems are over. this is the kind of rebound that comes after a very weak first half year, and so he should look at it in cyclical terms, as technical changes, but not as the fundamental problems being solved. in the u.s., investment in the housing sector is still 1/3 below where it was before the crashes, and probably it should remain very low. you cannot get a recovery from a small recovery in housing sector. you get a recovery from restructuring the economy, and we are from from that. i am seeing it in a positive way, but i'm still very worried

about all the high income countries, including the united states. my last 30 seconds is very much in line with a question about all the other events in the world, and i am always surprised in these discussions will never touch on africa, for example. if you look ahead, then there are fascinating developments in africa. many countries are growing 6% a year. many countries have seen the fundamental reforms in their economy. it is a continent which is very rich in resources, and potentially benefit from the chinese interest, and 10 years from now when we look back, we say something happened in africa. when hardly talked about latin america at the moment, where the situation now is fundamentally different from what it was 10 years ago, and they play a very

different role in the global economy. that means for me that in these discussions which are still too much focus on what is happening in the high-income countries, but the world is getting bigger and bigger. >> thank you, hans. >> a quick comment about these regional agreements, it is the east asia, plus one, plus two, plus six, what ever. they have overlapping responsibilities. i think there is going to be some shaking out of the future in terms of how much this will overlap, how it's going to increase the focus. some of these things are not working out the way they would like.

my personal view is the objectives are sensible ones. i find it hard to see you can address those objectives without a chinese participation. i see that kind of odd. the shanghai corp. is very specific. the last comment i would make is it has come up in the course of the discussion. are important to china. it is very much in favor of an open economy. it wants to increase the capital -- >> we're going to take you live now to the capitol. understand boehner has breached

-- we understand boehner has reached an agreement with the role tax cuts legislation. we will stay like here at c- span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> good evening, everyone. senator erid i have reached an agreement on payroll tax relief on behalf of the american people. the key parts of the agreement, on january 1, no american will see an increase in their taxes. we were not sure that a new complex reporting burden is not unintentionally imposed on small businesses. this solution will prevent small businesses bear new administrative burdens and insuring the american workers will see their tax relief as soon as possible.

the senate will join the house and and appoint conferees with instructions to reach an agreement in the weeks ahead, on a full one-year payroll tax deduction along with unemployment reforms, extension of unemployment, and the so- called doc fix for two years. we expect these members will work expeditiously to complete the one-year extension that all of us want. we will ask the house and senate to approve this agreement by unanimous consent before christmas. the middle-class families and small businesses are struggling, and they are making sacrifices, and i think this agreement will help our economy. one important provision in this measure that i want to highlight the is the keystone pipeline. this project will create tens of thousands of jobs in our country.

the jobs project has bipartisan support in the house and senate. it is backed by broad-based coalition, and i hope the president will approve this pipeline to put those americans to work. i want to thank our members, particularly our conferees who never made here in the capit ol, for their efforts to enact a full year accenture the payroll tax cut for working families. and the this agreement, we will do that as quickly as possible. i do not think this is a time for celebration. our economy is struggling. we have a lot of work ahead of us. i want to wish the american people and all my colleagues a very merry christmas and happy new year. >> do you have assurances from that you havece th everybody in line? >> we have that by unanimous

consent. >> do you cave on this? >> sometimes it is hard to do the right thing. sometimes it is politically difficult to do the right thing. when everybody called for a full one-year extension of the deduction, when everybody wanted a full year of extended unemployment benefits, we were here fighting for the right things. it may not have been politically the smartest thing in the markham i tell you what, i think our members waged a good fight, we were able to come to an agreement, which were able to fix what came out of the senate. all year, you have heard me talk about short-term extensions, short-term gimmicks, and the consequences they have for our economy. and when you look at this, it is

just another short-term extension. this creates uncertainty for job creators. i know how this works. kicking the can down the road for a couple months does cause problems. when you look at the reporting requirement that came out of this bill because it was hastily put together, it was a big burden for businesses of all sizes. >> on a conference call, on saturday it was very lengthy. number one, was that by designing not to have this at this time? one member said he was hung out to dry by the leadership because people were not allowed to speak? >> i do not set up the conference calls. listen, which allowed members to have a lot of opinions. we have the fight, the good

fight, but i have talked to enough members over the last 24 hours who believe, listen, we do not like this two-month extension. we do not like this reporting problem in the senate bill. if you can get this fixed, why not do the right thing for the american people, even though it is not what we want? >> if someone objects tomorrow and is not pass by unanimous consent, when you bring the house backed next week? >> absolutely. >> given whole last week and we have seen news conference after news conference on both sides, democrats are charging the radical tea party element of the house republican conference is to blame for this. d you think this fight was worth it and the political costs that have come up? >> during the right thing for the right reasons is always the

right thing to do. while everyone asked for a full- year extension of these programs, a lot of people were not willing to put the effort in as the holidays were approaching to get it done. our members were. i am proud of the efforts that they put into this. again, it is not always easy to do the right thing, but we believe that we came here to change the way this town does business. no more gimmicks, no more short- term does come up short term this, time to do solid policy, time to do it the right way. thanks. >> john boehner back where he started the day in the studio in the capital visitors center, but with a different message, this

time st the house would agree to the short-term extension of the payroll tax plan and other expiring provisions, and we want to get your thoughts on what has transpired today. here are the numbers to use. please make sure you mute your set. we while boehner, after meeting with this conference today, just before the news briefing that you saw, released a statement saying what you heard their on- camera come under the terms of the new agreement, a new bill would be approved by the house as a new language that allows a job creators to process and withhold payroll taxation under the same accounting structure that is currently in place. he also writes the senate will

join in the house in appointing conferees with instructions to reach agreement in the weeks ahead on a full year payroll tax extension. we may see something tomorrow morning with both the senate and house, and. both will be pro forma sessions. let's hear your thoughts. >> my thoughts are wondering how they will implement its for two months, and why they're doing it. i think it would be better to do it on the income tax, because fica is the only thing that supports social security. >> next up, maria, a democratic column. >> -- caller. >> the responsible way to go is by asking at the top of the

income ladder to pay. >> this is a short-term deal. do you think that is part of the discussion going forward into in the longer-term extension? >> why did the people at the top of the income ladder get away without paying anything? >> republican line, hi. >> i am glad boehner went with the two-month thing, but i hope republicans will hold president obama accountable in holding it to the fire. >> harry reid has weighed in with a statement saying i am grateful voices of reason have prevailed. you can follow what other members are saying at

twitter.com. next up is michigan, sandy independent line. >> thank you for taking my call. but, it is harry reid has now compass his purpose. he has screwed up president obama's plan, the republican plan, and now he is able to govern from his seat in the senate. i really think this is great for harry reid. thank you. >> the associated press has that the agreement struck after some of the staunchest house conservatives began to retreat also would renew jobless benefits for almost 2 million people and spare doctors and a big cut in medicare payments. the decision came after an intense day of maneuvering in which the senate's top

republican leader urged the house to accept the senate short-term tax and a negotiator on a long-term extension. that statement from mitch mcconnell and others are available on our website c- span.org. >> as a young college student and order, i am proud to say out government has worked together in unity in order to bring this deal korean-americans, such as myself, and our parents. nobody was bickering, fighting. they were agreeing to agree, but also in the and they realized it was the smart thing to come together and pass this extension. i am glad to. -- i am glad for my family in particular. >> are you hoping the full year will be done when they come back? >> >> i am hoping it can be done

fairly, but a two-month extension, you bet i am happy, and i have local -- i hope, the new year congress can come together and share the american people that you elected us to do a job, by god, we will do it. thank you very much. >> richmond, virginia. >> i am really sick and tired of how all the bickering in washington, d.c. people are talking about the two months increase will create uncertainty, but we just lost a lot of jobs due to the debt limit increase bickering. some republicans wanted to do it six months. talk a lot about uncertainty. that created an lot of uncertainty, more than this one.

i'm glad this is done and i hope to come back in january and then extend it for one year. >> thank you. some of the video you are seeing, john boehner sank the house will take up and pass the senate short-term legislation. the senate running conferees and will come back and work in january, on a longer-term extension of the payroll tax cut. colorado springs, a democrat. welcome. >> hi. i am freaking about how we're right to do this for two months. i pray they did a full year or at least for a quarter. it is unbelievable they did it for two months. >> how does that work for two months? what challenges does that pose? >> i'm trying to wrap my mind about how i am going to do that.

all the forms we fill out are based on a quarterly basis. when a calculation am i going to use, two months for this? i have no idea. i hope they pass the full year right away so we do not have the business community and the rest of the bookkeepers around the country figuring out what in the world that are going to do. >> you have been getting phone calls from clients in the last few days? >> oh, yes. >> tony on the democratic line. >> the other night i called you, and i was on the republic of mine. >> if you called in -- will let you go -- 30-day policy. one more call from rockwell, texas. >> i was disgusted how this deal

went down. i feel the senate that had a deal with republicans to make this two-month extension, and i feel the to party held this -- the tea party held this up. you cannot change rules to force people not to be able to vote. i was disgusted with my own party. >> jim, thanks for your calls. you can continue discussion at c-span.org. thanks again for the calls. next up, we will take you to an anniversary this week, the anniversary of the pan am flight 103. a memorial was held this week at arlington national cemetery.

attorney general eric holder attended, as well as the fbi director mueller. >> we remember them. john ahern. sarah aker.

thomas emmerman. martin apfelbaum. judith atkinson. william atkinson iii. jerry everett. clare louise bachiochi. harry bainbridge. stewart barclay. lawrence bennet.

theodora cohen. >> vernon bergstrom. alistair berkeley. michael bernstein. diane fuller. paula alderman. francis boyer. nicholas bright.

colleen brunner. timothy berman. >> [speaking names]

valerie kennedy. [speaking names] >> [speaking names]

william daniels. michael doyle. edward egelston iii. charles thomas fisher iv. >> joanne flanagan.

thomas flanagan. robert fortune. stacey franklin. paul freeman. james fuller. amy gallagher. paul garrett. kenneth gibson. andrew wright. >> shannon davis.

david gould. linda susan gordon. nicola hall. anthony hawkins. dora henry. maurice henry. pamela herbert. rober hilbert. afred hill. catherine hollistern.

josephine hudson. >> john flynn. melinda hudson. sophie hudson. roger hurst. paul jeffriece. rachel jeffries. patricia cline.

[speaking names] lancaster. >> karen hunt. ronald lariviere. wendy lincoln. lloyd ludlow. william macalester. william mack. [speaking names]

noel martin. >> beth johnson. daniel mccarthy. robert maccaulem. bernard mclaughlin. john morell. joseph miller. jewel mitchhell. [speaking names]

gerald dane murphy. -- geraldine were free. -- geraldine brian cohen. gwyneth a win. -- owen. laura owens. robert owens. sarah rebecca owens.

peter per se. -- pierce. james andrew campbell pit. >> julianne francis kelly. david plaque. walter leonard porter. pamela lynn posen. william pugh. [speaking names] any tallinn reeves. reeves.ta lynn

suzanne roller. saul rosen. alexander lowenstein. andrea victoria resenthal. daniel peter rosenthal. david rubin. elise jean sarasini. scott saunders. theresa elisabeth james saunders. robert thomas slagedern.

thomas britain scholz. sally elisabeth scott. amy elizabeth shapiro. [speaking names] martin bernard christophersen sen. -- christopher simpson. richard manetti. cynthia smith. ingrid smith. james smith. mary smith. john sommerville.

lindsay sommerville. james stowe. geraldine anee stevenson. john stevenson. rachel stevenson. michale and charlotte stinnette. ilia stratus. [speaking names] anthony swan. mark pager.

[speaking names] jonathan wright and thomas. mark tobin. barry joseph valentino. assad idi. [speaking names] luise anne rogers. raymond wagner.

janine wyado. thomas walker. keisha weidon. jerome weston jonathan white. bonnie williams. britney williams. erik williams. george williams. stephanie williams. miriam will fall. -- miriam wolf. debra woods. joe nathan woods. joe nathan woods jr.. mark steinberg. and we remember.

♪ remember, remember, remember. ♪ remember my words, remember my

voice, remember my heart. remember my hope, remember my love, remember my dream, and remember my home. ♪ remember my life and always be

strong. remember my love and remember my home. ♪ remember, remember, remember ♪ words.ber my remember my voice. remember my heart.

remember my love. remember my life and always be strong. remember i love, and remember my home. ♪ >> you're going to go a little bit out of order. we were going to have robert muller, but instead, we are

moving up the attorney general, partly because he has to leave and cannot stay for the entire thing. he will stay as long as he can. the attorney general -- the position of -- if there is a job that gets more criticism than the director of the transportation and security administration, it is the attorney general. that is not true here. you're among friends here. we're grateful for what both of you have done to keep this country save. the attorney general -- a number of people called and said, how did you get the attorney general to speak? well, we did not invite him. and we did not invite paul muller. they want -- robert muller. they wanted to come here.

no one knows this case better than these two gentlemen. we are really honored that we have friends so high in government that knows this case and care so much about it. i think it is fair to say that it is not just a professional interest. it is personal with these guys. we know the letter that the fbi director sent to the scottish justice minister when he released the prisoners on compassionate grounds, an unprecedented letter objecting to it. we also know that john brennan called the day before he was released and said the same thing, do not release this guy. but eric holder had called back in june and said the same thing,

and said that if he was released it would be an outrage and a heroes welcome, which is exactly what happened. we do not talk about people here -- we do not talk about politics here, because this really is to memorialize the people who died, but the best way to honor the people who died is to continue the case for justice. that is why we are honored that eric holder will come and other people will come. we know that our government and the scottish government is continuing its investigation. we do not know exactly what is going on, and quite honestly, i do not want to know. i do not want to know the evidence. i do not want the world to know what goods we have on these guys so the professor black and

others will start making excuses that it was not a fair trial. we just want to know that our attorney general is continuing to help us in our quest for justice. we're honored to introduce attorney general eric holder. [applause] >> could afternoon. -- good afternoon. thank you, mr. duggan. it is an honor to stand with you, and a privilege to thank you for the work that you -- and the other members of the families of the victims of pan am flight 103 -- have led in your search for healing, for answers, and for justice. on behalf of my colleagues in government and law enforcement, please know that -- in this search -- you are not alone. today, along with deputy national security advisor, john brennan; fbi director, robert mueller; assistant attorney general for the justice department's national security division, lisa monaco; and so

many other dedicated leaders -- i am proud to reaffirm our ongoing commitment to ensuring justice for the 270 innocent victims whose lives were violently cut short, exactly 23 years ago, and for the family members and friends whose lives were forever changed on that tragic day. i also would like to recognize lord advocate frank mulholland, who has joined in this commemoration, and who shares our commitment to identifying and holding accountable those responsible for this devastating terrorist attack. none of us will ever forget that terrible moment, when so many lives were stolen -- and others shattered -- by a shameful and senseless act of cowardice. the losses that resulted -- in the air, and on the ground -- not only shook the families of the passengers, crewmembers, and innocent bystanders in lockerbie, scotland, who were

killed on december 21st, 1988. they also shocked the world, and had a dramatic and far-- reaching impact on international affairs -- creating a new global community of mourners, supporters, and advocates. for more than two decades, this community has been bound together by a shared grief, as well as a common resolve. and each year, on this day, you have signaled your determination to carry the memories of your loved ones forward, and to keep the stories -- not only of how they died, but also of how they lived -- alive for future generations. here today, on this nation's most hallowed ground, we remember and pay tribute to each of them. and, this year, we also honor the contributions of those who have sought justice on their behalf, including my colleague brian murtagh, the prosecutor

who -- for more than two decades -- has led the fight to bring those responsible for this horrific crime to justice. throughout his career, brian has demonstrated a deep commitment to integrity, to the highest ideals of our nation's justice system, and to the aggressive pursuit of terrorist threats. his leadership, and his unparalleled dedication to this investigation, have been an inspiration to all of us. in the months ahead, brian's example and enduring contributions will continue to advance this work. and, let me assure you today: this work will remain a priority. as we pledge ourselves to this critical effort -- and reflect on the lives of those no longer with us -- let us draw on the strength that has guided this community through the past 23 years. let us summon the spirit of

unity that has allowed this nation -- and our international partners -- to weather countless storms. and let us do everything in our power to ensure that -- in our own time, in the lives of our children, and in the work of future generations -- the stories, the memories, and the legacies of those we lost will never be forgotten. thank you. [applause] >> here i am trying again with this microphone. first off, i want to thank all of the readers. some of them are family members, but there were eight that were from syracuse university, remembrance scholars, and one lockerbie scholar. they came down, and we really appreciate it. they were not even born yet in 1988. thank you.

i would like to now introduce robert muller, the director of the fbi. he is the sixth director of the fbi. he has spent the better part of his life in public service. he has served as a litigator, as u.s. attorney, and as acting deputy attorney general for the department of justice. throughout his career, director mueller has been a champion of justice and the rule of law. he has been a tireless advocate of those we lost on this dark day 23 years ago, and a strong source of support for those of us here today. please join me in welcoming robert mueller. [applause]

>> thank you, kathy, for your kind words, and most particularly thank you for the work that your organization continues to do to seek truth and justice for the victims of pan am one of three and for their families. -- pan am 103 and for their families. i am as tumbled to speak before the loved ones of those we lost -- i am most humbled to speak before the loved ones of those we lost on that terrible day 23 years ago. today cane speak lessen the grief you have felt since that day, and nothing can make up for the enormity of your loss. when one so cruelly loses a husband or wife, father or mother, sister or brother, a son

or daughter. while there never can be an end to your loss and your pain, the families of pan am flight 103 know that pain and loss are not the end. you know that those who committed this evil act do not have the last word. you have chosen to remember your loved ones. you have chosen to seek truth and justice and to work tirelessly to ensure that others will never face the same experience. you have helped us to improve aviation security and to increase the support we give to victims' families after such devastating events. in all of these ways, your courage in your perseverance have inspired us, have inspired every public servant who has worked in some way on this investigation. your example has become even more important to us in the

decade since the attacks of september 11th. you have shown us how free people can and must respond to an discourage terrorism. we must always seek justice no matter how long it takes. we must remember those we have lost and we must live without fear as we work for a future that is free from terrorism. may your loved ones rest in peace. may god grant you piece in your hearts, and may we never tire to build a world that is safer and more secure. thank you. [applause] >> frank mulholland has been the lord advocate since may of 2011.

he was solicitor general for two years before that and is a prosecutor of some 30 years standing. in his first year as lord advocate, he has committed to this memorial service. he has a longstanding ending in the lockerbie case. he is determined, following recent events in libya to gather any evidence to bring justice to family members. >> good afternoon and thank you for offering me this warm welcome. i do not know how you have managed it, but you have actually arranged for scottish weather to greet me. [laughter] i really feel at home.

none of you will know me. i am the new lord advocate of scotland. i am a very determined man. the more difficult the task, the more i see that as a challenge to be overcome. what i want to do today is give you my personal commitment, my genuine personal commitment that i will do everything in my power to bring all of those involved in this appalling crime to justice. one of the things i want to do is to take up the cudgels in

relation to the lockerbie investigation. i have been working hard with u.s. law enforcement and my colleagues to try to put the lockerbie investigation back at the top of the radar. it is still the biggest act of terrorism on u.k. soil. you have my personal commitment that i will do everything i can to bring the others involved in this appalling act to justice. can i just say that it is truly humbling for me to be here on this sacred ground of arlington cemetery. there is a memorial in scotland representing each life lost in this tragedy. you have the full support of the

people of scotland in your quest for justice, which i share. i have a brother, and like all families in scotland, we like to travel in circles abroad. i have a brother who married a lovely american girl. he is now an american citizen, my brother. he lives in florida, which i believe has slightly better weather than we are facing today. but i can tell you that my brother, when i speak to him on a regular basis, always asks me about what we are doing to try to bring justice for you and for all of the families that have lost loved ones in lockerbie. there is a wreath which i have arranged from the people of scotland to be placed, and the

reet says some simple words. always remembered, and never forgotten, forever in our hearts. that is a genuine sentiment from me, my colleagues, and the people of scotland. it is in both english and gaelic. thank you very much for allowing me to be here at this wonderful and moving ceremony. thank you. [applause] >> we had a number of calls from the press about the speakers we had here today. there are obviously very high-

powered group of government officials, but the press seemed most interested in the fact that the libyan ambassador was going to be here. they said, what is he going to say? i said, i do not know. he is a diplomat. he may say nothing. [laughter] sometimes they're not allowed to say much. we do know some of the things he has said in the past. the ambassador has been in washington for some time representing the prior administration. as soon as the rebellion started, he defected with some very strong statements. gaddafi was talking about what he was going to do to the rebels. there was going to be a river of blood. he was going to murder them. he called them rats. and the ambassador resigned. he said i cannot represent this country and i cannot represent this man.

he took down the old libyan flag. we're very interested, as i said before, and hoping that the new government of libya is going to help us with our investigation. i talked to him a little bit about this. gaddafi killed a lot more than two hundred 70 people. he killed thousands and thousands. thousands have been killed in this rebellion. i never thought i would say good things about any libyan, to be honest with you, especially after i saw the tv coverage of the heroes' welcome. but we know that was staged. i think i know what this man stands for. we are honored that he wanted to come here. we hope he can tell us what the new government will do with respect to our evidence.

ambassador. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you very much. i wish i could bring decent weather, sunny and warm, but today is not bad. there is some rain, but it is not that cold. thank you for inviting me and thank you for the good introduction. tell youy proud to that since i came to this country in 2004, i have started to meet some of you and some of your lawyers. i have always been very straightforward that this is a difficult issue and we have to do something about it. for each one of you, there is a story.

children suffer, husband's suffer, wives have suffered, friends. all of you suffer, but there are 6.5 million libyans who have been suffering for the last 42 years. more than 25 million -- more than 25 libyans were killed. more than 25 libyans disappeared. gaddafi's victims are all over the world. he killed his own people. we work very hard with you and with the state department to find the truth, which everybody wants to know.

this madman has been running the country for more than a decade, and the victim is the libyan people. we want to thank you, the government, the congress and the president who stood by us. without your support, and nothing would have happened. the people are suffering, and the one who controls libya is gaddafi and his family. there was no army to help the people like in tunisia or egypt. the army the gaddafi has is for his own security. i never dreamed in my lifetime that libya would enjoy it one day freedom. ever. when things started in benghazi on the 17th of february, and i

learned gaddafi had killed more than 8000 women and young children, now we have to work together. gaddafi is responsible for that. no such action like this can be taken without his complicity. there is no way. we share your suffering. we share the hard time you went through. you have new friends now. you have a democratic country. we will have our first election in 32 years. now it is clear for both sides that now you have a partner, a real partner to work for security not only for the

security of the united states, but the security of libya and the security of the world. to find thelone truth. the libyan people are with you, and whenever i can do here -- whenever i can do here, i will be very happy to help you. feel free to call us. thank you very much. [applause] >> now i would like to ask fbi director bob mueller and attorney general eric holder if they would bring our wreath forward.

thank you both. thank you very much. i want to thank the choir. they are from tender united methodist church and they have been coming for many years. we always have different weather for them, but i am glad we had a chance to put that over them. i want to thank catherine for that. i think amin of scars for each one of them. i hope so -- i think i have for each one ofves

them. i hope so. do not leave until you see me. frank, do you want to come up? your next. [laughter] >> john o'brennan. i first heard from john brennan in august of 2009. he called to say who was. he is an irishman. john said that he had just spoken to kenny mccaskill. he did it on behalf of the president. the president called him and told him to say that we do not

want this guy released. i do not know how john sleeps at night. he is the guy you because the president every morning -- the guy who calls the president every morning and says all the horrible things going on around the world. he gave a speech here a few years ago that is on our website that is just a tremendous speech, a very moving speech, and we are honored that he would come again. we know of his interest and the attorney general's and mueller's. it is personal. john new people on the plane. john worked for the cia for 31 years. we would not have been able to present the criminal case that we did without the unprecedented help from the cia. they gave the prosecutors sources and methods that

normally they do not do. the time that was found was actually discovered by the cia, down by the fbi and brought to the cia, which was one of the major reasons the case went the way it did. we would like to present you the guy we really did invite first, the most important person, we think, in the government for homeland security and counterterrorism. john bowen brennan. >> thank you very much for that warm welcome, and thank you also for leading this organization, which is fed remarkable one -- which is a remarkable one, and which keeps alive the memories of those

we're here to commemorate and to honor. i appreciate the invitation to be with everyone again today. it is wonderful to see, despite the weather, so many people who have gathered here today on this very special occasion, as it shows that while time they pass, memories and love never fade. it is in that spirit that i bring with me the heartfelt wishes of president obama. i met with president obama this morning and told him i was coming here to join you this afternoon, and he asked that i convey a very simple message to each one of you. that message is that america will never forget your loved ones who are lost -- were lost on that fateful night 23 years ago. on an otherwise serene and tranquil december night, over a

small, quaint village in southwest scotland called lockerbie, the horror and the evil of terrorism visited us once again, tragically claiming innocent mens' 270 women and children. every year since, december 21st has been a very special day for so many whose lives have been touched in some way by what happened above pan am 103, because on that flight and on the ground were our fathers and mothers, our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers, our relatives and our friends, our co-workers and our neighbors, our schoolmates and our teammates, our fellow citizens and citizens of the world. it is those beautiful lives that we remember today.

we remember fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters who helped make you the people that you are today, sons and daughters, their whole lives ahead of them, service members, proud to wear america's uniform, the students returning home from the adventure of studying abroad, and the littlest ones in the arms of their parents, jonathan ryan thomas and britney lee williams, both just two months old. we remember them all. we honor them all always. but this year, of course, there is a special poignancy. unwilling to suffer any longer under the yoke of a dictator, the libyan people, with international backing, finally cast themselves in the world free, free of the evil of

muammar gaddafi who wrought a legacy of terrorism. today for the first time after all these years, we can mark this day. we can come to this hallowed place knowing that finally, the regime that was responsible for the loss of 270 lives and many, many more, has finally come to an end. it is gone from the face of the earth. [applause] as individuals, as a nation, we do not rejoice or revel in the loss of human life, and yet it cannot be denied, in the end of the libyan regime, in the death of the libyan dictator, there is at last some semblance of justice. president obama, indeed all of role theproud of the result

united states played in helping to bring an end to the gaddafi regime. when that happened, when that regime fell, i firmly believe that the 270 souls who were taken from us all too soon, could wrest more peacefully, knowing that we could finally say never again, never again. on that day, president obama reflected on the meaning of the moment, especially for you and your families. today, i would like to repeat what the president said in his remarks to the nation two months ago. "for us here in the united states, we are reminded today of all of the americans we lost at the hands of gaddafi's terror. their families and friends are in our thoughts and in our prayers. we recall their bright smiles, their extraordinary lives, and their tragic deaths.

we know that nothing can close the wound of their loss, but we stand together as one nation by their side." that is why we're here today. attorney general eric holder, fbi director robert mueller, members of congress, our scottish partners and our libyan friends. we stand together by your side. part of standing by your side is making sure that the end of the cruel regime does not mean the end of the pursuit of justice. our work is not done. today we want you to know that for those of us in government, our work is not done either. the government's investigation into the bombing of pan am 103 is still open. the indictments are still pending. we have raised this investigation repeatedly with the new government of libya and

the new leadership of libya understands the great importance that we attach to this matter. i am heartened by the words of the libyan ambassador. we are working diligently to gain access to any information or individuals associated with this case. i can promise you this. our commitment to pursuing justice for your loved ones, for your families, will not waver. as our nation goes forward, we draw inspiration from you, because over these past 23 years, you and your family section on the american people the true meaning of strength and resilience. -- families have shown the american people the true meaning of strength and resilience. you have done what your loved ones would have wanted. you have carried on. even as your honor their memory, you have continued to live. thank you for allowing me to share the stage with you once again, and may find some comfort in knowing that your loved ones

live on in you and in the life of our nation which will never forget them. thank you. [applause] >> i said, who gives him the plaque? they said, you do. john, thank you so much. that is another speech that is going to go on our website, and we're very grateful. [applause] >> i had a lovely thing to say about our next speaker, but i'm going to have to make it real fast. last july, prion retired after 42 years in federal service, 36 of them representing the united states as a prosecutor employed in several capacities by the department of justice. in 1989, bryan was assigned

responsibility for the investigation into the bombing of pan am flight 103. he worked closely with the scottish police, the cia, and the fbi. in the fall of 1991, in close coordination with his colleagues in scotland and the criminal division of the department of justice, he presented the case to the grand jury which returned the indictment for the murder of 270 victims that we remember here today, and every day. it was a beautiful letter that was written by the daughter of one of the victims. it was lovely, about how wonderful he was for her and her family in holland at the trial.

i personally remember bryan when we got a verdict that he was guilty. i gave him the biggest hug and almost broke his neck. i would like to give him this plaque, from the victims of pan am flight 103, and this book. >> and had to? >> yes. -- and a hog too? -- hug too? thank you. >> colleagues and friends, i am

deeply grateful for this award and what it signifies, and your warm friendship. it is a privilege and an honor to represent the united states as an advocate for over 36 years. apparently, i also became a victim's advocate somewhere along the way. no surprise there, it has always been about the victims for me. i am truly humbled by this letter. i had no idea how simple act -- basically, i came up and they were sitting outside the courthouse shivering. i asked them if they had any questions. could have had such a profound and lasting impact. it does not get any better for feds, particularly retired feds. my only regret is that i was not able to do more to bring all those responsible for the atrocity in lockerbie to justice. but it is not over yet, not by a

long shot. in the counter-terrorism section of the national security division of the department of justice, the baton has been passed to my colleague of over 20 years. jennifer, anything you need, just ask. i would also ask the families to give her the same level of understanding and support you have given me. you've always understood when i said, i cannot tell you what is happening. you never pushed, and i am internally grateful for that. -- e. turner lee grateful for that. to my scottish friends -- eternally grateful for that. to my scottish friends and colleagues, i extend the same offer. anything you want, just ask. to all of my colleagues of the department of justice and the fbi, i wish you your best in the days to come. it is not going to be easy.

please permit me to thank my wife of 42 years, margaret, who is shivering out there with all of you, who has made many sacrifices while i was away chasing criminals year after year. to all of the family members, thank you so much for letting me into your lives. i only wish it had been under different circumstances. god bless. see you next year. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ [bagpipe music]

♪

>> after a day full of pressure from house democrats, mitch mcconnell and the white house, house republicans have agreed to pass a two month extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. under the arrangement between john boehner and harry reid, the house will pass a new bill mirroring the senate measure with modest weeks to address concerns of payroll processes in exchange for guaranteed that harry reid will immediately name senate negotiators on a separate yearlong measure. look for this to happen sometime tomorrow as both the house and senate come in for pro-forma sessions. the president late this afternoon released a statement, part of which reads, "this is

real money that will make a real difference in people's lives, and i want to thank every american who made your voice heard and reminded people what this debate was about." president obama also spoke earlier. here is what he had to say. -- john boehner spoke earlier. here is what he had to say.

>> this solution will at a minimum prevent new administrative burdens and american workers will see tax relief as soon as possible. the senate will join the house in immediately appointing conferees with an instruction to reach an agreement in the weeks ahead on a full, 1-year payroll tax deduction, along with unemployment reforms, an extension of unemployment, and a fix for two years. we expected these members will work expeditiously to complete the one-year extension that all of us want. we will ask the house and senate

to approve this agreement by unanimous consent before christmas. middle-class families and small businesses are struggling and making sacrifices, and i think this agreement will help our economy. one important provision in this measure that i want to highlight is the keystone pipeline. as you know, this would create tens of thousands of jobs in our country. this project has bipartisan support in the house and senate and is backed by a broad based coalition. i hope the president will approve this pipeline to put those americans to work. i wanted think our members, particularly those who have remained here in the capital with the holidays approaching two worked -- to work to enact this extension. under this agreement, we're going to do this as soon as possible.

i do not think it is a time for celebration. our economy is struggling and we have a lot of work ahead of us in the coming year, but i want to wish the american people and all of my colleagues a very merry christmas and happy new year. >> do you have assurances from your conference that nobody will object? do you have everybody in line? >> our goal is to do this by unanimous consent. >> there is a headline saying you have caved on this. did you cave? >> sometimes it is hard to do the right thing. sometimes it is politically difficult to do the right thing, but you know, everybody called for a one-year extension of the payroll tax deduction, when everybody wanted a full year of unemployment benefits, we listened to the citizens.

it may not have been the politically smartest thing in the world, but i think our members waged a good fight. we were able to come to an agreement. we were able to fix what came out of the senate. all year you have heard me talk about the short-term extensions, short-term gimmicks and the consequences they have for our economy. you know, when you look at this, it is another short-term extension. this creates uncertainty for job creators. i used to run a small business. i know how this works. kicking the can down the road for a couple of months does cause problems. when you look at the reporting requirement that came out of this bill because it was hastily put together, it was a big burden for businesses of all sizes. >> one member spoke with thought

you had been hung out to dry. >> i do not set up the conference calls, but listen. we have a lot of members with a lot of opinions. we have fought the good fight. but, you know, i talked to enough members over the last 24 hours to believed hey, listen. we do not like this two month extension. we do not like this reporting problem in the senate bill. if you can get this fixed, why not do the right thing for the american people, even though it is not exactly what we want? >> if it is not going to pass by unanimous consent, will you bring the house back for a vote next week? >> absolutely. last one.

>> gyllenhaal last week -- given the whole last week and photo op after photo op on both sides, democrats are charging the radical tea party elements are holding congress hostage. do you think this fight was worth it and can you come up with a good compromise? >> listen, doing the right thing for the right reasons is always the right thing to do. while everyone asked for a full- year extension of these programs, a lot of people were not willing to put in the effort as i am proud of the efforts. it is not always easy to do the right thing. we believe that we came here to change the way the town does business. no more gimmicks.

no more short-term time. it is time to do it the right way. thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we will take your calls on the payroll tax cuts deal. in the religious aspects of the 2012 campaign. the one-year anniversary of the start treaty is the topic. we will hear from the assistant secretary of state for the bureau of arms control. also, a look at child care in u.s. with the family demographer

for the senses purer and kevin miller of the institute for policy research. "washington journal is like every day. >> the c-span series looks back at 40 men who ran for president and lost but had a long lasting impact. here is airline. tonight, for eugene debs. then on satuday, three time governor of new york.l "the contenders" every night at 10:00 eastern. >> would you guys be willing to donate? >> individually? >> no. >> i am very fond are optically

active. >> i have the donation page. all you need to put in a donation. >> that would not help anyone. >> you do not want to donate to the government acts t? >> you have heard me. you're being silly. what i would say that what we're doing is like citizen journalism. it is basically when an individual who does not have that much training in journalism has the tools to capture a live event. >> she shares her experiences reporting on issues of a 24-hour online news sites. sen tonight on c-span. >> a u.s. military investigation found the u.s. forces had misunderstandings and coordination that led to an air

strike that took place along the afghan pakistan border. this briefing is 40 minutes. good morning. today we are joined via telephone by brigadier stephen a. clark, united states air force. general clark was appointed by general mattis late last month to serve as the u.s. investigating officer into the 25-26 november engagement between u.s. and pakistani military forces. general clark is the director of plans, programs, requirements and assessments for air force special operations command.

he's a command pilot, with more than 3,500 flight hours in eight different fixed-wing aircraft. he joins us this morning from hurlburt field, florida. before i turn it over to general clark, i want to convey in person what we've already said in writing. the investigation into the 25-26 november engagement between u.s. and pakistani military forces across the border has been completed. the findings and conclusions were forwarded to the department through the chain of command. the results have also been shared with the pakistani and afghan governments, as well as key nato leadership. the investigating officer found that u.s. forces, given what information they had available to them at the time, acted in self- defense and with appropriate force after being fired upon. he also found that there was no intentional effort to target persons or places known to be part of the pakistani military or to deliberately provide inaccurate location information to pakistani officials. nevertheless, inadequate coordination by u.s. and pakistani military officers operating through the border coordination center, including our reliance on incorrect mapping information shared with the pakistani liaison officer, resulted in a misunderstanding about the true location of pakistani military units.

this, coupled with other gaps in information about the activities and placement of units from both sides contributed to the tragic results. for the loss of life and for the lack of proper coordination between u.s. and pakistani forces that contributed to those losses, we express our deepest regret. we further express sincere condolences to the pakistani people, to the pakistani government and, most importantly, to the families of the pakistani soldiers who were killed or wounded. our focus now is to learn from these mistakes and take whatever corrective measures are required to ensure an incident like this is not repeated. the chain of command will consider any issues of accountability. more critically, we must work to improve the level of trust between our two countries.

we cannot operate effectively on the border or in other parts of our relationship without addressing the fundamental trust still lacking between us. we earnestly hope the pakistani military will join us in bridging that gap. with that, i'd like to turn it over to general clark for his opening comments, and then we'll come back here to the pentagon and start taking your questions. general clark, can you hear me this morning? >> i certainly can. thank you. >> thank you. go ahead and begin, please. over to you. >> ok. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. again, i'm brigadier general clark out of air force special operations command. i was appointed the investigating officer for this incident. what i'd like to do is quickly run you through how we put together the investigative team and the process that we followed and then kind of walk you through a narrative of the chain of events that led to it.

keep in mind, please, that it is a fairly complicated situation to piece all the different moving parts together and to understand, in a human endeavor, how people communicated and what they heard, which is kind of key to this. but the investigative team came together in kabul. we were able to put together a team from centcom but then also from isaf. joint force command brunssum sent over a team of approximately five people. i worked with brigadier general mike jorgensen as -- our teams working together to do the investigation. they had specific requirements that they had to answer back through their chain of command, and then i had very specific requirements to answer back through -- back to general mattis. with the investigation itself, we staged out of bagram principally, but while we were in kabul, we had the opportunity to interview the commander of isaf and the commander of the ijc, which is international joint command, so general allen as commander, isaf, and then lieutenant general scaparrotti as commander

of ijc. we then went to bagram, where we spent most of our time, because that's where most of the forces and the headquarters were. we talked to the regional command east commander and his senior staff. we talked to all the sof commanders, all staff elements related to both of those commands. we talked to every tactical element on the u.s. and isaf that were involved, plus their technical headquarters, and we went out to the nawa border coordination center to talk to them specifically and take a look at their setup. in total, we conducted approximately 60 interviews. i think, at the end of the day, when the report's released, you'll find that it is a fairly comprehensive report, fairly detailed and draws some connections there that may not have been obvious in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

it took us quite a while to really piece the nuance of that together. so with that understanding, the chain of events that occurred -- i'll run through those briefly, so that we can get to your questions -- was, the initial concept of operation was briefed for approval up to the commander of ijc. because of its proximity to the border, it raised to a particular level that required his approval. with the initial look at the concept of operations, he requested that the helicopter landing zone be moved further away from the border, and it was moved from within 1 kilometer out to 2. 3 kilometers from the border. he also asked that any known border posts be identified. those were worked through the border coordination center and up through the regional command east headquarters. and there were two that were

identified. one was 4 kilometers to the northeast of the village, and the other one was 2 kilometers to the south-southwest. that is a critical point in part of this, in that the two locations that are in question here were not identified on any chart, to include the official chart in the nawa border coordination center that is intended to be the compilation of all known border posts. after those inquiries were satisfied, the concept of operation was approved and the tactical elements went into their planning for beginning of the operation. on the night of the 25th, the ground force in-filled. the ch-47 helicopters -- two helicopters, two lifts, so a total of four, if you will, using the four aircraft, to put the entire force of approximately 120 personnel on the ground.

the first truck closed at 9,40 local p. m. , with the last lift landing at 10,06 p. m. from that point on they consolidated and began their move to the nawa village, which took approximately about 30 to 45 minutes to get close to the village. this is in a very steep and rugged terrain. if i use the term "goat trails," you could get an image of what i'm talking about. it's narrow, one-person pathways up through very steep and climbing terrain as you approach from the west towards the village in the east. so going from west towards the -- what is the pakistani border, you're going up into a valley opening, and then it opens up to the ridgeline. so they're climbing uphill in

that. it is a no-moon-illumination night. the u.s. forces do have their night-vision goggles on, but it's very hard for them to see. so they're slowly making their way up, and then they split up into two elements, as they had previously planned, so that they can go enter the village from two different locations. at about 11,09 p. m. , so an hour after they've been on the ground, is when they received the first fires. and it is -- from the ground tactical leader's perspective, it was very direct and heavy machine- gun fire right over their heads. he talks about hearing the rounds crack over the top of his head. so he is now under attack, from his perspective.

from the airborne assets, they identify that the machine-gun fire is coming from the ridgeline. at the same time the ground force begins to take pretty accurate mortar fire. it lands within 50 meters of the helicopter landing zone and 150 meters from the tail element, which now effectively splits the force completely into two elements. the ground force commander requests two things. he calls back to his higher headquarters for confirmation that there is no pakistani military in the area because he understands the fire is coming from the ridgeline that he identifies as the border. and while he's waiting for that, he directs a show of force which is -- now he has aircraft already in the area, which was pre-planned, so he has overtop of him an mc-12 twin-engine isr platform; he has an ac- 130 gunship nearby; he has two f-15 strike eagles and he has two ah-64 apache helicopters. all these were put in place prior because they did anticipate going into a hostile environment in the village, which was part of the reason they were going there.

based upon the visual sensors above him, they identified the machine-gun nest on the ridgeline. the show of force constituted one f-15 coming by at approximately 560 knots in the vicinity and dispensing flares, so he's in after-burners and dispensing flares. the ac-130 gunship also dispenses flares, which effectively illuminates the entire valley. and you have the splitting noise of the f-15 streaking across. now, if you imagine being out in the rockies -- deep in the rockies where it's very quiet, very cold, sound travels significantly. and on this -- -- night, when flares come out, it becomes daytime momentarily. this is key for the ground technical leaders' mindset, in that there should be no doubt in anybody's mind that it's now coalition forces in the area; which is the intent of the show of force. this show of force does not cause the machine gun fire, nor the mortars, to cease firing

upon his position; but at that time, he does receive word back from his higher headquarters that there is no pakistani military in the area. this is actually the first point where we have found a series of miscommunications to have occurred for the tactical event, in that the higher headquarters, as they requested from the battlespace owner, which is the regional command east, confirmation, what they were told back on the phone is, we are -- we are checking with the bcc but we are tracking no pak mil in the area. that was heard at the lower headquarters as, no pak mil in the area, which was then radioed down to the ground force commander and then also entered into a chatroom -- electronic chatroom, if you will, which then began circular reporting back to the regional command, who then assumed that the lower echelon had in fact validated and confirmed there was no pak mil in the area. so in the deconfliction, that's our first point of failure that might have helped prevent or at least stop this engagement potentially. the ground force commander then directs fires by the ac-130 onto the positions that they

have clearly identified as the source of the fires. that engagement lasts approximately six minutes. then later as the -- they're still receiving some fire at 23 -- i'm sorry, 11,44 local, a second engagement occurs between the ac-130 -- and also the ah-64s come in because now they have what they consider hasty battle positions, which would be rudimentary bunkers that the fire is coming from, and they need to engage those because the fire is continuing. that occurs until approximately midnight local. at -- during that time frame, in the background is a series of telephone calls from

pakistani lnos to their rc -- regional command element liaisons to say that their forces are under fire. there is confusion caused by this because there is a lack of precision as to where this is occurring. when asked, the general answer back was, well, you know where it is because you're shooting at them, rather than giving a position. so again, understanding that there was no -- understanding that there were border positions in the area, people trying to do the right thing and nail down specifics so they can take action caused quite a bit of confusion. this is also about the time when rc-east then calls down to the battlespace owner and to the nawa border coordination center and transmits that pashto -- the pakistani lno -- the general

location. they were provided the exact location via lat/longs to the isaf personnel in the border coordination center but requested only to give a general location. this goes back to the opening part of an overarching lack of trust between the two sides as far as giving out specifics, but it's also a very specific failure that occurred now that we have a firefight on our hands. the individual who received that information put it into his computer. unfortunately, he had his overlays configured incorrectly. when he attempted to verbally talk on his pakistani lno to the area, he described it as at the intersection of the regional border and the international border, so the district border and the international border. his pakistani lno turned around to look at the chart, pointed to where the border intersected and then started his coordination with his higher headquarters to effect that came back then that there's no pakistani military in that area.

that area that he was pointing to that had been verbally transmitted him was 14 kilometers away from the actual firefight. so that's our second point of failure in clarification of where things were going and what has happening. later on, a third engagement occurs at midnight-40, if you will, till 0100, and this from what we considered engagement area number two, others have referred to as the third engagement. so visually we have two engagement areas on the ridgeline. the first one is the first two i've talked about -- two separate engagements, but in the same area. the third -- the last engagement was in a second area further to the -- a little bit

further to the north. and that is where the site of the third heavy machine gun was actually at. about that time there was confirmation and clarification across the net that in fact there were pakistani military in the area and that they were border posts. that word was then relayed down to the ground tactical leader, who immediate ceased engagement, and no rounds were fired after that time. i think it's important to understand that this is not the first time that a border incident has occurred.

there's subsequently been from previous incidents a system in place, set up to deconflict border issues. because of the evolving lack of trust, one not -- from what is believed and indicated to us, a perception from isaf that the pakistanis are unwilling to give or reticent to give full disclosure on all their border locations, for one and two, they are under the impression that when they have shared specifics, that some of their operations have been compromised. that was out of the scope of this investigation, so i -- we neither examined that deeply nor can validate that, but it is a perception that is out there and it is real for the people involved. this then evolved into what was considered a concept of operation that is releasable to the pakistanis, which just gives generalities. that is normally supposed to be transmitted to them, and it gives a general location. in this case, that, too, was failed -- or failed to be transmitted to them in advance. and that is another one of the failures in the policies and procedures that are framed but, in our opinion, not specific enough, not directive enough, and lacked a -- my term -- closed-loop validation that in fact a coordination had occurred. after the engagements were done, the ground force was secured for the night. they continued their operation in the day to clear the village, and uncovered a substantial cache of weapons, ied material, heavy machine-gun rounds, rpg

warheads and quite a few other things. i'll leave the details for the final report when it gets released. so that's generally what occurred. and i'll open to your questions. >> well, thank you. and we'll start with phil stewart of reuters. >> hi. just had a quick question about the show of force. when that happened, did the machine gun -- you say the machine gun fire continued. was machine gun fire directed only at the ground forces or -- and were -- was the show of force in between the pakistani military outpost and the ground forces? i mean, were they basically crossing through the show of force to get to the ground forces? and the other thing is, on the -- on the confusion over -- the initial confusion, where the pakistani military said there were forces in the area and that you're shooting at them, what -- how far up did that communication go within the -- within that -- within the u.s. military there?

>> ok, to your first question, the show of force generally -- we're talking very high terrain. the ridgeline in question is approximately 3,000 meters above the village, looking down on it. and the village resides about a kilometer, a kilometer and a half, inside of afghanistan. no u.s. forces -- ground forces left the vicinity of the village, so came no closer to the border than a kilometer, a kilometer and a half. the aircraft themselves could not get down that low into the valley, so they came across at about 1,500 feet above the ridgeline. but you're correct; they would have geographically been between the ridgeline and the village itself, running parallel to the

border and dispensed the flares at the time. the ac-130 gunship orbits overhead, so it is kind of sitting up on top of all of this and dispense flares as well. the other part of your question was as far as the machine gun fire. as far as we were able to determine or the crews determined, the machine gun fire never was elevated. it persisted from the high terrain down into the valley onto the forces on the ground. the -- your follow-up question as far as the information from the pakistan military side, over -- throughout the course of the evening -- it started at the lower echelons and over a period of about 40 to 50 minutes elevated up to the highest levels direct into odrp and then also the 11th corps -- or

what we call is-pak, which is the isaf lno to the 11th corps and then over into the ijc headquarters to major general laster direct. but all up and down the echelons, there are pakistani military lnos attached to the border coordination center and also to the regional command east and then also in ijc. so all of those nets started going active as this progressed. >> general, hi. it's david cloud with the l.a.times. just two things which i kind of lost track of in your comments. at one point, you said it was known by lat/longs where the locations of the pakistani fire was coming from, but was only -- but the information that was given, i think you said, to the pakistanis was only -- was only given in a general way. did i understand you correctly? in other words, could -- were you saying u.s. forces knew specifically the location, but for some reason didn't give the lat/longs, and instead only gave a general location?

or did i misunderstand you? and then, a second question. at the end, you said -- again, i had a little trouble following, pakistan has been reluctant to give full disclosure of its border posts -- and i thought you said -- and felt that when they had, some of their operations have been compromised. or did i misunderstand you, and were you saying that when the u.s. has given that -- information to the pakistanis, u.s. operations have been compromised? >> ok, i'll take those in reverse order, if you don't mind. it was u.s. -- or isaf operations were believed to be compromised due to that. and again, that was not the scope of the investigation, so that was told to us as part of the atmospherics within the isaf headquarters on down.

we did not dig into that; we did not validate it. that was just indicated to us. in fact, there was an operation on 5 october in the same region where, when they went to in-fill the helicopters, they were hit with rpg fire, so that lends to their mindset as well -- so, isaf operations being compromised by sharing that information. now to the coordinates themselves, the -- every headquarter on the isaf side going up, to include the ground force commander and all of the airborne assets, had accurate coordinates. you can pull those off of the systems on the aircraft, but even in the preplanned mission, you can give the coordinates, you have the coordinates of the village itself. they didn't have coordinates on the border posts to begin with, because they didn't know they were there. so that was not part of their plan. part of their planning was there were none in this area, and the border was not considered a factor to the operation, because everything was intended to remain within a kilometer, kilometer and a half inside of afghanistan. so they never anticipated taking fire from the ridgeline, nor anticipated the idea that it might be pakistan military there.

so their entire mind frame was that this was a hostile force, an insurgent force, occupying the high ground, shooting down at them. does that answer your question? i don't recall if there was another part to that. >> sir, what i'm driving at is, you described the confusion over the location being nine kilometers away, when the -- when there was actual communication between the pakistan lno and isaf. how did that -- i mean, what -- was there any other communication of the location of the pakistanis, or was that the sole communication of the location where the fire was coming from? >> unfortunately, the sole communication that reached the pakistani lno in the border coordination center that he was given was a verbal description of the area. so you have the isaf person

manning a station inside the coordination center, and it just -- think of a room that has several people in it, and everybody has their computer screen, but nobody can see the other person's computer screen. so one person on the isaf side receives the exact coordinates. he inputs it into his machine, which then brings up the -- a map, a digital map of the area. he has his machine configured incorrectly so that the overlay lines on it that look to be regional border delineations in fact was what i would -- what i believe was actually a roadway that was brought out in higher detail. but he thought it was the regional border. he had been told not to pass the coordinates, but to only give a general location. so on the isaf side, everybody had the exact coordinates, but it was passed to the pakistani lno as a general location, which

normally might have worked had his machine been configured correctly. it would have been a little bit less precise, but the intent probably would have been achieved. but as they translate then -- and now he's talking him on, not physically walking over and pointing to a map. he tries to talk him on and says it is between where this regional border intersects the international border. and of course when the pakistani lno turns around and looks at his map where that regional border intersects the pakistani border, he looks at that, looks at his computer, picks up the phone, calls his higher headquarters and tells them this is the location. and they coordinate and say no, there's -- we don't have anybody there.

that location that he's pointing to is 14 kilometers to the north. >> why not give the pakistanis the exact coordinates at this point? what was the hesitancy to do that? and were they passing along -- just to make sure i understand -- the coordinates -- trying to pass along the location of u.s. forces at that moment or where they thought they were taking fire from the enemy forces? >> the intent was not that specific. it was a location. when you give the lat/longs, you can pinpoint a valley in an area, and then everybody would take a look at what they have in that immediate area and deconflict that. so they would not have been -- there would be no requirement or -- i've never seen it done to pass in exact coordinates of, hey, we're taking fire exactly from here. you just pass the coordinates with a, hey, we're in this area, taking fire; do you have somebody here?

and then you would take a look at that. so that was their intent. as to why only the general area was told to be passed, that was at the lower echelons that that inject came in. as far as why they did it, i can only point back to the over- arching lack of trust in giving precise information. but that is one of the findings that is going back to the chain of command to take a look at and -- as far as their policies and procedures. >> eric. >> general, this is eric schmitt, with the new york times. can you describe a little bit more in detail this -- what you call the third engagement, the one that starts at 12,40 local time and goes to about 0100? why was it -- you know, this is 40 minutes lapse after the first engagement. how far away is this second -- this second site? and is this what the pakistanis call a boulder outpost? and what kind of fire -- you said heavy machine gun fire. is that machine gun fire

directed against the aircraft or against the ground party? and at this point -- i mean, it's 40 minutes have lapsed. isn't there enough understanding at higher headquarters level within isaf, to understand that there's something wrong going on here and why should they be engaging these forces? >> ok. as i mentioned before, the machine gun fire never was elevated towards the aircraft. it was always down onto the ground forces. and it was with such precision that the ground force commander directed his people to turn off their ir strobes that they have, that you can see through your night vision devices, because he felt the fire was so accurate that somebody was seeing their location through their night vision goggles. so he had everybody turn those off. the third engagement, as we kind of categorize it, was in what was perceived to be hostile intent. you have people moving on the ridgeline to prepared locations in what the air and the ground force perceive to be they're moving to other locations to continue firing down. so in their mind right now,

this is still insurgent forces. it is -- it is not pak mil that is continuing to fire; this is -- these are insurgent forces that are moving along the ridgeline. also, keep in mind -- and i probably didn't make this clear earlier -- from the air-crew perspective, as they're looking at this through their sensors, what they are seeing, as far as positions go, is not what they said that they were not used to seeing for built-up border posts. and this goes back also to the idea that these probably were established somewhere in the last three months; they were still rudimentary and being formed. the term "volcano," and i think you used the term "boulder" -- i've -- i heard "volcano" before; it's the first time i've heard the term "boulder" --

those were new terms even to the -- our -- the isaf lnos sitting in pakistan. they had never heard those terms before. now, the confusion still at the higher headquarters -- you have to -- when you're doing overarching command and control, isaf or ijc is looking at the entire country; the regional command east is looking at their entire region. and i think the folks -- and i think i can kind of show you how that's laid out. and then you have lower headquarters, that take care of smaller areas. so you have multiple echelons of command paying various levels of attention to this and being notified at different times that something has gone wrong as people are clarifying what's happening. that's part of, i think, the problem. when something does go bad, you have to have some very tight procedures as far as how to de- escalate that, and that's one of

the recommendations that we relook how much we follow the chain of command versus going point to point direct down to the lowest echelon to get it de- escalated, if you will. but there's still a fair amount of confusion churning. so that communication is occurring does not mean that there's clarity and understanding of what is going on. >> but not having any input from the pakistani side, yet there was a briefing for reporters here in washington at the pakistani embassy about roughly a week to 10 days ago. did you all -- did you all incorporate the comments that were made at that briefing and -- which was distributed through u.s. media india reporting? >> no, we did not. unfortunately, we did not have pakistani participation in this investigation. we did have isaf nato participation. we had u.s., via centcom, participation. we had afghan senior leadership participation. i had an afghan major general with us as part of the team. he is the deputy commander of the border police, with great familiarity with the area and other things going on there. we did not benefit from pakistani participation. in what i term a human endeavor, nuance matters. and what somebody says is

important, but it's more important what somebody hears. and that's the context that we are missing from that half of this. if we're trying to find out what occurred in total, that's a significant element there that is missing because there's always two sides to a particular event, and perspectives, and that's a very important portion that is missing out of this. and as we worked very, very hard to clarify what is a very complicated, convoluted situation, we spent a lot of time on looking at what was said and how it was received and how that translated out into understanding or a lack of understanding or confusion in the breakdown. so it -- i very much regret that we did not have pakistani participation. what a country decides to put out in the press is not something that i would put in a formal report. it is information that would be

noted. but as far the findings go, i have to go on what we find as what we believe is factual and that we can trace back to. >> they gave a two-hour briefing of the media. why wouldn't you at least take those questions aboard and redirect those questions to pakistan, saying we understand you're not going to engage us directly, but please, here's a very detailed timeline they've given you; why not incorporate that, notes and all? did you incorporate any of that into your report, noting it was only in media reports? >> the direction i was given, i had very specific things to take a look at and things that we could take into account, things that we felt were appropriate to take into account. one of the things we that we chose to do was to concentrate on the facts that we could identify and not spend time going through all the various media reports, because, again, i don't know -- i can't validate a one-sided story, and i can't connect the dots to the other. i can't do that given play, if you will, to validate what somebody says versus what i understand they said and that

nuance. so we've spent a significant amount of time poring over the information that we had access to, and i think that once that you see the report, you'll understand just how in-depth and complete it is. >> eric, from the very outset we invited pakistani participation in this investigation, and that didn't -- >> you had a two-hour -- two- hour battle -- >> hold on. there was no -- there was no official pakistani -- >> but he wants -- he's talking about one-sided stories. that's what he's getting from the american side. why not take it from the pakistani side?

>> there was no official acceptance to join the -- to join the investigation. we have time for, maybe, two or three more questions. jennifer. >> thank you. general, it's jennifer griffin from fox news. are you recommending that any punishments be meted out as a result of your investigation? are you recommending that anybody be sanctioned for their actions? >> the report was to go into the facts and the circumstances surrounding the events and things that we felt were important there. any type of action that may come as a result of that will be handled within the chain of command by the commanders there. so i will leave that to them. >> luis did you have a question. >> yeah, sir, it's luis martinez abc news. you keep mentioning this village. you keep mentioning the mission. did the mission continue to be carried out after this friendly fire incident, or what happened to the forces right after it? did they -- was there any contact made with the pakistanis? and i'd also like to reaffirm eric's point about contacts from the pakistani government. the pakistani joint chiefs of staff -- their equivalent -- had a major briefing in pakistan several days after this incident occurred and laid out their timeline and even mentioned the specifics of the names of "boulder" and "volcano," which i find surprising that you'd -- have never even heard of that name before until today, which i kind of think might lead to some

skepticism on the part of pakistanis that this is not a fully complete report. >> ok, i think as far as taking what was briefed by the pakistanis -- i think i've addressed that, and i think i've told you that i did recognize "volcano." the term "boulder" i had not seen. but i did not pay attention to what was going on in the media because there's a lack of precision in that as far as i'm concerned. now, what the pakistani military wanted put out -- we would have been very, very happy to have had their direct participation so we could have confirmedon both sides and given them insight into what we were seeing from our side and this perspective. as far as what occurred after 0100, once it was identified

that there were pakistani military in the area, the fire -- the ground tactical leader ceased firing -- the fire support from the air, and they were able to disengage. realize that this is, you know, an hour and a half, two hours into this, so we're at the trailing end. they continued on into the daytime. it was almost 24 hours before they extracted. in fact, their extraction site when they were taken out was moved four kilometers away from the border. so they had to ruck it much further to get back out. but they did continue to sweep the village. they engaged the village elders. and at 1,46 a.m. as this was winding down, if you will, one of the ah-64s was engaged by what they believe was an rpg down lower in the valley. and that kind of concluded the hostile portion of this, and

they continued on with their mission and, from the ground tactical leader's mindset, as far as that goes, was able to be successful in what it was he was tasked to do from that point on. >> thank you. general, this is lalit jha, from press trust of india. how do you respond to pakistanis' allegations that the -- your investigation is not credible enough, or not transparent? >> well, i think as we are beginning to explain what we found in the investigation, i think that brings the transparency. there's nothing that is being withheld. and the transparency certainly -- it would have been facilitated greatly had pakistan decided to participate in that. as i mentioned before, it would -- we would have benefited tremendously from having that perspective with us around the table and, as we're asking questions across the various echelons of command, to get the

rest of the story. i can't say why they chose not to. i just know that the fact that they did not participate in that portion of what we would have found out is, obviously, going to be missing from this report. >> general, john harper, with the asahi shimbun. have you received any response from the pakistanis since you gave them the report? and did they dispute any of the findings? >> i think that's for mr. little. >> the -- general dempsey has been in contact with general kayani. they had a very professional and cordial conversation. it's my understanding that general mattis has also reached out to general kayani, and that the pakistanis will be briefed

on the findings of the report. thank you very much. >> when were they -- when did mattis and dempsey speak to kayani? >> within the last 14 hours. >> did they reach out to kayani -- and so they -- so the pakistanis have not been briefed on this at all, then? is that what you're saying? >> we had an accelerated timeline in -- on our -- and we have consulted with the pakistanis, with the afghans and with the -- with nato leadership. and frankly, we were -- our timeline was accelerated because of leaks. >> what's the difference between being -- between consulting with them and briefing them -- ? >> we are -- we are going to share our findings with the government of pakistan's and will do -- will do so very soon. thank you very much. >> could you just -- >> can you confirm that the village was in pakistan or in afghanistan? >> the village was in afghanistan. ok, thank you.

then a discussion of political, cultural, and religious aspects of the 2012 campaign. we will also talk about the one- year anniversary of the start treaty with the assistant secretary of state. later a look at child care in u.s.. "washington journal" is like every day beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. last month, the cia historical collection division posted a forum on ronald reagan and the intelligence use in cold war. the conceit tomorrow night on c- span -- you can see it tomorrow night on c-span3.

>> thank you. that was a wonderful introduction. it was so nicer than what i had when i was an office. i had been with ronald reagan for all these important things. i was in and out of the white house constantly. i knew what was happening. he ended with a grand flourish. listen up. here the latest from washington. -- hear the latest from washington. i was giving a talk on security interest in in northeast asia. the head of the foreign affairs committee in tokyo after my speech caught up, a wonderful japanese man, he said "for your service to the free world and for your remarks today, you deserve mucgh clap."

that was all right. i appreciate the sentiment. it is an honor to be here today. whenever i say that i always think of the first commencement address ronald reagan gave. to it was to his all modern. he was there a few months after he was shot. ronald reagan came out. he thanked the president and the faculty for giving him an honorary degree. then he said it is wonderful to get an honorary degree from eureka college. i've always thought a first- degree was rather honorary as well. he said, i did not get great grades here. just the other night i was sitting on the truman balcony of the white house. it was a starlit night.

nancy and i were sipping wine. to the right i looked and there was the lincoln memorial straight ahead. then there's the washington monument. toaid next week i'm going eureka college. she said i know. i did i get very good grades. she said i know. there is no telling what i could have become had i really applied myself. i want to start the symposium that is very important and wonderful. we're looking at the mean question of that era and that i about today.dwe talk how did president reagan did it

really right on the big issues? when those of us who worked with him in intelligence committee in academia and policymakers would spend so much time on these issues than he did. they knew the subject so much better. they were so much smarter. how did he get it right and we did not? let's go to the finish. by 1982 he first saw back communism would "and up on the ash heap of history." it is in the 1970's that he worked out how the cold war would end. mainly, it we win, made you lose. they did not come to a conclusion like that until 1989.

even that came with caveat in footnotes. this is something of a bomb iraq -- bum rap. they have been moving in that direction for years. it actually be relegated. it is also unthinkable to the kgb. such thinking was a pie in the sky. it was led by ronald reagan. i remember him telling -- telling him that since 191735 countries have gone from

capitalism to communism. not one country has ever gone from communism to capitalism. it is unlikely that it will happen anytime soon. he looked at me and shook his head. he said thank you. that is very interesting. then he went on to say it again a few minutes later. for ronald reagan to believe that we could and would win the cold war and fairly soon, that view is more than just passing strange or of academic curiosity now. it had real policy consequences than. it was consequences that none of us could ever imagine. here is how. if you took the convincing view of the rivalry, it was for all ages.

you had to get along. make do. the rivalry became like a bad marriage without divorce from which there was no escape. you strived as your goal to have it at least as tolerable as you could make it. on the other hand, it was temporary. it would end soon. what they're losing and our winning. since their system contradicted

human nature and was illegitimate, and our system complemented human nature, allowing the deflowering, you took a radically different view. this approach stems from a different mindset. it broke with previous presidents who felt they had to adopt a realistic foreign policy. one that accepted soviet power for evermore, one which would legitimize it is predicted that and the -- predicament and the soviet government. you be willing to sit down with the soviets but you would also be willing to stand up to them. you would be game to adopt the ."eagan doctrine but not as rich a revision in

central europe but in central america, central asia, and central africa. moreover, you confront them where it would hurt them most, at the central nervous system. you engage in the war of ideas. you would say all right that they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, and grow to advance their age as ronald reagan did in his very first presidential press conference. you have to understand this was ok for a speaker on the g e circuit to say. it is ok for a speaker at the national convention to say. it was ok to say it in the rotary club. for the united states president to say it at his first press conference, setting the stage for diplomacy over the next

eight years, that was awfully new. presuming that their government was a legitimate, you would call the soviet union an evil empire and the focus of evil in modern world. you would cry out of an " mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall." this comes from the unconventional mind set that reagan somehow adopted. somehow he saw or felt the transforming nature. a lot of us thoughts it was very helpful. he said we should really go revive strategic defense. we consider an and not revolutionary deterrence. i was amazed november 1985 during the first summit between reagan and gorbachev when the

soviet delegation spent 75% of their time in a very agitated nature. i remember taking a side the director of white house communications and saying "don't they understand this is just a presidential speech." after he gave his speech on march 23, the pentagon had done virtually nothing on it. it is just rhetoric. i remember him saying do not tell him that. they think it is a real program. similarly, they became a make or break issue.

on that historic monday morning october 1986, they negotiated from 8:00 at night to 6:00 at -- to 6:00 in the morning. i said, we had accomplished more in the night before then we had for seven consecutive years in geneva. >> house republican debaters agreed to the two month version of the tax cut extension. republicans and democrats will meet for a joint senate conference to try and negotiate a full year deal and the tax cut extensions. that is next on c-span. then mitt romney campaigned in new hampshire. after that, a conference on the future of media and journalism. future of media and journalism.