what they art being told it has any factual documentation. the ad we will show in a second is an old at, from 2004. we generally don't name names in the book, because we did not think it was crucial. if some candidate in 1998 agot a dui, do you really and need to know his name? the plan for us we did not want to break this down and personalities. that was not our role. we gather the information, give it to the campaign, and they go wrong with it. this person was tied to some notoriously racist groups that had donated money to his campaign. they had done some really weird things. it was pretty strong stuff. they ran the ad. it was in kansas.

even though you could figure it out, which is what happened, whenever named him out right, but a few people figured out who it was, and we have not followed him lately. we go into these things come and our merc ourselves in these campaigns, and then we move on. that's the nature of the job for rose. we did not realize that this guy from 2004 is now the secretary of state in kansas and is mitt romney's emigration advisor. so, when that came up we were talking to a reporter a politico and i figured we should just tell somebody because even though we did not make a point of naming this guy in the race, it kind of matters to he is now. we put a dot there and politico did an article about it. the guy had an opportunity to

respond. this is the ad that ran in 2004. >> why are kansans turning from kobach? one even hired him. it's true. when hired him to file a frivolous lawsuits costing taxpayers thousands. kris kobach, wrong for mainstream kansans. >> i love seeing the tag line that the end. now when we do not see it, it bothers me. all bets are off with the super pac's. i would rather wrote of the questions that. -- i would rather open it up for

questions. >> has there been candid if you have looked into and you have reported back saying the person is totally clean it? >> there have been two that we remember. everybody makes mistakes. the higher you go in elected office, the more opportunities you have and the more scrutiny will come under. it's not unusual that we find things on people, every now and again you find someone in there is nothing there. even though we are-by nature, we're thrilled by that. it -- even though we are negative, we're thrilled.

it does not happen it very often. >> when we hear about political opposition research, i think people tend to think about dissecting through the trash cans of a candidate as opposed to public record. i know it is a mix. what percentage of your time is spent coming through the record. when you say "mistake," is not supporting a program wasting taxpayer money? or is it something more in your personal life? what is the balance? >> most of our days are spent going through minutes in the courthouse. the onest looking for

tidbit of information. it was discussed earlier, but adds the shrapnel that up, not the silver bullet. we will be talking to people. alan was sitting on the porch of this guy and he was worried someone was going to kill him for him talking to us. ex anythings make good sources. if we cannot back of the information the documentation we do not have much. >> have a certain points in the process commis mention you have information and give it to a campaign or advertisers. do they come back to you and you have the rights to sign of on the end product? or are there occasions were

something you might have found got exaggerated or blown out of proportion in what ultimately errors? >> it varies. sometimes when you finish the report, they are done. like michael mentioned earlier, they will run the poll questions bias and it's rare that anyone shows as the ad and asks the house if it is truthful. by then, we have moved on. we'll see a couple of cases. we are print journalist by trade. for us, everything needs to be distilled into a 15-32nd sound bite, it makes us cringe. there's more that needs to put it in the context cause that is probably why they do not ask us about the ad.

>> i can relate. the sticky question from the audience. in the front row. -- let's take a question. >> i may retired historian and writer. i have spent a lot of my life researching for accuracy. do you have a staff? do use the internet? how many candidates do you work on at once? i'm intrigued the two of you to be doing all this stuff. >> we enjoy doing it because it allows us to go into these places where these people are from. in general, we start off like everyone in the internet and we build a foundation for a road map. the internet is notoriously unreliable. we go to where these people are from, going to their towns, get the information's been coming and we are out before anyone notices we are there. the name of the book is "we are with nobody" for two different

reasons. every time we go into a court house, we raised a red flag by asking for a tax record on an incumbent congressman. the first question we always get is, "who are you with?" we are with us. the second reason is when we are doing this, we have to be extremely objective. we cannot get caught up in the passion that most people get caught up in with politics. we have to research a our guy with the same rigor we're doing his or her opponent. if we are not objective and do not look at him with the same scrutiny, then we end up with a stilted report. it does not do our campaign and a good. we will do as many as 10-12 campaigns in a season, good these places, work with them. we are in and out pretty quick.

you get it down the kind of a science. you know what you're looking for. you know how to do it. it changes. it's fluid. what are people upset about in the current environment? we look for those things. we're looking at campaign contributions from those groups. we're looking at whether rent incumbent as legislation to help chinese corporations. a lot of it depends on when people are upset about, jobs now obviously. >> in the back? >> my name is jonathan and i'm an independent. you mentioned you two are pretty -- deal in the month of the issue. -- in the muck of the issue. --'re not bitter but

[laughter] >> we enjoy it. >> you look at the dark sides of everybody's past and the underbelly of the system. i'm wondering if there is a connection between the increase in negative advertising in people's perception of government not working for them and you have this 9% congressional approval rating. do you see these two being connected? or that connecting the two skips a whole nother thing that a separate? >> michael may have something to say about that, but my answer would be that there is certainly a connection. is it only between negative advertising in voter dissatisfaction or is it increasing knowledge about elected officials, whether it is

from advertising, news reports, or whatever. we know everything about everybody now. that's never pretty. i do not think you can blame negative alone for people's dissatisfaction with government. i think we just know a lot more. the adage that you never eat a sausage you see being made, everyone sees this being made now. that part of the reason everyone is disenchanted. >> let's take one last question in the middle. two questions then. the two of you? >> i have a question that you can answer at your own choosing. eat you said when you're in the midst of that campaign and you had a candidate you were working for and he came up with this

terrible thing against him, you had a choice and sent in on the campaign meeting, you could have responded by denying what was said against him, proving that it was wrong, but you decided to pull out the dead priest. instead. how does it come to be that you do not care about this credit. what was not said in an unsteady plot something dirtier and worse? -- about discrediting what was said and instead put something out dirtier. i'm concerned about this new to gingrich -- newt gingrich thing, saying he supports the one child legislation in china. is there no retraction necessary to make such a broad, creeping, and damning statement such as

that? what is gingrich not try to say something against it? >> let me explain the political reality. we did challenge it. there was a story in the newspaper, but two things happened. the story was in the newspaper. the guy is sitting on a witness stand in the attorney said, "did you ever rape your wife?" even though it's not true, the story is out there. you know you're not going to get a fraction of the coverage in free media than a television commercial. our fear, again, was the unknown. what was going to happen with this republican onslaught? at the end of the day, yes, we

did lose the house and senate, the democrats did. we could have gotten in trouble. in a campaign, you want to lay all your cards on the table. you do not want to come back at the end of the day and say, "man, if i had only done that." do it you can back it up. everything we have, we can back it up, so we feel good about it. >> to answer your other question, i thought this might come up in the discussion, but it may be ahead, but commercial verses political and advertising. they are two different animals. there is no mechanism for calling an elected official to task for a campaign to task for uttering an untruth essentially. of speech.m whereas you would get sued for false advertising if you did it

commercially, you are protected in many, many ways to a much greater level in politics. it frustrates us also. we want everyone to rely on the truth but it does not always happen. the media or the other campaigns and most likely to call us out on that. quicksand the last question. -- >> and the last question. >> if you are not with anybody, if you are researching for the opposition, are you with them? >> we work for democrats. we have worked for some republicans when there were no democrats. go ahead. >> how do you wind up with this candidate verses that one. are they choosing you, searching

out? >> the political universe is pretty small. you tend to work with the same people over and over again, the same campaign managers going from campaign to campaign. a lot of it is a word of mouth and working with the same people. >> thank you, michael and alan. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> live programming continues this afternoon on c-span with the japanese ambassador to the u.s. discussing the one-year anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that hit northern japan. they triggered a crisis at the

fukushima nuclear power plant and it could last decades. talking about the government's handling and the lessons learned. his comments live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. alabama and mississippi have primaries tomorrow with 90 delegates at stake. coming up, the alabama republican party in birmingham. appearances by newt gingrich and rick santorum. coverage starting at 6:30 p.m. eastern. >> at some point, the federal government has to be able to say to a private business that owns critical infrastructure that will depend on that an enemy may attack and we have to be able to say to them, you have to meet this standard of defending yourself in their country. >> in the year 2010, the estimate is that there were 3 billion cyber attacks on private

and government computer systems. 3 billion. this is a threat that is growing exponentially and that we simply must address. >> editors joseph lieberman and susan collins, the chairman and ranking member of the homeland security committee, talking about how their bill differs from others. "the communicators" on c- span2. >> march featuring shreveport, louisiana, which booktv at noel memorial library. >> he was a local man. he lived the rest of his life. he started accumulated books in his teen years and accumulated over 200,000 volumes. if we have one gem, it will be

this one. we are most proud of it. it is in its original binding from 1699 and it was once owned by a very famous scientist. you can see he has written his name here, "i. newton." we're not putting it out so much because it is starting to flake away. >> american history tv booking at civil war medical practices. >> is a long stretch from what it is today. when you consider the things that we take for granted when we go to the doctor, the insured meant being -- instruments being germ free, hand washing, and we used the term dr. loosely when we talk about early medicine. a lot of the doctors in our region were self-taught or worked under someone else that was self-taught and the rigging ready to retire.

they just learned as they went. >> our l.c.v. tour continues to little rock, ark., on c-span 2 and 3. >> the pentagon is investigating the weekend shooting in afghanistan where 16 civilians villagers were killed by a u.s. army sgt. the sergeant is in custody facing charges now. afghan president hamid karzai called it "an intentional killing of innocent civilians that cannot be forgiven." president obama called it "tragic and shocking, not representative of the general character of our military and the respect we have for the people of afghanistan." we spoke with a pentagon reporter this morning road about the incident. century pentagon correspondent, what are you hearing as reaction to the shooting in afghanistan yesterday? a soldier reportedly went into

two villages and shot civilians. guest: it is a tragic incident, the worst of its kind in over a decade. we have been told the soldier was a staff sergeant. it was his first tour in afghanistan. he had toured several times in a rock. he walked off the base and literally entered homes and started shooting. we do not know why. there have been suggestions he may have had a mental breakdown or stress. that has not been confirmed. in terms of reaction on a government level in afghanistan, president karzai and the entire hour think government is horrified. they have condemned it as intentional murder. the rhetoric is strong. on the american side, president obama and the secretary defense all issued strong statements offering condolences to the afghan people.

there have been calls with president karzai. there is only so much that can be done in trying to tamp down afghan anger. we expect to be protests in coming days. it has not erupted yet. given the reaction to the koran- burning last month, you would expect afghans to react in some way. host: hell are you watching to see as the word spreads ho -- -- how are you watching to see as the word spreads for signs this could have an intense effect on u.s.-afghanistan reactions -- relations? guest: are their violent protests? other incidents of afghans storm in the united nations or american or civilian facilities

in iraq. the burning resonated in other countries more because of a shared nation -- nature of the muslim beliefs in places like pakistan or other muslim countries. we will be looking for a sign of whether or not the karzai government can contain the anger. ge >> the white house will respond questions about that shooting this afternoon. you can see live coverage of today's white house briefing on c-span expected to start at 12:30 eastern. we would like to get your thoughts on the situation. on their facebook page, what will the impact of the shootings

have on u.s.-afghan relations? .com/cspan-- facebook.com/cspan. saying democracy is not a concept but a system that has to be built up piece by piece in libya and will take time. is rare during his remarks in the carnegie endowment for international peace. this is just over one hour. >> for security reasons, the doors will be closed for the duration of the event. i hope we can understand. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm the vice-president for studies of the carnegie endowment for international peace. that like to thank you for joining us -- i would like to thank you for what promises to be a fascinating discussion. the arab awakening not be

measured in months, or maybe even years, but decades and maybe generations. in the last 14 months, long time autocrats like mubarak have fallen. in syria, the days also appeared to be numbered. these are hugely important developments brought about by peoples of tremendous courage. this is only the beginning of the story. now begins the painstaking work of governing and rebuilding. lester maddox and the fall of a dictator is decisions made today by leaders in cairo and elsewhere. they will shape the future of the arab world. in libya's case, the fall of gaddafi raises a host of challenging questions. how do you rebuild political institutions followed by 42 years of misrule.

what can be done to ensure government is transparent and responsive to the will of the people. how do you disarm and reintegrate the country's militia. how do you breathe life into the economy? our guest this morning -- guest this morning is familiar with all of these challenges. he was a dissident under the gaddafi regime. waseft in the 1970's and educated in the the united states. he served as a professor of electrical engineering at the university of alabama for several decades. he dropped everything early last year to join the uprising last year against gaddafi and take an integral role helping finance and lead the revolution. last october, abdel-rahim el

keib was elected prime minister of libya by the national transitional council. he is responsible for overseeing the country's rebuilding effort and shepherding libya's elections this summer. it is our great pleasure to have him here today. ladies and gentlemen, join me in welcoming his excellency, libyan prime minister abdel- rahim el keib. [applause] >> thank you. distinguished ladies and gentlemen. good morning. i am honored and pleased to be here with you today. i want to thank the carnegie endowment for international peace for their invitation and

for their outstanding program, which supports and promotes the rights of people with freedom and dignity. very pleased to be here. for many libyans, myself included, freedom and dignity in our country or distant dreams only 8 months ago. to retain his grip of power, gaddafi used the most repugnant tools in his arsenal. gaddafi used the most repugnant tools in his arsenal. systematic oppression, brutal violence. brutal violence.

his regime's priority was the dehumanization of our people. his political theory was self service to his ego and his interests. after over 40 years of silence, libya could be silent no more. driven by a desperate desire for dignity and an iron resolve for freedom, they erupted. on february 17, a little over a year ago today, our young libyan man and woman took to the streets protesting peacefully the unjust imprisonment of libyan

activists. just a few days later, this was echoed in tripoli. the people took to the streets. they were chanting, "we sacrifice our life and blood for you." eventually, other citizens followed. the first popular revolution in the history of libya broke out. however, the road to dignity, its quality, and freedom was costly. -- dignity, equality, and freedom was costly. there was a vicious fight. it promised, and i quote,

rivers of blood. there werehundreds of thousands of deaths. it was determined to deliver on an unwavering promise. the most violent attacks were launched against our people. supposedly, his people. fire was opened on unarmed protesters. heavy weapons were used to crush them forever. they were not to be crushed. that was the moment and the tenacity in which the tide of history was turned. our brave men and women, armed with nothing but courage and

resolve, which against be well equipped to adopt the army. -- gaddafi army. untrained, but determined man, thirsting for freedom, picked up weapons to fight, picked up weapons for the first time to fight. women pushed their sons, brothers, husbands, fathers to join the quest for dignity and freedom. others, some of them are here. others worked the phones and the internet to plead for help from the international community. it was a difficult battle to say the least. the gaddafi killing machine would not slow down. libyan lives were harvested in

the thousands. body parts of hundreds of our young men were lost. literally thousands. i am not sure if i should say this. you need to know that many of our young men and women were raped. and for others, the reproductive organs were literally cut off. as the revolution was entering its second month, things were looking painfully gramm. -- grim. we all held our breath. resolved and the decisive point of no return our reach. -- was reached.

this turned events around. you, the international community, chose not to sit quietly and what as we were being massacred. to our gratitude, the international community decided to implement the u.n. resolution to protect civilians and rallied to our support. the international community was united under the u.n. resolution, the cornerstone of which was to protect innocent civilians. these enormous efforts were initiated by our arab brothers and sisters in the arab league and later with our friends and partners around the world. i take the opportunity to tell

them all thank you. such efforts gave us the motivation we needed to continue our fight and push forward unyieldingly. our citizen army suffered great losses along with the civilian population. they stood strong in their pursuit of democracy, shared governance, and rule of law. with great courage and, sadly, with great loss, we managed to push back adopted forces to the east of libya. -- gaddafi forces to the east of

libya. we endure and brought the inhumane siege down and maintain the ability of our country. we took control of the western mountains. then we liberated tripoli. and sirte. after a few months and thousands of deaths and wounded young men and women, we read our holy country from the grip of this tyranny and declared liberation of libya. it was a latent energy. the thirst and hunger for each quality and democracy within the libyan people, which has brought to life freedom and has given us back our dignity --

the libyan revolution as proof of the incredible resilience and tenacity of the libyan people. gaddafi may have believed that he had contained, or possibly extinguished, libya's dreams of freedom and dignity over four decades, he was proven wrong. comprehensively and graciously wrong. when he uttered his now infamous question, "who are you?" the cry went, "we are libyans and we will be freed." yes, now we are all free. today, a year after the outbreak of our great revolution, this

electrifying spirit is still live on the streets of our country. it is exciting. it is a liberating and it is truly something. is tumbling specifically to those of us who are entrusted with political responsibility during this time. it is, perhaps, tempting to speak overall of guardianship, but that would be too presumptuous. all libyans are guardians of the liberation. all of them. i see our role in the interim government to being facilitate and focusing the tremendous energy of the libyan people, to help try and ensure that it is used in such a way that is to realize the end of the

revolution, and to keep alive. we could knowledge that the times ahead will be challenging -- we acknowledge the times ahead will be challenging. 42 years of dictatorial rule has taken their toll on our country and people. 42 years. we cannot build their new country overnight. we cannot build new institutions overnight. we cannot build awareness, understanding, and acceptance of a new order overnight. all of this will take some time. mistakes will be made. however, the indians will prove their perseverance and resolved yet again and rise to the challenge. -- libyans will prove their perseverance and resolve. there may be times where the

outside world appears that we will be deviating from their track. the libyan people world bring them back on course. libyans are learning for the first time in four people to have trust in their government. most libyans have never known a government, and never cared to know that government, which serve them with respect. quite the opposite. it is for the members of my government to prove that we are different. we understand and respect the principles in the spirit of the revolution. we are acting in the interest of all libyans. we are building the future with them and for them. the principles of the revolution

need to be nurtured and promoted if they are to be upheld. libyans fought for democracy. it is our job, as the interim government, to pave the way for democracy, to take the group -- take root in liby. we're working hard. we realize democracy is not just day concept, but a system that has to be built the piece by piece. therefore, the national transitional council, are presiding body, recently passed election laws and pointed the election commission that will carry on the job for the elections. soon we will be electing the national assembly, the first democratically elected body in over 40 years.

my government will do its part to ensure that these elections are a success because we understand that these elections are the first stage in libyas acceleration to a genuine democracy. there is surprising parallelism between the american and the libyan experience in fighting for democracy. take for example the formation of the continental congress as a transitional government by the united states during and after the american revolution. it led the states both along the path toward the elected government and it to a drafted thewithich american constitution in a much the same way the transitional government has represented the

libyan government during and after the uprising and will represent the election in june. it will oversee drafting the constitution which will serve as the bad crop -- bedrock for our democracy and insure peaceful transitions between our elected governments. it will define the rights and responsibilities of all libyans. george washington once said, "the constitution is a guy that i will never abandon." libyans, too, embrace this idea as we move forward with our democratic transition. libyans also fought for human rights. as the interim government, we must pave the way some human rights are respected and guaranteed. as i explained in the 19th

session of the human rights council in geneva less than one week ago, several concrete steps towards insuring that the human rights of all the libyans had already been taken. violations of these rights have been coming and will be, investigated. in this regard, we have formed a committee chaired by the minister of justice and with membership of the membership from the committees -- with membership of different committees. we fought for justice, the rule of law. it is this government's mission to they that foundation. we have a diversity of people in libya, but our differences are rooted in the past, not the future. we believe in equality and equal

opportunity for all. we all believe in a libya in which second-class citizens or regions have no place. a libya in which all libyans, regardless of background, gender, affiliation, ethnicity, have freedom, equal rights, access to opportunity, and a voice in civic affairs. we believe in a country in which women and the youth will have a strong presence and play an active role, at their rightful role, in shaping society and building the future of libya. we are committed to national reconciliation. we are well aware that without social peace, no country can move forward.

we believe we have been actively involved in this and are seriously exploring the possibility of forming in this association for national reconciliation streamlining the process for reconciliation and related issues. since i am here at carnegie, i should also add that we're working to build a strong civil society which will serve to address social problems come up front transparency, and accountability. over four decades, the gaddafi regime misappropriated resources, which should have been used to the benefit of the libyan people. this cannot and will not happen again. libyans finally deserve to live up to their potential, enjoy a

better quality of life, first- class education, and excellent health care. on the international scale, we are laying the foundation for the emergence of libya as a mediterranean financial center that links europe and the west to africa and the middle east. a country engaged in the international community as a responsible and dependable force for good in the world. a country that will engage in the international community as an effective, a collaborative partner to address key issues like human rights. there are some who chose to dwell today on our challenges, our differences, and on our

mistakes. i have no problem with that. i believe that in furthering this perspective and understanding of history, and of the human spirit in libya. as libyans, we have the much to discuss and learn as citizens of our newly-free country, to learn about our rights and responsibilities, to learn about the role of civil society and the free media. i make no apology for repeating this again, but all institutions of the state will be rebuilt from scratch. it is a huge challenge, but a truly exciting one. like all countries, we have

challenges. like all countries, we have differences. like all countries, we make mistakes. the question for me is whether we have a plan to meet those challenges. whether we have a common vision, much greater than their differences. whether we can learn from our mistakes. i would like to offer a resounding "yes" to each of those questions. there are far too many examples of countries that have failed in their bid to accelerate during transition from dictatorship to democracy. this has given plenty of encouragement to those who insist that freedom and democracy take decades, if not

centuries, to establish. libya will prove these wrong. we are blessed with many factors in our favor including aaron natural resources, but, above all, we have pride, and confidence in the knowledge that we overcame one of the most brutal and dangerous dictatorships of the modern age. over the past year, we did what everyone thought was impossible. i know over this coming year, we will, again, do what everyone

might think impossible. again, we are determined to turn the tide of history. we have read ourselves of our recent past, and excited for our future, and grateful to our friends and partners to help does come this far. we are now proud to call ourselves your partners commit two nations which believe in the same fundamentals, the values of freedom, equality, opportunity, and success. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, prime minister. they were very encouraging words. we will open up the floor for about 30 minutes of questioning. before we do that, i will ask

the first question. i think we have some very encouraging words about libyas commitment to democracy and a pluralistic society moving forward. indeed, this has been a concern of many, both in the region and here, because of pluralism in the arab world. will the arab world finally be able to put in place a system that will ensure a pluralistic society? or will it simply replace autocratic regimes with another? i think you have assured many of your commitment to do this. the road is not easy in the region and a country that has not known democracy for a long time. i hope you can maybe shed more light on the reasons for your confidence that, indeed, the

emerging system would be resistance to impose one set of rules and one set of fonts as opposed to cultural and political diversity of all types. >> york questioning this of an electrical engineer. >> we're both electrical engineers by the way. >> when i first got to be directly exposed to the process of our young men and women revolting against gaddafi's regime, it was something that gave me feeling had never had before. many of us here in this room

were involved in the opposition against khaddafi. we went through different experiences, fantastic experiences. we tried different ways and means, but this was different. it started with a small group, but it ended up bringing everyone together. it started with young men and women. it grew together. that is what was amazing. in the western mountains, when i was looking at those young men and women. they were really young. young and determined.

it was amazing. they just felt that deepen side, yes, they could do it. the first time i saw a large group of young men and women, it is very unfortunate and i hate to say this, but this "can do" attitude was not there. at this case, i could see it. i could feel it. i asked them what they needed, what was missing. tripoli was still held. the hills were not liberated yet. they said they just needed to get going. they simply could not wait.

with that spirit, they would not let go of what they have learned. it was not simply a group of older men and women telling them what to do. this is the resource that will build libya. it has to be a democracy. it cannot be anything else. one of the reasons why we have been having a little bit of difficulty in trying to reintegrate these young men and women into the defense ministry and interior ministry is the fact that they want to make sure that democracy is different.

we're not interested in many things. we do not need money, nothing coming to make sure that we have a democracy. -- we do not need money, nothing, to make sure we have a democracy. i've never seen anything like it in my life. >> thank you. let's open it up, please. the deeper questions short. we have a lot of interest, i am sure -- please keep your question short. >> i'm from capital until group. i have just been recently traveling to tripoli. one of the things that strikes someone many good to tripoli is

that there is amazing intellectual capital. you have budding entrepreneur years. this country will do miracles. it will go 5g. maybe we shouldn't talk about doing business the business. what we can do today can be done today in the private sector. everything else will take time. tunisia is getting the infrastructure financed from african banks. libya is the new market and in nine months to one year, this will really be the game changer not only for the region but for the west. thank you. >> ok. please. >> i am from the johns hopkins center.

do you believe that equality between men and women in libya is the right answer when the transitional government has announced the first new law of the introduction of polygamy in libya docks -- polygamy in libya? >> let's take one more. american andhe turkish council. i was a victim from the gaddafi regime. i lived in libya during gaddafi and i know exactly what happened. my question is regarding the infrastructure and construction of what you will have in libya. you said you wanted the turkish

construction companies to go back. maybe to this gentleman's question, as an addition, are you ready for these projects to start for the businesses? is security something that they can trust? that's probably the biggest question in the minds of everyone, including american businesses. thank you. >> certainly the role of women, i certainly believe in that. i have nothing against that. i will give you an example. my wife has more degrees than i do. i firmly believe that women must play our role. it is not an option. we can see here some very smart libyan of ladies.

one of them is our minister. working on her ph.d.. fantastic lady. there are some more here. we would love to see them do miracles come and i am sure they will. polygamy, i do not know if this is the proper place to discuss this, but i am fine with one. [laughter] i am not going to add another one. if i forgive my title as prime minister, how many of us have a wife, and more than one without

being a wife? many of us unfortunately do that, but in libya this is not going to be something of our problem, and i do not think this is something that people want to do. i do not know how it came out, but do not worry about it, okay? it is not going to be a problem, i guarantee you. now the projects are starting soon. we want them to come back as soon as possible. security is at 100%. proof? close to 100 percent? yes. improved? yes. anywhere you go, security is not 100 percent proof. this is the time to be in libya,

i guarantee you this. we're looking for a long-term relationships, partnerships i should say other than someone who is just coming here for hit- and-run type situation. so pleased at do. if we can help you in any way to come back, by all means. >> let me read some questions from the other room. we have the overflow so we a people sitting in the other room, and they had to send their questions by me. i will read three questions. one has to do with militia groups in libya who are resisting demobilization. what will the government do to prevent armed groovgroups from playing and intimidated role on

election day? the sec has to do with the new constitution and whether it will take it to affect the desired effect for decentralization in the east. the third, if you could describe the transition in government engagement with the libyan civil society in the private sector today. what can each sector due to support the transition to the new government? >> thank you very much. certainly we do not agree with the word militia. we do not have militias. we have the young men who fought hard, and they call themselves brigades. i feel the government calls the militia because it is a different concept. what is happening is that these

young men are our brothers, sons, and we want to take care of them. they did this for us. it is not like people form a militias because they belong to a certain sector, because they belong to a certain group somewhere. in hisminrata, you see people from everywhere. it is literally like that. people came from the eastern part, south, west -- and everywhere else. they came together and fought together. people know it is from everywhere. in tripoli, the same thing.

so it is not malicious as we understand malicious. what we did is we said look, you did your job, give us back your arms, and just get going with your life. that is not the way we want to do it. we needed to understand and tried to explain and work with them. what we did is we said let's have a project, a big project that would try to reintegrate them. this project is now in place it has three dimensions. one is the interior ministry, those that are interested in security-type work and police work and all of that.

but we give them training, decent salaries, and hope that they can actually progressed and develop. another one is the defense ministry. they can be part of the armed forces. it is the same thing. we treat them with respect, give them a decent salary and training. then -- right now we have 20,000 of them. this will grow into 30,000, maybe even more. we have budgeted for 50 of them come a 25 from each group. then we have formed an association that would take those that are not in the police force or armed forces, and give

them opportunities for training, scholarships to go to universities outside the country, maybe inside or to post-graduate studies. did their master's and ph.d. or what have you, and there are many like that. or maybe they are interested in companies that will give them small or medium-sized the loan so they can do that. we have about 130,000 of them who registered and the association. we will do whatever it takes to give them the best we can in terms of offering them a bit of life. we are succeeding in this. we actually have sent 1000 of them, and outside the country to jordan.

some would go to turkey, some would come here. some to europe in u.k. and france and other places. i think this will happen automatically. it is not hypothetical. it is happening. they will give back the arms and get on with their life. one good sign about how this piece -- how peaceful and how successful elections can be is the recent elections that took place for example. very peacefully. very successful. another sign of how peaceful the country is, the celebrating was a spontaneous coming together of the people in celebrating the first anniversary of the revolution here did you conceive that in the big cities, there were no problems whatsoever.

people just simply came out and celebrated. before i came here, i prepared a video clip, but i thought it was very important to share with you. i will send it to do after we refine it. in terms of decentralizing the government operations, we are all for it. believelkahane we were decentralized for the wrong reasons. -- we strongly believe we were decentralized for the wrong reasons. it is out there for someone to

travel from one city or even 300 kilometers to apply for a piece of or try to get an official document. this reminds you of the 18th century and 19th century. we are doing a number of things. one thing is we have already prepared and are simply refining it, the law that requires all libyans to district. [inaudible] that will totally decentralized operation. the other thing for now, we have had representation of the benghazi wherein gauzin

people can communicate with the government directly and get a quick response. we're also asking governments to have consequences in those cities -- consulates in those cities. a few others. the british will also do the same. many of them will do that. and they hope the u.s. will do that. we are also planning and have had some of the major operations going. for example, the resources department, the huge department. it does -- it is in charge of the river, a man-made river.

it is a huge project. also, of the resources. this will be located there. it is a big operation. we will do more. anre also working on electronic government project. this will definitely be quite helpful in decentralizing the operation. we will do things in a way that will call for the libyan individual, and hopefully we will take care of this at this time. the private sector, just before coming here and i had a meeting with 30-40 libyans in the private sector, and this is not the first time.

a couple of my colleagues on the cabinets met with them in other places. we have communicated in feel strongly that in libya you have three pillars that should work together in supporting and creating the new libya, and that is the government and private sector in civil society. the civil society is really flourishing. it is doing a great job there. please, sir. >> i think we have room for one last question. >> my name is andrew with the citizenship brushup. thank you for your remarks. my question for you is, would you welcome the russian companies back to libya, and will your government when the

contracts and the deal struck under the muammar gaddafi regime, and what will be the project, including those with russian participation that have been suspended? do you discuss these things with the russian government. thank you. >> university of maryland and libya's calller. mr. prime minister, i have of two-part question focused on minorities of libya. secretary clinton yesterday praised the building of the inclusive democracy in libya under your the leadership, which you have eloquently emphasize this morning. i know libya faces multiple challenges ahead, but could you tell us your thinking on

including the rinsing, and the jewish community that once lived in libya for over 2000 years and were forced to leave? in this regard, and this is the second part of the question, can the jewish community hope for a symbolic resolution of the important religious and cultural heritage as libyans, such as synagogues and houses of learning that were destroyed by the muammar gaddafi regime. i know many young people today are not even aware of the existence of this community on libyan soil, but they are curious to find out, especially from their parents and grandparents to tell them about their good relations with their jewish neighbors for many centuries, and hopefully in the future. >> i am with freedom house. i am with the libya out reach

group. and i am a libyan american. let me commend you and thank you for your team. we support you come in we would like to see more of you. in the first question is regards to currency. is it possible for you to convey on a more weekly or daily basis what is your doing. for those of us here it seems as though we're getting more of the indication from the national transitional council vs. the government. can you explain, what are the different responsibilities between the interim government and that of the national transitional council? i work with freedom house. reducible society programming. i would like to hear from you, what kind of training do you see is needed for organizations that are planning to come to libya so we can help out in the development of civil societies. thank you.

>> concerning russia, we wish that russia would have felt what on during the months of the revolution. did they see what was happening? i do not know. i hope they did not. was it okay if they saw what was happening but never cared? i would say maybe never cared is necessarily the proper word, but whether they had a political

agenda that served their own objective in this world, i can say they have the right to. are we happy with how russia handled the situation? respectfully no. do we welcome russia to come back and work on projects? yes, as long as they do not serve the regime and have no connections with it. do we honor contracts? to yes, but after reviewing them, it has to be legal, and we have to make sure corruption was not a major part of it.

i hope i answered your question. and yes, by all means we want to be a positive force in the world in a small way. this was a revolution and and not easy. i hope our russian friends realize that. so, yes, you are welcome to come back. keep in mind, we do not want the regime anymore. we're not going to take it anymore. we do not want to even smell it anymore but yes, you are welcome. we honor our contracts. the minorities, you know that i lived half of my life in tripoli.

tripoli -- i was in the center of town where i was born. and next door we had maybe one block from where i was born and raised was a catholic church, a big one. we had an italian community around us. i never felt there was a problem, you know? we communicated, -- i spoke a little bit of italian. two blocks, and i remember exactly where from where i lived? , we had a synagogue.

just across from my house we had a jewish family living there. i remembered the name of the son who was my age. said there was no problem. you know what causes problems is when you have a hidden agenda. if i have a hidden agenda, you do not want to work with me. you want to be transparent, clear, and we want to work together. if that is the case, and that is typical, it is really difficult, you know? if we get to that point, i sink the world would be a fantastic world to live in. i am a our government' -- firm believer, and maybe this is

wrong, i do not ask somebody to serve on by government just because he is from this sector or this group or that group. i am a firm believer that talent is all over libya. the it whatever you want to call it. an era of this or that. it so happens that -- i tell you this sincerely, we have two ladies and our cabinet, strong, capable, and they are doing a good job. one of them is here. i am pleased and honored to be on the same team to work

together. the other one is the head minister, one of the toughest jobs in libya. i did not know. he served as undersecretary, and his secretaries secretary resig i lived in a place where people from different origins and backgrounds were there, but we never asked each other, where are you from? when we came here to the states, and felt the same way. i served with another group that was religious minorities.

that regime created this feeling. it never existed, at least as far as i am concerned. i guarantee you it will be a different libya. we have women and young ladies here in libya that i am so proud of. this is a difficult question in. i cannot answer all of it, but i have answered parts. and if nothing else, fighting corruption and transparency have two things. we want to make sure they exist, so we have been doing whatever we can. anybody can look into them. legitimate groups can look into them. i have been talking to the word

bank. we want to see how we can clear even more transparency. we would also look into the open government concept. sending someone at a higher level to a -- attend the upcoming conference in brazil. we're very serious about this. corruption has been reaching libya was up there. we do not want that to happen anymore. we're working pretty hard. she raised -- she mentioned that we're not in the media telling people what we're doing. yet this is a problem, a mistake. it is a mistake that is just

natural. most of us are technocrats. we never cared to be in the media. i feel like if i do that too much people would say he is there all the time. now we have appointed a gentleman who is well-spoken, articulate, and he will be outspoken. so you are right, we never cared and felt it was a short time anyway, so you do not need to do it. we missed the point, so you will hear more about that once we do. the legislative body, and we're the executive 1. because it is something new, there is interactions but i

think it will work though. >> thank you very much. i am afraid this is all the time we have. but me ask you to remain seated until the prime minister leaves. join me and the prime minister in wishing you all the best for libya. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> at some point the federal

government has to be able to say to a private business that owns critical infrastructure that we all depend on that and it enemy might attack, we have to be able to say to them, you have to meet the standard of defending yourself and defending our country >> in the year 2010, the estimate is there were 3 billion cyber attacks on the private and government computer systems. 3 billion. so this is a threat that is growing banks -- exponentially, and we simply must address. >> the chair in ranking member of the homeland security committee detail how they're cyber security bill differs from other bills to be considered the spring. the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> i hope as we move forward in

this world there are a number of problems we have to resolve. problems of genocide in darfur. a growing problem with iran. we of a lot of problems to deal with, and i think diplomatic solutions will have to be the answer in the future as we start to deal with the problems coming. >> congressman donald payne was the first african-american to serve the house from new jersey. elected in 1988, the former head of the congressional black caucus and served on house committees on education and foreign affairs. watch his speeches from the house floor and other appearances all archived in searchable on line of the c-span video library. -- all archived and searchable online of the c-span video library. >> we are live waiting for the

one-year anniversary speech of the disaster in japan. the governor of fukushima is calling for all nuclear power plants to be shut down so an accident like this never happens again. it is aiming to use clean energy sources for power. the ambassador will talk about the government's handling of the crisis and some of the lessons learned.

>> good afternoon, everybody. one more moment to sit down and greet the people they know an audience. good afternoon. i am danielle pletka. it is a really somber anniversary we are gathered to commemorate one year in one day since the terrible earthquake and tsunami that struck japan killing so many. we will be discussing a number of issues related to the tragedy. first of all, the remarkable recovery of japan, the strengthening of the u.s./japan relationship, one that is so important to us. the remarkable effort that was undertaken by our military forces to come to the aid and rescue of our friends in japan.

i am so glad we have the resources to do that. we may not have the resources in the future, but we were there at the right time to do the right thing for our allies, and that is extremely important for the military, and to talk about what the future holds, not just in the relationship, but in the recovery of japan. i am honored to welcome the ambassador of the japan to lead off the discussion. he became the japanese ambassador to the united states almost four years ago. prior to that, he served as an ambassador to international organizations in geneva and was the deputy minister for foreign affairs. i welcome him to the podium right now, ambassador ichiro fujisaki. [applause] >> thank you very much for a kind introduction. in looking at this crowd, i have

been afraid that many of you come at this is the 12th time you will hear from me, so i was thinking if i can say something new. no, not too much, please forgive me. the compensation is that i will be very short perio. yesterday i was reading a leading newspaper here. i was a bit surprised that the article started like one year later nothing is solved. iwow. with the big picture of a young lady with the little boy. i think i do not share that view. i am not saying that everything has been solved. it is not at all true, because

it was a huge disaster, as you know. we cannot recover in only a year's time, but what we can say is we're on recovery road. i will give you a chart of paper that illustrates what it was and where we are. on the general damage and the nuclear issue. the number one is human loss. as you can see, that is close to 19,000 people still either missing or found dead. this is 10 times that of katrina. damage to building, infrastructure.

katrina was reported up $5.5 billion. on top of that, there were equipment and housing. altogether it adds up to $212 billion. you can see how huge this disaster was. as for it the effect to gdp, the 2012 estimate was 1.6 before 311. it is not only because of the earthquake session on me, but it is because of yen appreciation as well. yen rate has appreciated more than 30% after wall street's crash in 2008.

how can you compete in such a situation? supply chain issue is no. 4. i am always trying to focus on this, because i think supply chain is vastly exaggerated. if you look at -- 2007 u.s. auto production as 100. 2008 wall street crash. because of consumption, it went down to 36 and at that level for some time. compared to that, after the earthquake/tsunami, yes, there ofs a lack of supply fro parts from japan, but it went down for a short time and recovered now to already more

than 100 level. this is he was car production. so i think the supply chain issue, in my view. i am not saying there was no problem. we had problems come and that was the production, but not as big as some people have an image of. now, the recovery that affected the infrastructure. highway. the blue bart is where it was right after the earthquake. it went down 24%. in two weeks, the high weight is 20%. -- highway is 20%. no passenger accidents, because as soon as the train caught size

big waves -- seismic waves, it stopped. we had to do the maintenance for the railways as well it is taking time. it is up to 73% gets in this march, because a lot of debris in the sea and the port is filled. not 100 percent yet. electricity in the tokyo metropolitan area went down to 16%. recovered to 83 percent in three days. tokyo area, this is not only tokyo, but quite a big area.

to went down to 79% and whaent 100%. this infrastructure recovery was pretty quick come even quicker than a lot of people thought. this was huge damage. as for human life, and also jobs, 81,000 people lost their life -- jobs, i'm sorry. 51,000 acres were inundated. 28,000 ships were locked. so there was a lot of damage, but we are trying to recover by putting a lot of budgets into this. we willyears' time

recover 95% of all of the land that was inundated. the serious issue here is still the nuclear issue. this into perspective. in the international atomic energy agency they have a scale called international nuclear event scale, which is from the low was one to the highest seven. seven is the most serious accident. one is the most minor. this fukushima together is

labeled as a sudden, the most serious. however, there is a great difference between them, because in fukushima the nuclear reactor itself did not explode. it was an explosion of the house around that by hydrogen, and it was not an atomic and nuclear explosion. the other is that is the nuclear reactor. because of these reasons the level of the amount of radioactive material is 1/7 of chernobyl. there was no immediate death toll from fukushima. in chernobyl, there was 71. there were a lot of people

affected. that is the great difference. even if they are on the same scale. as a result, radiation level in tokyo and u.s. and france is not that different, almost equal now. tokyo is up today. u.s. and france i have figures for some time ago. i think you can say it is almost the same. however, nuclear reactors are not operating now. we had 54 nuclear reactors. this is a member 3. -- number 3. about 11 was stopped because of

the earthquake and tsunami. however, today only two operating. only 52 is not operating. why? this is because every 30 months you have to put nuclear reactors into maintenance, and after that you would put into stress test, and after that the government has to decide if it is an acceptable level. so we have not arrived at that stage to restart nuclear reactors. we are only operating to out of 54 0-- two out of 54. the road map itself.

we came to a situation equivalent of what they call the board than 100 degrees centigrade, and we have leaks from time to time, but in general the situation is under control now. that was declared in december. that does not mean that everything is taken care of. we need a lot of time, because we have to take care of the camera -- the contaminated material. it will take years. one thing i can say is that we are now under control of the situation. meanwhile, because 52 is not

operating, we are dependent more and more on a thermal imaging. as you can see, thermal imaging in 2010 and december before the crisis, we were dependent 52%. now we are dependent 86%. although consumption itself has gone down because of consolidation. this is december, so now it is even lower. in two months, if we do not restart, we will have no nuclear. this is a very serious situation for japan, but as you can see, all prices are going up, but we are dependent more and more on thermal energy at this juncture. one thing behind this is you can

see the recent poll taken about three weeks ago, 24 percent of japanese thinks that we should abolish using nuclear. 53 percent think we should decrease dependency. 15 percent think we can continue on. this is the public image of nuclear. it was very different right after the earthquake and tsunami. many people thought we can go on, but this number is going down, and we have to reflect this thinking, because of this summer we will try to seek a new energy mix. we were thinking that we would increase dependency on nuclear.

we were dependent 26% or so. now we were thinking that we would increase it to 53% level in 2030. this is not possible i think. that with this public thinking we will have to review the energy mix, but we will have to decrease dependency on nuclear, rather than increase. this is what the prime minister is already saying. but we cannot totally dispose it, so we will try to see what will be the right balance here. i was visiting japan 10 days ago. i went to a place that was all drawn by the tsunami.

and askhe deputy mayor i them what would be the message to american friends. two things. one, please convey our thanks to the american people. second, please do not forget us. it will take some more time to recover. please a trade with us. please invest in us, visit us. that was their plea, cry. i am conveying this to you. the blue dots are the lines on no. 10. towards the end of the year, it caught up. during the spring and summer -- this is natural.

because of the situation i am explaining, in most parts of japan there is no contamination. food and water is monitored very carefully. it is safe now, so please take a look. i am always think we're so grateful for visitors to japan. secretary clinton and his -- visited one month after. secretary vice-president visited japan and went to the site four months later. justin bieber came and lady gaga made several visits as well. a real friend of japan. plans for reconstruction, there is a supplementary budget adding up to $25 billion.

and the basic conception is that we will have openly construction. we need your ideas, your funding, and initiatives. so the american or japanese companies will be exempted from corporate tax and receive financial support for establishing new companies spend. looking back at our disaster, which was experienced one year ago, i think we have to draw some lessons. my way of putting it is that if

i can say it by a 7 p's. the first one is for production. however, there is a limit to that, and sometimes prediction cannot be so reliable. there are a lot of these and we have to be very objective. the second is prevention, but in natural disasters this is not possible. it is to mitigate but there can be preventive measures, and that is what we ought to be looking at, where to place the generator, for example. the third is preparation. you have to prepare people, the

government, the local community. if you look at history, you know these things will happen. this will happen sometime. these tsunamis have happened two times in the past 100 years. we have to really prepare ourselves for that. the fourth is prompt response or prompt reaction when things happened. we are now reviewing our self, but everything has to be very prompt. the fifth is prioritization. there are a lot of issues, so you have to prioritize. human life is first. housing first appeared and not everything at one time, but of course everything has to happen at some time, but you have to

prioritize the allocation of resources, not only money but human as well. sixth, and maybe the most important is public understanding. of course this means in other words, transparency. i think we have a duty in japan to share everything we have learned a with other people, because we have had this, we cannot see that other countries of around the world will build the same as we did. we have to say what we went wrong and what went right as well. this is the most important duty that is facing us now. last is a post-murder review. ithis is the exact symposium for that. i am very happy that aei has

organized this. in japan there has been a private research committee there. the government is now doing this as well. we're trying to find a what was really right in what went wrong. we ought to be very candid about it. we are trying to do this. we always say that -- it was not just by ourself, it was because of the help from people around the world. of course, japan has some strong points. we have recovered from, for example, closing of japan for 20 years, and we were opened up, and did 30 years we were able to be among one of the powers.

after the devastation from world war ii, after 20 years we were able to host the olympic games. oil shocks twice hit japan most, because we do not have energy at all. still we were able to come back, and made energy production with cars. and able to compete with other countries. we were able to turn the table and turned up a challenge into opportunity. i think we will try to do this again. it is because people we have helped. and americans have helped us during the most difficult time. and japanese will never forget your friendship, the american friendship.

that meant a lot to us that the american people stood by us, stood with us. it was not the only words, as you say, but really people coming in that helped search and rescue and a lot of good will contributions. it is amazing how people are now looking at american friendship and japain japan. from the bottom of our heart, i always say that i represent japanese people, thank you very much. and [applause] >> the ambassador has kindly agreed to do q&a for 10 or 15

minutes. and if you could make your question very brief and identify yourself, we would appreciate it. and >> i was going to get out, and i was told you have an obligation. you can make a 10 minute speech if you like. anyone of you. aplease go ahead. >> gary blumenthal. just curious, what is japan doing to recognize the individual workers that have made a great personal sacrifice to try to prevent further damage to the rest of the population from the fallout? >> i think you are talking of people who are working at the

nuclear site, and those people in the police force, a self- defense force, fire department people -- there are a lot of people that have worked, and i think the most are the workers on the site that have been there all the time. it they would have left, it would have been such a disaster, so i think we should recognize them. i do not know how we can come up because there are a lot of people, i think maybe the work will be done and a group or individual. i am sorry, i do not know at this this is so difficult.

there are some people out in front. there are a lot of people on the backside not seen by us that were working all the time. i do not know how we can identify, but the gratitude should be there. i personally have expressed gratitude to those workers that have been working on the site. not only by burr will -- not only by verbal means as well. thank you. oh, i should name someone? >> you pointed out it would be a long recovery. [unintelligible]

reconstruction and redevelopment. do you think the u.s. and japan can partner together? >> i cannot say a specific area. we have prescribed a law to set up a special district where taxes are exempted and special subsidies are there for companies to come in. it is not easy -- i do not know how profitable it is in the beginning. i hope that this will be a door to invite in the american colleagues to come to those

sites. also, we would appreciate a lot of business to japan. as for specific areas of cooperation for companies, i would just say as many as possible but i cannot identify specific areas. thank you very much. >> ambassador, i am from the voice of america. you mentioned the partnerships trying to develop and sharing the experience of the disaster. united states is reviewing its ts. nuclear plant is there any sharing between the united states and japan? what about neighbors like korea and taiwan? >> our duty is to share our experiences. we have already submitted a

report to iaea. this december, we will have an international conference to share our experiences as well so that people can draw their lessons. our most important ally and friend is the united states. the u.s. was with us all the time, in meetings every day, your embassy and forces, so they know. but we do not hesitate to share that with other countries in asia as well. this is very important. we do not want to see something that happened to us happen to other countries.

>> one more question. >> i am from cspa. can you categorize the impact of chinese efforts after the tsunami on japanese-chinese relationships? >> tying up was very forthcoming -- china was very forthcoming. they returned to do all of humanitarian efforts they can, sending doctors, rescue teams, a lot of materials in kind. we have been helped a lot by chinese friends. as it relates to other issues with japan-china relations, this is very independent from that. they were doing that from a humanitarian point of view, not

to try to influence japan's policy towards china. if you are trying to focus on issues such as disputes over some island, it has remained that way. nothing has changed. as for humanitarian efforts china has done, we're very grateful for that. >> before i ask you to join me in thanking the investor. -- before i ask you to join me in thanking the ambassador, i would remind you we have a panel coming up. thank you very much. [applause]

>> that was a quick turnover. thank you for joining us today. i am an agent fellow and scholar here at aei and also direct the japan studies program. we're grateful to have had ambassador with us to kick off what i hope will be in robust and extended discussion among our expert panelists primarily on things the ambassador brought up, lessons learned, what are

they, where do we go forward from here. as we in america try to understand depends on response to the disaster of 3/11, how we see our role together. there are familiar faces in the audience today. this will be in more discussion among friends and people who know each other rather than something very formal. we have assembled the most knowledgeable people on japan in washington for this discussion. thought russ may express shock, there is no question these are the people we turn to for policy and economics. you know the mall. i will briefly introduce them. i will ask each of them to give five to seven minutes of comments and then we will open it up for discussion. we will and promptly at 2:45. sitting to my immediate right is

ambassador deming served 38 years in the department of state serving here and in tokyo as well as other areas of the world before winding up as ambassador to tunisia. russ came back to the state department to head up the japan desk days before the quake and was literally a man on the spot in the seat -- in d.c. next to him is dr. sheila smith, one of the truly well-informed and insightful scholars of japanese politics and relations between japan and the united states on everything that gets to the core of how they work together in the world. batting cleanup is mark napper at the state department dealing with the fall one affects from 3/11, probably the leading

person in his generation on japan affairs in the state department having served there as well as other parts of the world, most recently in baghdad. we're happy to have you back and handling affairs. i will turn it over to russ. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here. let me speak briefly about my perspective having come back to the position i had 20 years earlier a few days before the earthquake. when the earthquake hit, we approached this with a degree of humility. we have been through our own crisis management issues over the last three years with katrina, the gulf oil spill, the haiti earthquake, and the christ church earthquake in new zealand. we've learned a lot of lessons about how to manage a crisis. we knew how difficult it was. when we went into this, it was

with humility and experience and lessons learned we hoped would be useful. when i got to the state department at 7:00 in the morning on march 11, about 45 actors -- about for five hours after the earthquake, we organized a task force. instructions came immediately to do everything you can to help japan. that was not rhetorical. it meant we could push aside normal bureaucratic legal and accounting obstacles to do what we had to do and worry about how we would be paid for it later on. the amount of dedication across the u.s. government was amazing not just from the foreign affairs agencies but from the domestic agencies. people really did mobilize and step out. three areas of our focus.

first is the obligation to account for and support american citizens. our embassy in tokyo immediately organized teams to go to the area. the japanese employees and our embassy played an extraordinary role. subways were interrupted for a to 24 hours. people walked two or three hours to come to work to help the -- help out. that part of the operation went smoothly. the second thing was to do everything we could to help japan on the humanitarian side. we recognized immediately japan was not haiti with a lot of resources and experience dealing with this kind of crisis. our role was supplementary and not basic human needs. our great asset was the u.s. forces in japan and the close relationship between them and the japanese self-defense forces. they had worked together and

have close ties between the two. our military immediately mobilized to send 22,000 people to the earthquake area, primarily the airport, to make available our ships for search and rescue, moving things around. that part of the operation broke new ground. it was the first joint task force the japanese ever put together and certainly the first u.s.-japan joint task force. while there were bombs in the road, it really did region while there were -- while there were some bumps in the road, it really did it work out well. at first, we did not understand the dimensions. over the next 24 hours, it became clear this would be the center of our attention. the u.s. and japanese nuclear industries have a long history together. the reactors at fukushima are based on u.s. design. we knew a lot about them.

our nuclear industry have worked together. our regulators had worked together. there was a natural contribution the u.s. could make in this regard. we had a big stake in the outcome of course, not only thousands of americans in japan in the area potentially affected by the nuclear problems, but also our mutual stake in safe nuclear energy and to make sure we could manage the issue as effectively as possible. that became the center of our efforts. the first 10 days were chaotic. there was lack of clarity on the japanese side of who was in charge. there was a lack of information. we have trouble coordinating. after we got through that, a task force was set up in tokyo. the coordination began to work effectively. that coordination continues to this day. in those three areas, i think we

did a pretty good job. quickly lessons learned, first and most heartening was a tremendous amount of goodwill in both countries toward the other. the outpouring of american support, more than $200 million raised by americans. japanese-americans alone raised $22 million. the number of those who reached out to former communities to help, the families that have served their over the years, the strength of human bonds between the u.s. and japan that were under the surface really came to the surface. it was terribly heartening. the reciprocal feeling on the japanese side, the warm response on the japanese side to the efforts made by americans. we now have a situation where 80% of japan supports the alliance. i think it is important to build on this for the future. lots of important lessons we learned.

we did a good job together. a lot more we can do. we need to do a lot more joint training and exercises and learning to reach out to other countries. i am talking about regional responses to bring people together on humanitarian disaster relief. third and perhaps most difficult of all is how we put together a broad energy policy that brings together the need to continue to develop efficient use of fossil fuels, work on stimulating renewables, and making nuclear part of the mix. it has got to be part of the mix. nuclear energy is a crisis because of the lack of public support around world. the u.s. and japan have a lead role to play there. >> thank you so much. sheila? >> and like my colleagues, i am not a government official and cannot speak to the internal

coordination. i thought i would offer a few observations from over the years. one of the greatest assets of the last year was the opportunity we had to witness the resilience of japanese society. i think it is deeply felt around the globe that japan's response to the triple disasters was remarkable even though there is critique of specific decision making or institutions, overall it was a tremendous show of tremendous japanese social resilience. there were tremendous act of courage by individuals, but is also japan's social institutions that really shined. volunteerism was at its highest. japanese corporate leadership was actively demonstrated in the response and in the follow-on energy crisis that occurred.

i saw local governments responded well. many of the institutions we have not seen in post-war japan be particularly respond -- particularly strong were also at the forefront of response. a down confidence in the fact it was under japan's, the next generation of leaders we saw in many of the aspects of the response to the crisis that is most heartening to me as an educator about japan's future. the other point ambassador made that has been reinforced is the scope and scale of this particular crisis was unprecedented. the 9.0 earthquake, the tsunami, and the meltdown. all of us who live in societies with nuclear power in areas with natural disasters have a lot to learn from the japanese response. if you have not seen it yet,

jeff bader's article will give you insight into the white house response and the crisis response in japan. in japan, there is a lot of critique going on of japan's own response to the crisis. i caution all of us outside the country to give it time for the empirical analysis, the political analysis, the scientific analysis to take its full course. these are the kinds of challenges and problems of our societies will face. the other piece of this is not specific to the march 11 events themselves. those of us who watched depend fully realize you have to put these events in the context of japan's broader public policy agenda. many of us are hopeful the new analysis will come to light. we have to understand the global economic conditions confronting japan today and all of us will

determine the extent to which japan's recovery will be successful. the fiscal health of japan is the topic of great concern. prime minister noda is addressing this issue as we sit here today. the larger task of rebuilding is about building a society and economy that will be more globally competitive going forward. one of the aspects of japan's response that gets most attention and i write about is the extent to which japanese government and institutions met the challenge. i am not here to lay blame, but i think japan has gone through a protracted political transformation that is not over. we have a lot to see about how the crisis will affect the

transition itself away from single party dominance to a more competitive political marketplace. some of the institutional prescriptions discussed since march 11 are going to help in that transition process. broadly speaking, the japan i see reflects the conversation building in japan today. i think you see a more reflective japan. it is more willing to ask questions about some institutions that have not been examined closely. the nuclear field gets most attention, but i think there are broader questions afoot in japan today about relationships between local and national government, public-private

partnerships, and choices japan has ahead of it. i find that one of great opportunities that has emerged in the week of march 11. let me conclude with a couple of thoughts for those of us outside of japan. it is important that the lessons learned is not as japan's -- not just japan's exercise. it must be a global exercise as well. the resilience of all of our societies will depend on what we learn from the events and aftermath of march 11. the second cautionary peace for our japanese colleagues is as you prescribe changes for the future, i think it is equally important to recognize what japan did right in the early days and in the months since. there is much to be learned. what japan did right is as

important. from a global perspective and washington's perspective in the regional response to the crisis, a strong japan is what all of us will depend on. japan's recovery has immense implications for the global economy, the stability of asia- pacific relationships, and a partnership with the united states. we cannot imagine a future in which a strong japan is not part of a strong feature. -- we cannot imagine a future in which a strong japan is not part of that future. we need to sustain the corporation to make sure japan reemergence. thank you very much. >> sheila, thank you. mark, maybe you can talk about what is going on today. >> thank you very much. i am happy to be here. i am glad she mentioned the idea of peninsular japan. as we heard earlier from

ambassador fujisaki as he listed the daunting challenges japan is facing with recovery, one should not be surprised 1 komen narrative about japan in the region and world is that japan is more focused on dealing with issues out home -- rushed -- japan is more focused on dealing with issues at home. japan is as engaging as ever on the international stage. it is as engaging as ever with the united states and neighbors. ambassador fujisaki gave us i would add an eighh

t one, prolactin. what we call our global partnership with japan is succeeding in a number of various united states is focused on. japan is the second largest donor to afghanistan. in july, it is poised to host a major donors conference in tokyo. pakistan, japan is the second largest aid donor after the u.s. the same with iraq. it is second only after the u.s. in terms of its financial support for the country. in terms of other pressing issues around the globe, iran, japan and united states share the goal of the abandonment of iran nuclear program. japan has been debated fully in the u.n. sanctions regime as well as implementing a unilateral sanctions in spite of the challenges it faces at home in terms of its energy

situation. there are other countries where they are addressing pressing issues. in terms of the specific security alliance with the united states, i will not go into much as the ambassador already described the immensity of what the u.s. and japan undertook post-3/11. what it did for our alliance was to help wash us closer together -- lash us closer together. it was an experience that both could not have duplicated on the training field or in the war- gaming room. this was a remarkable historic

effort. i think we will see the fruits in the years ahead as our country perform better and more closely in our joint operations. economically, i will be brief. i do not think this is news to anyone. u.s. and japan remain by to be interconnected. that has not changed. japan remains one of the top investors in the u.s., the u.s. remains the number one investor in japan. japan is our fourth largest trading partner. as we pursue engagement across the board whether investment or scientific cooperation, these are areas in which our researchers and scientists are in close touch and working together unabated. 3/11 has drawn us even closer together. in concluding i would raise one

issue of concern to me personally being the beneficiary of a student exchange program. that is the number of students from both countries in each other's country is relatively low. i think we can do better. there are 6600 american young people now. i think it should be three times that. there are about 25,000 japanese young people and researchers in the u.s. that number is on the decline. japan used to be number one sending of students to this country. now it is fourth. it is an area where we need to work harder. the fact we're here today means we care about the relationship. i would implore all of you to do what you can. our future depends on this. as secretary clinton described it, our goal is to create a new generation to help build even stronger bridges between our

countries in the years ahead. [applause] >> thank you very much. we have just under 20 minutes for q&a. ask three questions and identify yourself. -- ask brief questions and identify yourself. i will ask the first. i would like to ask ross -- rust to compare what you saw happening after 3/11 with what happened after kobe in 1995. that devastating earthquake was one in which there was a host of different circumstances. i am wondering if you can give your perception of whether japan did better or worse or .nchanged >

>> japan was unprepared for that kind of emergency. at the time, the governor of the prefecture wanted to keep the self-defense forces out because of his own pacifist tendencies. there were no regulations in place to allow the self-defense forces to control highways or take emergency actions. that with the sarin gas attacks help to put in place emergency legislation. the process began and continued to this day. japan was much better with the emergency response. the self-defense forces did a tremendous job. there were more than 120,000 self-defense forces mobilized

overnight to go up to the area. they did a tremendous job. not just the self-defense forces. people may criticize tepco, but the workers on the ground put their lives at risk going back into the reactor all the time. the tokyo fire department had tremendous human risk. they put water on the reactors in a horrible conditions. as others have talked about, the outrage of the japanese overall. it was a much better response. we need to be very cautious in our criticism of how japan responded because the crisis was unprecedented, a triple crisis. i think the japanese did a much better job than in 1995. they learned a lot of lessons. >> >> open it up to the audience for questions. let's start over here. >> you touched on this briefly, energy policy.

for any of the panelists, could you talk about the future of japanese energy policy? the japanese ambassador gave us some insight on public opinion toward nuclear power. how does one reconcile that public opinion with japan's [inaudible] >> it is a major challenge. one can certainly understand the public's emotions after this event. the problem has been these reactions go off-cycle every 15 months on a regular basis for testing and maintenance. as they have gone off-cycle since march 11, there were not able to come back on-cycle because local governments exercise a veto over that period is seen to be a matter of political leadership at the national and local level.

for this crisis, japan was aiming to have 50% of electricity production by nuclear by 2025. that target is gone. whatever substitutes for nuclear is going to take a long time to develop. we have to overcome these obstacles. my understanding is the new generation of nuclear power is much safer. some of the problems at fukushima would not develop under new generation nuclear power. >> one reason the crisis was not as severe as it could have been was because of voluntary reductions on the part of businesses and individuals in terms of electricity. i am not sure if it is kilowatt or megawatt hours. you can see from december 10 to december 11, it has decreased.

that is not normal economic production. you do not want to decrease. there has been a voluntary drop in usage. whether that can maintain nuclear is only providing 7.3% down from 21%, this is a significant issue there is not yet an answer to. we should recognize what sheila was saying on the social structures, this save japan from rolling blackouts and what could have been the government having to be much more heavy-handed in determining who would get electricity and who would not. other non-electricity questions, if we have any? all the way in the back. >> on the american and french side, did the government agencies -- in france, they have

what are called smart cities in lyon. this crisis -- is there more awareness and better knowledge in the u.s. about japanese technology for consumers and industry and so on? >> thank you. i am happy to take the floor. i am not sure i can answer your question effectively. one of the large pieces of learning is the extent to which the japanese social response could be imported. i am not 100% sure yet again to stand tall institutions are

learning from fukushima. there is the case about japan's future energy mix. the 2010 energy policy has been abandoned. that is the policy ambassador deming was referring to. it is not even committed to sustain current levels at 27%. there is the short-term problem of how the japanese economy gets access to its energy needs. markets,s volatile oil it is difficult. japan has turned to imports. the ability to transport level is part of the logistical challenge. the long-term question of the energy mix, the government advisory study commission report should be out in a few months. it will be massive investment in renewables. to some extent, the success of

the reform of the nuclear industry, explain carefully to local governments. my guess is the prime minister will have to go to local governments to ask for their support in turning these power plants back on. without local government support, you are not going to get nuclear energy any level in japan. i doubt you will get all 54 reactors back on line, but you must get some of them back on line to navigate short-term energy needs. >> thank you for being here. i think you all mentioned how the disasters built momentum in the relationship between the u.s. and japan. how has this helped with the

security alliance? have we gained momentum? where are we standing now? >> that is a great question. i would say in the midst of the historic pivot to asia that secretary clinton described and others have talked about, the vot would be impossible without the critical alliance we have with japan. the u.s.-japan alliance is critical to stability and security in the asia-pacific region. we need a strong japan. the united states needs a strong japan. we need a strong alliance to carry out the goals we share. the close relationship we enjoy with japan will continue to be

key to moving forward in the future. >> can i asked about the public perception of the self-defense forces after 3/11? japan has had a conflicted relationship with the military restrictions. it is called the self-defense forces. they played probably the crucial role for months. has there been any public opinion polling done to see how people look at them now? >> i saw members recently. i think 93% of those polled supported the role of the japanese self-defense forces in the recovery and rescue operations. i think the answer is a resounding yes, the japanese people have welcomed the role of them and the first

responders, those who ran in as others ran out. it does herald a new chapter in the public perception of self- defense forces. >> the very brief fallen because i agree. if you were watching the crisis in real time, one thing that was fascinating as an observer was the role of social media. people were commenting on what was unfolding in the days and months after 3/11. the social media commentary on the first responder forces was astounding. i have watched the debate on the forces and constitution and bilateral relationship. i was struck by how deeply the public appreciated the capacity of the post-war military. i think the ambassador is right to say u.s. was there to help and assist in that tremendous task. i would caution that i think

public attitudes towards the military and the combined effort to respond as not translate into base support. this is a difficult problem. it is going to be a difficult conversation. both governments have demonstrated flexibility in the discussions going forward. the overall goodwill the sense in japan toward the self-defense force may be something we should be thinking about in terms of future conversations about u.s. and japanese forces working together in the region. >> right here in the middle and then in the front. >> i am from the project 2049 institute. i appreciate your comments countering the argument that japan is turning inward. i wonder if you could make more comments about japan's global engagement and international

contribution in peacekeeping operations or development assistance and what that is looking like for the future. thank you. >> most recently, were heartened by the decision of prime minister noda to dispatch engineers to saddam -- sudan in support of work going on there. this is in addition to the golan .eights forces were sent to pakistan and haiti. this is a welcome trend with their international engagement and stepping into harm's way in support of the international committee. this is something we hope to see continue.

>> this has not got a lot of attention, but japan has gotten active in anti-piracy. a small facility with aircraft and maritime self-defense forces to help. this is unprecedented. it is a police action. it is not a military action. is another example of how japan is cooperating on issues of concern to all of us. >> a brief follow on about oda, there was a great concentration about japanese fiscal resources. at one point, people were starting to argue because oda needed to be focused at home. some strongly resisted the impulse. there was so much evidence of how much the global response to japan was due to the extent that

japan had relate -- engaged in disaster relief abroad. people raise money to give to the japanese assistance of march 11. there has been a general understanding that oda has been an asset to march post march 11 and has tremendous results around the globe not only in terms of disaster relief but in terms of japan's influence globally. >> we have three minutes left. i would like to get in one more question. appear, in the middle. -- up here, in the middle. >> i am a retired foreign service officer. one of the reason for the decline in exchanges between the u.s. and japan are reasons we have often heard. america is scary, expensive. japanese corporations do not the

value american education. what can we do to encourage more japanese to come to the united states? >> i can start that one off. right now, we have an initiative that is an attempt to build on the goodwill developed between our countries. it is a public-private partnership in which we focus on young people through things like sports exchanges, entrepreneurship training, we're encouraging young people in that area to look at the united states as a place to go and study to look fulfill their dreams post-3/11. a lot of the young people have lost their families. they see the program as a way to help fulfill their dreams and generate hope in their lives. >> we are out of time.

i would love to do more. i want to thank all of you for coming in spending time with us today. please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> if you missed any of this discussion on the japanese natural disasters, you can see it in its entirety on our website at c-span.org. the white house says it will not change its strategy or objectives in afghanistan following the shooting of 16 afghan civilians, allegedly by a u.s. soldier. the spokesman says the u.s. and nato allies are still on course to hand over security in 2014. he says the pace of withdrawal will depend on a variety of factors. he did not say whether the weekend incident would be among the factors considered. secretary of state clinton added her voice today with president obama's and leon panetta's in killed -- in condemning the killing a civilian afghans.

she called on backing the approach to ending the violence in syria. this is about 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. before i began, let me say that like many americans, i was shocked and saddened by the killings of innocent afghan villagers this weekend. we send our condolences to families who have lost their loved ones and to the people of afghanistan. this is not who we are. the united states is committed to seeing those responsible are held accountable. i have had a series of productive discussions with my counterparts focused largely on challenges and opportunities

facing a fast-changing middle east and north africa. in public and private meetings, we continued our international efforts to stop the horrific campaign of violence that continues unabated in syria. five weeks ago, we were blocked as the security council from even condemning the violence and endorsing a peaceful plan developed by syria's own neighbors. we have refused to let that stand in the way of our support for the syrian people. the united states believes in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all member states. we do not believe sovereignty offers a grant of immunity when governments massacre their own people. that threatens in the process the peace and stability we are committed to protect. how cynical it is that even as

assad was receiving kofi annan, the syrian army was conducting a andh assault on idlib continued aggression and other areas. i had a constructive conversation the russian minister. we discussed his meetings with the arab league in cairo where he agreed on the necessity of an end to violence, full humanitarian access, and a political process led by former secretary general kofi annan, and based on the terms of the arab league and u.n. general assembly resolutions. now is the time for all nations, even those who had previously blocked our efforts, to stand behind the humanitarian analytical approach spelled out by the arab league.

we should say with one voice as an international community that the killing of innocent syrians must stop and a political transition began. i was pleased to be here when week renewed and updated the u.n. support mission in libya. last year, the security council and countries around the world acted to help libya in its moment of need. today's renewal reflects our continued commitment to libya and recognition that our work to help the libyan people achieve the future they aspire toward is not finished. today we held an informal consultation of the quartet. we remain committed to the overall objectives outlined last september. we agreed to meet in april. we reiterated our support for jordanian peacemaking efforts and our call to both parties to

remain engaged and refrain from provocative actions. on behalf of the united states, condemned in the strongest terms the rocket fire from gaza into southern israel to continue over the weekend. we call on those responsible to take immediate action to end the attacks. recalling besides to make every -- we call on both sides to make every effort to restore calm. is it is no secret mideast peace is difficult work. the palestinian people like all people deserve dignity, liberty, and the right to decide their own future. they deserve a viable, independent palestinian state alongside a secure israel. we know from decades in the diplomatic trenches that the only way to get theire is throuh negotiated peace that cannot be

dictated from outside by the united states, the united nations, or anyone else. it is one we will continue to pursue forever productive avenue. with that, i will take your questions. >> good morning, secretary. this morning, did you secure any commitments or progress towards getting the elements you need for a cease-fire in getting humanitarian aid into syria? did you discuss the russian arms shipments to syria? did you ask them to stop that? >> i did appreciate the opportunity i had to discuss with the foreign minister a week after the russian elections in the week after his meeting with the arab league the way forward. i think he has heard clearly how strong the feelings are in the

region and on the security council. we expect all nations, including russia and china, to join us in pressing hte assad regime to silence its guns, allow humanitarian aid to intercom and wait -- allow humanitarian aid, and allow a transition. the alternative to our unity on these points will be bloody internal conflict with dangerous consequences for the whole region. our message is clear. it is past time for action to save lives, protect the dignity and rights of a proud people, and meet our obligations as security council members to protect peace and security. foreign minister lavrov will

take what he heard here back to moscow. we are all waiting to hear from former secretary general kofi annan as to his advice about the best way forward. we will be continuing our efforts with the other 70 plus members of the friends of the syrian people to get humanitarian aid where it is desperately needed, to tighten sanctions on assad, and strength in the planning of the opposition. we want to support the efforts of kofi annan and the arab league to end the violence, but we believe we must act soon. we're hoping after the consultation today, after the meetings in cairo, after kofi and is visit to damascus following consultations, that we will be prepared in the security council to chart a path forward.

that is what we are committed to. that is what we are hoping and expecting the russians and others to support us in doing. >> madam secretary, on afghanistan, i was wondering how events like this and the koran- burning affect diplomacy and how it might affect negotiations. >> this was a terrible, awful, i cannot even imagine the impact milies family's --fa subject to attack, and a loss of children in this terrible incident. i join with president obama, secretary panetta, and other

representatives of our government, and the american people in expressing our deepest regret and condolences. a full investigation is underway. a suspect is in custody. we will hold anyone found responsible fully accountable. we have had a difficult and complex few weeks in afghanistan. that is obvious to everyone. this terrible incident does not change our steadfast dedication to protecting the afghan people and doing everything we can to build a strong and stable afghanistan. we remain committed to the goals we and our partners have set forth. we remain committed to cooperation with the government and people of afghanistan as they strengthen their own security and improve their

democratic institutions. we recognize an incident like this is inexplicable and will cause many questions to be asked. i hope everyone understands in afghanistan and around the world that the united states is committed to seeing afghanistan continue its move toward a stable, secure and, prosperous, democratic state. the people of afghanistan deserve that. that is where we will continue to focus our efforts. go ahead. >> can you spell out your understanding of the five points agreed to between mr. lavrov and the ministers? what are the terms as you see

them, particularly related to the political process and mr. kofi annan's mission? >> we think the five points discussed in cairo are not ambiguous. they are clear in the direction we wish to head. as the foreign minister and others have said, is going to require a lot of work to put them into operation. first and foremost, the assad government has to into the violence against its own people. there's nothing ambiguous about that. there is no equivalent to that either. the monopoly on deadly violence belongs to the syrian regime. there needs to be an end to the violence and bloodshed to move into a political process.

once the syrian government has acted, we would expect others as well to cease the violence. there cannot be an expectation for defenseless citizens in the face of artillery assault to end their capacity to defend themselves before there is a commitment by the assad regime to do so. there is no question these five points must move forward. the reports we are getting from former secretary general kofi annan are that he is meeting with parties, starting with the arab league and the assad regime, to try to hammer out a way for reducing the five points as the framework. the united states is clear. there must be a cessation of violence by the syrian regime

first and foremost. then we can move toward asking others who will no longer need to defend themselves because we will be in the political process to end their own counter-violence. we want to give kofi annan the space and time to develop recommendations. we have the highest respect for him. he has a proven track record of bringing parties to resolution. our goal is to listen to it becomes back with something else that we think will work, we will be very respectful of that. thank you very much. >> secretary of state hillary clinton at the u.n. security council meeting. me but i to get your thoughts on

the situation in afghanistan on their facebook page. -- we would like to get your thoughts. facebook.com/cspan to offer your remarks. alabama and mississippi have primaries coming up tomorrow with 90 delegates at stake. the alabama republican party will have a forum with appearances by new to gingrich and rick santorum. coverage beginning at 6:30 p.m. eastern. hawaii and american samoa will be casting ballots tomorrow. live coverage rose c-span. according to the associated press, mitt romney has cornered 54 delegates. rick santorum has 217. -- mitt romney has 454 delegates. 1140 of delegates are needed for

the nomination. you can follow the count on our website, c-span.org. >> when they arrived, there was nothing here. they built their tiny cabin its bid. they did it with neighbors helping one another, not governments. >> looking back at 14 men who ran and lost for the presidency. c-span.org/thecontenders to see the menu at a lasting effect on politics. >> turning away from excessive occupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to its proper role in the world. we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. >> c-span.org/thecontenders.

>> republican congressman kevin brady is proposing legislation that would remake the federal reserve board. the proposal also gives congress control of the budget for the new consumer financial protection bureau. he spoke of the american enterprise institute. following his remarks, a panel discusses his remarks. this is about two hours. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the objective is to have policy discussions and generate dispute as much as possible. when we invite a politician, such as mr. brady to come, and ask for his ideas, we are also careful to follow those with a round table discussion that is full of people that we suspect

may be critical. we're following that tradition here today. we begin with remarks from congressman kevin brady. immediately following, we have an all-star lineup of former fed officials to discuss the merits, and lack thereof, aof his proposal. mr. brady has some prepared remarks before returning over to the round table discussion. as. lot of anchor about whether the fed should somehow come around in a back door tarp. pindar has created some kooky and ideas about moderating policy. when i heard the joint economic committee was turning to the question about how the fed

should really be reformed, and i was reassured because, again, some of the ideas of reform of the monetary system in the u.s. struck me as a cop damany but the joint economic committee -- struck me as cockamamie. iny're usually bipartisan their approach. the fact the joint economic committee was taking up the idea, or a leading member, meant something a little better than a pure gold standard. it was with great enthusiasm over the weekend when i finally got a chance to see what his remarks would be to say that the joint economic committee delivered. they presented something and we can debate whether it will work or not, but there's a lot of sound argument for it, and we will see that today.

congressman kevin brady is one of the most important politicians in washington. he is vice chairman and top republican on the joint economic committee and the gop deputy whip and the senior member of the ways and means committee. most importantly, for me, as president of the urban baseball foundation and an official of local little league, he is also a former mvp of the congressional baseball game. the plays a mean second base and surprises every year that the person of his advanced age can be so competent on the ball field still. we're delighted that mr. brady here to discuss his role of the federal reserve. we will then assembled a panel here. mr. brady. [applause]

>> thank you for your willingness to walls -- always talk about financial issues. i appreciate the american enterprise institute boasting today's forum. they are involved in such key issues on capitol hill and abroad that it is a delight to be here today. i also appreciate the panelists agree to be a part of the round table. each of you bring tremendous experiments -- experience and insight in planning the future, so thank you so much for taking time from your busy schedules. some say the 19th century belongs to the british. the 20th century belongs to the american than the 21st century, perhaps, to the chinese. well, not so fast. while there are real challenges

ahead, if we look to our economic future, economic future shoot -- washington should have one goal, ensuring that america has the world's strongest economy throughout the 21st century. to ensure the 21st century is another american century, we need to renew our commitment to what works well, the enterprise system, and what does not work well, the federal government. in the context of building a strong economic future for the next 100 years, we need to thought fully and clearly define the role of the federal reserve. in my view, the sound dollar is the surest foundation for long- term economic growth. it creates uncertainty, facilitates new business investment, and long-term job creation. the people of the federal reserve should be protecting the purchasing power by maintaining price stability. are there other fundamentals of

america that we must get right to maintain our economic standing in the 21st century? absolutely. we must also make the tax system simpler and more competitive by lowering marginal tax rates by moving to a modern territorial system and an. the distortions within our tax code that pick winners and losers in the free market. we need to achieve our goals including a safe environment and workplace, but one that is not as economically destructive. we need to allow our american companies and workers to work throughout the world.

these reforms, by themselves, will be insufficient of the federal reserve failed to maintain the purchasing power of the dollar rover time. we should determine where monetary policy should be going, what it should be doing going forward. economists broadly agree that the best way for a central bank to maximize real economic growth and job creation is to maintain stable prices over time. one need only look to the great depression of the 1930's and the great inflation of the 1970's to see that both are destruction ove. this is the goal of monetary policy, long-term price stability. 1977, congress mandated the federal reserve pursue monetary policy "suez to promote

effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." since inflationary expectations alter the rate, moderate long- term interest rates are interrelated. this is by the federal reserve is described as having a dual mandate for price stability and a maximum employment. the employment half of the dual mandate is reflected in the employment act of 1946 requiring the federal government to pursue economic policies that "promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power." it reflects the rising concerns about price inflation in the 1970's. when thinking about the federal reserve will mandate, it's important to remember an observation made by a nobel laureate economist, robert mandel come to achieve the policy outcome you must use -- must use the right policy lever.

in the fomc recently, january 25th, chairman ben bernanke and the other members recognized monetary policy is the right levers to maintain the purchasing power of the dollar and declared the inflation rate over the long run is primarily determined by monetary policy. in contrast, the fomc of knowledge it is the wrong lever by declaring the maximum level of employment is largely determined by non-monetary factors. congress delegates monetary policy to the federal reserve and should hold accountable for its conduct of monetary policy. however, it makes no sense for congress to charge the federal reserve to control what it cannot control. except in the very short term, monetary policy cannot boost real output or job creation.

instead, using monetary policy as a short-term tool to speed growth, it may actually harm the economy. ultimately, it is the president and conagra's common of the federal reserve, that controls the budgetary, tax, and regulatory policies to drive economic growth and job creation. there is no substitute. since congress gave the dual mandate for the federal reserve, governments in other countries have resigned -- revised the charters of their central banks. they give their central bank either a single mandate for price stability, as we do, or a primary mandate for price stability with other goals that clearly subordinate. among the 47 central banks and monetary authorities surveyed by the bank of international settlement, only the bank of canada and federal reserve have organizational laws that give other goals equal weight to price stability.

how should the fed pursuits' mandates? according to the staff at stanford university, the choice between a discretionary regime and a rules-based regime. a discretionary regime creates uncertainty. it relies upon the subject of assessment of central bank policymakers. in contrast, a rules based regime reduces uncertainty because it follows will establish rules based on observable economic data with the clear focus on a long-term goal. inflation targeting is a rules- based regime under which the central bank establishes a target completion rate, expressed in the terms of a broadbased price index of goods and services. its central bank tightened monetary policy when the actual inflation rate rises and loosens policy when the inflation rate falls below its target. the last four decades of u.s.

monetary policy demonstrates the advantages of a rules-based regime over a discretionary- based regime. during the 1970 proxy, there was a moving from eased to tightness and back again. this in coherence created a highly volatile real economy and high inflation. the change occurred with the appointment of paul volcker in 1979. the fomc tackled price inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply. this successful strategy with a significant step towards a rules-based monetary policy. while the economy did suffered back-to-back recessions from 1980 until november of the next year, inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, dropped dramatically from 13.3%

in 1979 to 3.8% in 1982. between 1983-2000, the great moderation, the federal reserve pursued a price stability to increasingly the rules-based policy effectively ignoring the second half of their mandate. two long economic boom resulted with very low inflation. they were interrupted only by a short, shallow recession related to the first persian gulf war. between 2005 and 2005, the fomc deviated from the successful rules-based regime would be to a discretionary regime by keeping interest rates too low for too long. this loose monetary policy contributed to the inflation of the unsustainable house and bubble that eventually triggering a global financial crisis.

since the height of the financial crisis during fall 2000, washington has increasingly relied on the federal reserve to take unusual interventions such as tripling the size of its balance sheets under qe1 and qe2 by purchasing that in the mortgage-backed securities issued by fannie, freddie, and the treasury. the open market justified these actions by invoking come up for the first time since late 2008, the employment tap of the federal reserve's dual mandate. ultimately, the open market committee took these actions to compensate, in part, for president obama's failure to pursue a pro-growth budget tax and regulatory policies. they may well continue. just as low borrowing costs are masking the pain of historically

high deficits, the monetary experimentation continues to permit the white house and congress to shirk their responsibility for creating a competitive business climate. the federal reserve's monetary experimentation of the last decade must end. congress should give the federal reserve raising remanded for price stability. the federal reserve should return three rules-based system to achieve that mandate. to provide the foundation for long-term economic growth in america, today i am unveiling the sound dollar acted that reforms the federal reserve in several important ways. specifically, it replaces the dual mandate with a single mandate for long-term price stability. it increases the fed accountability in and openness. it diversifies the federal open market committee. it insures credit neutrality for future fed purchases and

institutes congressional oversight of the consumer financial protection bureau. critics of the single mandate charge focusing on a sound dollar implies the federal reserve will somehow would ignore the employment needs of america. it is just the opposite. americans can only maximize our real economic output with long- term price stability. thus, protecting the purchasing power of the dollar provides the strongest foundation for lasting economic growth and job creation. and mandate for price stability is the federal reserve the right goal, but it does not alone in sure the federal reserve achieve price stability. bar requires the fed to move away from a regime and back to the rules-based. the fomc announced a target on

2% based on the personal consumption expenditures. i applaud chairman bernanke and other members towards a rules- based inflation-targeting regime. however, this is merely a policy that can easily be reversed. the sound dollar act would mandate the open market committee to target inflation and continues inflation targeting. actively measuring inflation is not easy. in the last decade, we clearly saw the price indexes do not record all of the price moves in our economy. and allows asset bubbles to inflate undetected. the open market committee inflation target relies upon the price index for personal come -- consumption expenditures. this index should not be the sole indicator the federal reserve uses for measuring inflation.

to identify an asset bubble before it inflates to dangerous levels, the sound dollar act requires the open market committee monitors the prices of and returns on a broad class of assets including equities, corporate bonds, state and local government bonds, agriculture, real estate, commercial, and real-estate. it insists they monitor the price of gold and foreign- exchange values of the u.s. dollar. to be clear, the sound dollar act does not prescribe any specific action that the federal reserve must take if it detects an asset bubble. the appropriate response is highly dependent upon the circumstances. it might includes a tightening of monetary policy, supervisory persuasion come and regulatory actions to reduce the flow of credit to purchases of the asset. discretion with respect to the

best response should be left to the open market committee. however, identifying and asset price bubble early may help to avoid over-investment and the malinvestment that must eventually be liquidated. let's turn for a moment to the federal open market committee. as important as they are, there is more to the u.s. economy than new york and washington. to broaden the input and increase geographic diversity, reduced the overwhelming influence of new york and washington into the open markets, the sound dollar act granted permanent seat on the fomc to every regional federal reserve bank president. currently only the governors and president of the federal reserve bank of new york have permanent seats. four of the remaining 11 rotate on and off the fomc each year.

implementing this change restore the regional intent of congress to establish the fed as representative of a broad cross- section of america's diverse economy. i am also firmly committed to the independence of the federal reserve in conducting monetary policy. that is why i am particularly troubled by the fomc decision of september 2011 to reinvest the proceeds from maturing federal agency dead into new federal agency debt instead of allowing the holdings to decline as originally intended. this policy reverse happened amid pressure from special interest groups to support the ailing housing market. when the fomc deals in securities other than treasuries, we reverse purchase agreements and the federal reserve is allocating credit

among different sectors of our economy. credit allocation expose of the federal reserve to political interference. to maintain the independence of the federal reserve and to ensure credit neutrality, the sound dollar act requires the fomc to deal only in treasurys, repose, and reverse repos unless the fomc finds an exit and circumstance exists. -- exigent circumstance exists. so long as this will be liquidated within five years after the unusual circumstance. looking ahead to the next crisis, it's important to know -- note in its nearly one century of existence, the federal reserve has never articulated its lender of last

resort policy. the comments of allan meltzer descibes this. there are three unfortunate circumstances. uncertainty increases. no one knows what will be done. troubled firms have a stronger incentive to seek a political solution that they ask congress for the administration for support or pressure other agencies to save them from failure. third, repeated rescues encourage banks to take greater risks and increased leverage. this is a well-known moral hazard problem. each of these problems became manifest in 2008. to avoid these problems in the future, the sound dollar act requires the reserve to publish its lender of last resort policy. we do not expect a precise tactical plan, as president dwight d. eisenhower observed, plans never survive the first

battle. were planning is essential to victory. in the same way, while the federal reserve cannot anticipate every nuance of the next financial crisis, publishing a lender of last resort policy will reduce future market uncertainties. next, i want to applaud chairman bernanke to increase transparency in decision making, but there is an additional step the federal reserve should take. the sound dollar act increases the release of transcripts from five years down to 3. some critics claim this acceleration would inhibit free discussion at fomc meetings. if that is the case, then perhaps we need different fomc members. a three-year lag will allow congress to review these fomc transcripts before the fed chairman is reconfirmed, which is after the deliberations of

the day. in another reform, the sound dollar act eliminates the slush fund that has been abused by secretaries of the treasury in both republican and democratic administrations. to prevent future abuse, my measure would transform the exchange stabilization fund, liquidate all of the assets over three years, and use the proceeds to reduce federal debt. as you may remember, in 1934, congress placed the profits own the gold and devaluation of the dollar into the exchange stabilization fund and authorized its use to intervene in foreign-exchange markets for a fixed exchange rates. in 1968, congress put rights on it, issued by the international monetary fund, into the exchange stabilization fund. after the system collapsed in

1971, the treasury has used assets in the fund for purposes the congress never intended, such as bailing out mexico and guaranteeing money market mutual funds in 2008. the sound dollar act ends this. finally, dodd-frank funded the consumer credit for protection bureau by diverting profits which would otherwise be paid the treasury. this is a dangerous precedent. nothing other than the operating costs should be paid for out of its profits. the sound of dollar act requires that the consumer financial protection bureau seeking annual appropriations from congress just as other federal agencies do. in the end, there is no justification not to. to conclude, it is appropriate

that we have this discussion and debate about the fed's role in the future of our economy. on this day, in 1933, 24 hours after he became president, franklin d. roosevelt ordered the banks closed, banned the export of gold, to stop a growing panic as the depression intensified, and called on respect for a special session. this is a historic day and reminder that we should focus on not be reactive results and actions but the strong proactive rules by which we want them to operate. to ensure america as thoughtfully prepared for the challenges ahead, the sound dollar act proposes the best path to help the united states retain its economic pre- eminence by preserving the purchasing power of the u.s. dollar. it does so by giving the federal reserve raising the mandate for price stability and strengthening the fed's

independence even as this increases the fed to accountability. these reforms, i believe, are critical to ensuring that the 21st century is coming indeed, another american century. with that, thank you. [applause] >> i will be glad to take your question that this time. >> mr. brady, will you stay around? >> i will. >> please wait for the microphone and identify yourself. >> i'm a student at george washington university. i have a question about the guarantee of money-market funds that you just mentioned during the financial crisis. do you think that was an inappropriate policy to take or that the way it was taken was what was wrong? >> there is debate about what

the appropriate actions were to take in the middle of a financial crisis. my point is the federal reserve should not be taking those actions by themselves using those dollars reserve for other purposes and there ought to be a function and discussion with congress and lawmakers. >> i'm from "the weekly standard." what the political future for this bill? you see this being a bipartisan agreement? what do you see? can you see the president signing this bill into law? >> i would like to see a bipartisan effort. i do not see the president signing this bill. i think this is a long-term discussion on the role the federal reserve will have to play. it we want to compete in being the most harmful economy, this has reforms included in it but i think not only laid the strongest foundation for jobs

growth for america going forward, but it create certainty in the accountability and openness that will allow the market to match and maximize what it can do. i think those are goals that could be embraced by both republicans and democrats, and our goal in introducing legislation is to start a thoughtful debate in what role we want the fed to play. we will begin seeking sponsors starting today. on the way over here, we got a notice from scott garrett, one of the leaders of the financial- services committee, that he will be a key sponsor of this legislation. we will start to grow it from here. >> i'm from the peterson institute. you talked about requiring a two-thirds vote for the federal reserve to purchase assets besides treasuries.

currently, they are limited really to only agency- guaranteed insurance. but with the two-thirds vote, would your bill allow them to move into other assets such as corporate bonds or equities? or would you limited just to regencies? what about the foreign exchange fund? does this mean they would not be allowed to buy foreign exchange or would not require a two- thirds vote? >> we want the fed have the flexibility to respond to unusual circumstances so we give them the flexibility to do that. the two-thirds vote seems to be the fair standard where a circumstance could certainly create that type of support and reach that standard. robert, as to the limited ability or banning the ability of the fed to get involved in foreign exchange rates?

>> the treasury's ability to get involved [inaudible] >> thank you. good question. >> karen johnson, consoles and economist. -- consult. you mentioned asset price bubbles along with consumer prices and referred to such things as real estate prices, equities, the price of gold. rightly, if there were a way to identify and asset price bubble early and deal with it, it would be a good thing. does the proposed legislation make compare rouble -- consumer goods prices, but the prices now, are they minted by some extension or is very difficult

problem in figuring out and asset price of bubble or is it not addressed? >> it is more a monitoring and reporting function for the fed. he would be looking at those asset prices and the potential of a bubble and would be sharing those thoughts with congress as it moves forward. the hope of being, obviously, if there's an opportunity to detect early on an asset bubble that you can make the move is necessary to deflate that before we have another serious financial crisis going forward. it really is an effort to try and raise the profile of the potential bubbles within the fed and also within congress as well. >> hello. ed king, the observatory group. you mentioned in your remarks that during the great moderation the fed did not put much weight or ignored the employment part of the mandate, but if you look at their behavior during the

conference is in the early 1990's when the fed did cut rates and kept them pretty low during the early stages of that recovery, which was also considered a jobless recovery, to the fed really ignore the jobless -- the job portion of the mandate? >> there were a lot of monetary factors going on at the same time that affected the economy. my belief is that, going forward, the experimentation we're seeing today has clearly mixed results. when the fed focuses on preserving the purchasing price of the dollar come naturally focuses on inflation and guarding against deflation, it really does create a very solid foundation going forward. we do not, i do not intend to downplay the role of employment

in our economy. i just know if the fed does rule correctly on price stability what could follow, with the right business climate, is the strongest economy going forward. to look toward what role we want them to play of the next 100 years, or however a long term you're looking at, that sets the strongest foundation and sets the table for potential growth. >> consulting economist. as you think about a price stability objective, do you think about it in terms akin to what i perceive to be a forward- looking inflation rate target, or do you see it more in terms of what economists would call a price-bubble target select errors were made in one direction they would be made up

in the other over time? >> my thought as long term. i think it creates the strongest foundation. obviously there are lots of questions about the 2% rate, for example. is 2% over the long term permissible every year? over time, quickly, it changes the value of the dollar. there are a lot of questions remaining about the 2% rate. iamb thinking long term that provides a strong foundation. >> i retired from the imf. much of the non-traditional activities of the fed in 2008- 2009 had to do with structural weaknesses in the distribution of liquidity. much of the activity it was not

through open market operations but through lending, a very non- traditional counterparts. it seems to me a lot of this flows from the primary dealer system, which makes no sense whatsoever in an economy like the united states. this is a structural weakness in terms of how liquidity is delegated. i assume your bill does not address that, but it seems to be an important structural elements in by the fed went so far afield from its traditional approach. >> not being an economist, my thinking is that the bill addresses this in two ways. i really do believe having a lender of last resort policy articulated pubs at least define the rules going forward in those financial crises. as you know, there's a big difference between lending to an insolvent institution and lending to one that is simply

illiquid. in the financial crises, the lines were pretty quickly. any work and thought we could put in ahead of that potential crisis put this in a better position to make good decisions during that crisis. we sort of looked at it from that direction. >> i would like to ask about the greek bailout. do you think congress is going to go through with this? what will the cost be? will you actually stop at? inas far as the fed's role swapping currency with europe? i would not want to predict what the actions of congress would be in that area. i know the interest is growing about what the u.s.'s role is in currency swaps and those types of actions. also, i think there's a much higher level of interest about

the role of europe and their economy being tied to the u.s. obviously, we have a great deal of banking and financial relationships. they by no one out of every $4 we trade over the world. if we were flying at 50,000 street -- feet strong and steady, turbulence is not a problem. that portion of the global economy has sunk in in a major way with policy-makers but it has not yet moved to what we think are fed should play, what role the fed should play in all of it, but i know we're watching it intensely. thank you very much, kevin. >> we appreciate it. [applause] i would ask the panelists to now come forward and i commend mr.

brady to stand up here in front of guys like these and take their hard questions. we will begin in a few seconds. ok. we now turn to the nerdy part of our program. [laughter] for those of you that follow fed policy over the last decade, and i guess i do mean decades now. you will know that we have an astonishing all-star lineup of a key influential former fomc members and former fed staffers and a key fed staffers to discuss this issue. since we have a television audience and they do not have access to the biographies, i will read this, which is a

little stilted for me, but that is what will help the people at home. our first speaker, and i will introduce them one at a time and let them speak for 5-6 minutes or so and then we will open up the general conversation. our first speaker is donald kohn, a senior fellow at the brookings institute in the former vice chairman of the federal reserve, an expert on monetary policy and macroeconomics. he advised ben bernanke to read the 2008-2009 financial crisis and served as a key adviser to former fed chairman alan greenspan. he is a 40-year veteran of the federal reserve system. he was an advisor to the board of monetary policy, secretary of the fomc, director of the division of monetary affairs, and deputy staff director for monetary and finance policy, and a few more junior positions. he has written extensively on these issues.

don. >> thank you kevin. thank you to both kevin's actually. think of the opportunity to read your proposed legislation and for the opportunity to comment. this is a very welcome effort. in my opinion, this is a constructive way to respond to concerns about past and potential future performance of the federal reserve. this will open of the debates on objectives, the optimal central banking, which is often thought of as elected representatives giving the central bank objectives and the central bank having considerable independence to move their instruments around to achieve those objectives. then be held accountable for achieving them. i will concentrate on the monetary policy aspects of the

legislation and i can get into the others later. a lot of what i say is on title i. i certainly agree that long-term price stability is the appropriate long-term goal of a central bank and it is a gold under the control of the central bank. over the long run, full maximum employment is an estimate given market structures, not something under the control of the central bank and, over the long run, price stability is the way the central bank can contribute to a maximum employment. chairman bernanke, in fact, has spoken about price stability as an end and as a means to an end, meaning the means to an end of high and unemployment, so he would completely agree with that. i also agree that credit-fuelled asset bubbles have undermined economic and price stability. we had a banking crisis and that was certainly true a few years

ago. the federal reserve would agree, but with those o characterization's, the have been reflected in speeches, testimonies, and in the most recent statement of principles. reflecting that recognition by the federal reserve, inflation outcomes in the united states have not been distinguishable from out comes in inflation targeting countries over the last five, 10, 15 years both in the levelland and variability of inflation. the reserve has been focusing on inflation forecasts to a considerable extent than has been engaging in explicit and implicit targeting. inflation cpi has been 2.2%, less than the u.k., less than new zealand, and a few tense more than sweden. the u.s. cpi has been 2.4%. the

same as new zealand, and only a little higher than the u.k. and canada. the standard deviation has been roughly the same as in most of these other countries. some countries with inflation targeting, low and stable inflation, have seen considerable booms, the united kingdom, parts of the eurozone, and concerned about canada right now. most inflation targeting countries have it explicit in their mandate that the central bank, while pursuing price stability, first and foremost will also come within that context, minimize fluctuations of incumbents and employment around full employment. there is no longer run conflict. fluctuations in output hurt

business planning. it makes it hard if you do not know what your output is going to become so there's no reason why is central bank cannot pursue full employment or minimize the fluctuations rmbs demands a full employment around the same time. adding uncertainty about the purchasing power of iran comes in terms of goods and services including the cost of imports and housing services, every inflation target, at least that i am aware of, is in terms of the cpi and does not add in asset prices, perc se. a number of the metrics put forward in the bill have a similar flavor come a difficult

judgment, overriding private markets, and capital allocation. at the same time, it's certainly true that capital allocation distortion can get in the way of long-term pricing and economic stability of, as we have seen, in my view, the first line of defense against those kinds of distortions, should be regulations be prudential. my bottom line on title i, the objective, is that it's ok to conform the legislative mandate to a common understanding of the hierarchy of goals, but that's already been done by the fed in words and action did it would not have made any difference, in my view, on monetary policy in the last 30 years, including the last few, and including the future as well. the federal reserve should be instructed to attempt to stabilize output around full

employment. pursuing both price stability and minimizing fluctuations around output, the federal reserve should pay attention to implications of perceived distortions in capital allocation assets for financial stability. the federal reserve should include its assessment of these in its semiannual reports to congress and it should tell congress what distortions it sees, what problems it sees, and what the regulators, or whomever, or the congress, or the federal reserve, should do about it. i think all those elements should be there, but i'm not sure -- well, those elements should be there. let me comment to bid on some of the other titles touching on monetary policy. the federal reserve presidents on the fomc, they do bring very valuable and avers perspectives to the policy process. i think it is wonderful that

they each have their own research departments and they are not dependent upon the board's staff for their views. we can see in their public speeches, and i can assure you there is quite a diversity inside the fomc expressed by the president's and the governments. the open market committee is already an anomaly in the u.s. system. it has people sitting on it making important public policy decisions that do not go through the constitutional process of appointment by the president and confirmation by the senate. i am concerned about the democratic legitimacy and support for the institution over time if all the open market -- if all presidents were given a vote. we're putting privately appointed officials outside the constitutional structure to be a majority in critical policy- making body diminishing the authority of the president and the senate.

the reserve bank presidents are not accountable to congress. i'm concerned putting them on the committee could undermine support for federal reserve independence over time. you may like the current policy of the president, but that could change over time. if the concern is "groupthink ," we could think of ways to attack this and get a better variety of people on the board. title iv was on transcripts. trimming years from 5 to 3, they have already had a bad effect on deliberations. there is less give-and-take mls testing of ideas, more prepared statements that do not compare to before 1994 that do not really respond very well to other people's views. i think the federal reserve should come first and foremost, be held accountable for the

results for the actions and how they are explained to relate to the results for the rationale and because of the lag in policy. if the federal reserve needs to explain why it's doing what it's doing and how it's expected to affect results in the future of and if they are not up the park, congress has every right to examine the process of why things went wrong and the processes need to change. holding people accountable for the way they argue, the words they use leading up to the decision, in my mind, will only dampen the results and have more posturing and less optimal over time. finally, results rather than were the leading to results. on the agency purchases, i completely agree with the sentiment behind that particular title.

agency purchases are usually undesirable and we should return three treasury-only focus as soon as consistent with achieving congressional goals for the federal reserve. the open market committee agrees with that, also. it has been made clear elliotts minutes and various announcements. i have two points of concern about the current wording. i would not use this word which ties it to these decisions. by this particular choice of words? i would tie this back to title i. we, the congress, when you dealing only in treasury securities unless you think it is necessary to achieve the objectives of this piece of legislation asking for a report about why you think it is necessary, which is perfectly appropriate to me, as well. tie this back to the objectives of the legislation.

i would not dictate the timing of the unwinde. i would tie this back the title i, an amount as soon as possible by violating the instrument independence. you could ask for a special section for a semi-annual report as long as the agency's brown standing in saying why they were there. thank you. >> thanks. our next speaker is alfred broaddus is served as president from 1993-2004. he served as a member of the fomc. he held a variety of positions in his career with the bank including director of research. he's a member of the economic advisory panel from the fed bank of new york. he is currently a director of several incorporations and is a

member of the board of visitors on virginia commonwealth and a number of other boards. i could keep going. he will now tell us if monetary policy would be better if he got to vote more. >> i'm not sure i will do exactly that. it's a pleasure to be here, kevin, and produce paid in this program. for most of my career, i have either been working at the fed, or since then over the last eight years or so, observing it. richmond is only about 100 miles south of d.c. i have seen a lot of proposed legislation. congressman, i applaud you for this proposal. i have some fairly strong reservations about pieces of it, but what i would like people to take away is that by and large it's a very important proposal and i salute you for making it. i thought what i might do is

just to go through each of the titles very briefly. most movie reviews then i see, you have a star rating system. if it gets five stars, that's outstanding. a great movie. one stark, that's a much weaker, a lousy movie. i thought i would share my star rating for every title. i hope it does not sound arrogant, but just my way of giving a clear bottom line about from my perspective as a former reserve bank president, not in new york or richmond, but look at these elements. i have many of the same thoughts that don did. this would replace the current dual mandate with the single objective of price stability. i would give this title five stars. i think it would be great if we could go there. i certainly recognize the

political imperative over the years for a dual mandate it. it never really made sense to me for a central bank. the economics seem clear to me. we've already heard this year to date. the fed come and other central banks, cannot directly influence and control the time, price level, output, jobs, in any meaningful way. i do not think many of us are persuaded. we believe persistent price stability would do a lot to maximize growth in jobs and output over time. a single mandate focused on price stability seems to be optimal for monetary policy and i salute you, congressman brady, for proposing a. i need to confess some discomfort with the right up by was sent on this title referring to "metric evaluation," which

would require the fed to monitor various asset prices, foreign-exchange values of the dollar. monitoring, for example, foreign exchange rates would be ok as long as it is strictly monitoring. there should be a supplement to evaluating the behavior of the conventional price indices. i think the point to the question karen made as relevant. what would worry me is that the monitoring may warp into something different that could eventually be focused on, if not actively targeting something like it, but if that were to occur, that would undermine some of the value of the price stability mandate. nonetheless, five stars to the overall title of the display of your reservations due to the current dual mandate, intentionally or not, undermines the ability of the fed to

conduct what i think of as optimal monetary policy. title ii regarding not the fed articulating a lender of last resort policy gets three stars from me. i understand the motive here in light of recent events, particularly the differential treatment of bear stearns and lehman brothers on the other. i given only three stars because, frankly, i do not think the problem is unclear lender of last resort policy. it has a policy that come to me, is reasonably clear. it gives help to solvent banks. the problem is to obtain good credibility for the fed to follow the policy to be allowed by the rest of the government to follow the follow that policy in prices. the solution seems to be for congress to establish some kind of specific fiscal process so if

the government decides it is in the public interest to bail out some institutions, somebody other than the fed will do the bailey. this is a big topic, and i will leave that. title threet is the one that would make all fed bank presidents permanent voting members of the fomc. as a former bank president, i have an emotional appeal to this as i look back on my years at the table. it makes me feel i easy and a little this oil to the banks to give this title only two starts, and i have concern. the basic issue is at some level the fomc legitimacy. for the fomc to be fully the to and the -- fully to the but, as

a practical matter and the members of the voting must be confirmed by the senate. the enactment would require all bank presidents. that would probably mean as many as of 2 threet reserve banks would not have a president. vacancies, if governors are any indication, you might have extended vacancies. these are big institutions that have to be run, and that is not helpful. the way i see it, you guys have enough gridlock down here, and i do not want to create an opportunity that would involve the reserve bank presidents. i do not think you need to do

this to achieve diversity on the fomc. that was not my experience. i do not think it is too much of a problem. all the non-voting president at 10 all the meetings and participate fully in the discussions. if a bank president does their homework, they could be influential even if they do not have the votes. i remember many meetings where i did not know who had the votes. with the disclosure procedures now, which were not there when i was there, there is so much media attention on a not voting presidents as well as voting presidents that they have an opportunity to put their views forward. that is my view on that. would require the

release of transcripts within three years. i would go to three. five may be better, but not for exactly the same reason. if you go to threet, a lot of the focus will be what somebody said in a recent past, that could mess up discussion. looking forward, i come now equivocal on this. i would be fine with three . if you need to go there to have enough transparency to ensure the transparency -- the credibility, i will not go there. i will give four stars if we are pushing for transparency. the motive is great, and it is a

good thing. title 5 addresses the relationship of monetary policy to the guy you of the dollar. the second part puts a fence around the stabilization fund, which is currently vulnerable to misuse and abuse. to the extent that the fund can be used for rescue passage -- packages, it has the potential for damage to the fed credibility. the first part would require the fed to report to congress how its policy is influencing the value of the dollar. that sounds innocent enough. for many of us who lived to the long process of establishing credibility for a low inflation and price stability, that is the goal of monetary policy, this smells like another mandate

sneaking through the back door, which could undercut credibility the mandate for price stability is trying to achieve. i confess to some paranoia here, i get this particular element of that title only one star. if a congressman wants to know how the fed feels, monetary policy is affecting the value of the dollar, asked the chairman. do not make a formal requirement. title 6 addresses what my colleague at the richmond fed calls fit credit policy. actions that can affect macro credit allocations. as i read it, it would permit such actions by the fed in unusual and exigent circumstances. i would think of it as a

monumentally nebulous term. as i understand it, would be determined by 2/3 vote of the fomc. even with this position, the committee could take actions that might seem constructive and urgent at the time, like buying back securities, which over time could be undermined its independence. at a minimum i would hope if the fed is going to continue to be engaged in these types of operations, they should require -- of some fiscal authorities. i give this title 3.5 stars for addressing this issue, and for recognizing it explicitly. title 7 would require congress to fund the consumer protection financial bureau. five stars, no question. summing up, i think the sound

dollar pact would be constructive legislation with a few tweaks along a line. i would give it a weighted average of 4 overall, maybe 4.5, because of the considerable weight i give to the main feature, the single price stability mandate. i would love to see at least some of these elements that you have proposed to become law. thank you very much. >> i will give that presentation 5 stars. the next speaker will be nathan sheets. he is helping lead a firm with a focus on coordinating international forecasts. his research focuses on global themes. mr. sheets work at the reserve board for 18 years in a variety of positions until august of last year.

he served as the director of the division of international finance. he served as an economist on a committee. mr. sheets represented the federal reserve act many international meetings. from 2006 until 2007, he worked as an advisor to the u.s. executive director at the imf. he worked on a range of issues, including approaches to resolving financial crises. he has lots of academic research, too. nathan? >> i am very happy to be here today to discuss these important proposals to reform the federal reserve. i will focus my remarks on four key features of the act, and it is fair to say that i am less than enthusiastic.

even so i see these proposals as being very constructive and helpful, and very serious proposals that deserve to be carefully considered and debated. first, given the balance of the academic evidence, i agree if we were establishing an entirely new central bank for some country or currency union, there would be a good case for at least considering a single price stability mandate. indeed, the euro area countries did this in the 1990's and adopted a price stability mandate for their central bank. united states is not establishing a sink -- a central bank, so we must consider whether a quantum change in the mandate actually passes the cost-benefit task. i have concerns in this regard. first, i think the federal reserve's rec achieving price stability over the past decade

has been strong. second come as a practical matter, the central banks, whatever their mandates, must respond to the evolution of economic activity. actual differences in central bank policies have been less stark. for example, the bank of england come up with a single mandate particularly aggressive in its quantitative easing per gram, not withstanding the fact of inflation. i also doubt that present circumstances with millions of u.s. workers unemployed or underemployed are an opportune time to shift the focus away from the objective of full employment. the dual mandate strikes me as powerful and appropriate. i agree that the central bank cannot directly influence the long run level of employment in the economy. when they are slashing the economy, the policy can have a significant effect on how

quickly the economy returns to full employment. that consideration looms quite large at the present. another part of the bill proposes to shift the composition of the fomc to include all 12 of the reserve bank presidents. this would be closely aligned with the european model, where all national central bank governors representing individual country constituencies vote at meetings. i see the important underlying question being how to balance the public vs. private aspects of federal workers -- reserve governance, and both of these are desirable and important. on the one hand i share the view that reserve bank presidents bring voluble geographical diversity to the fomc deliberations. on the other hand, the board members who now vote at every meeting have strong political standing and they are nominated

by the president and confirmed by the senate. this is a policy choice how to balance the private versus public nature of the federal reserve. another observation, and i think it leaps out from the published trent scripps, is the voting and non-voting fomc participants are treated in an entirely symmetric way during fomc meetings, each having identical opportunities to report on developments in their districts, ask questions, state their views. as such i see the proposed reform as unlikely to change the underlying dominicks -- dynamics of discussions, and frankly, i'm likely to change the policy decisions. although, with a larger voting committee, there would be more issent.-- desc

i agree the art of central bank is about striking an appropriate balance between discussion. much of the literature on this topic has concluded that the political process should establish the goals and objectives for monetary policy, namely said -- the central bank's mandate, but bankers should have flexibility to choose the instrument and approaches they will use to achieve those objectives. more generally, from my observation, after watching the banks around the world for billy policy during the crisis, and over much longer horizons, it is those central banks with operational flexibility, including the capacity to use a broad set of tools and instruments to influence policy, have been most effective. as such, i am in favor of pre planning, and i am uneasy about proposals who tend to limit the range of assets in which the fed

transacts. finally, this is the key point, by my reckoning the dollar plus performance over the past decade has been quite sound. in terms of the value against goods, we have seen inflation at 2.25% of the past decade. this deviation reflects a secular rise in oil and other commodity prices. court inflation -- core inflation is at about 1.9% over last decade. against major currencies, the dollar has been on a depreciating trend, but that is unsustainable rises recorded in the late 1990's. i see the body of the dollar as

in line with deeper considerations regarding the sustainability of u.s. trade and current account balances. the u.s. current account deficit has narrowed to 3% of gdp in recent years, which means the u.s. economy is closer to a position of the external balance. during the height of a financial crisis, we saw massive inflows into u.s. treasuries, indicating the dollar retains its status as a safe haven currency. by a related point, my experience at the treasury and the reserve have a very effective relationship in managing the dollar, including the drafting of public statements and decisions regarding intervention in foreign-exchange markets, which happens rarely. the treasury brings enormous expertise to bear on such issues, including a deep understanding of political,

geopolitical, and diplomatic landscapes. as such i believe there are distinct benefits in having the treasury deeply involved and taking the lead up on such issues. all told, i see these proposals contained in the bill as important and very substantive. in my view, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of this legislation to make the case these reforms will lead to better monetary policy and stronger economic outcomes for the united states. >> thanks. our next speaker will be steve oliner. in the interest of diversity, we decided to record an economist who is reasonable. welcome. he is a resident scholar the

federal reserve board. he has filled a number of high- level positions, most recently with research and statistics. his research has spanned a wide range of topics, including capital spending, commercial real estate. he is a dizzying scholar at the u.s. -- ucla simon center for real-estate. >> thank you, kevin. i am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this panel, and i would like to congratulate congressman brady for starting what is an important discussion about the status of the fed and the conduct of monetary policy that will extend far beyond today's back discussion. i did not come up with a starke

rating, but my overall assessment of the bill is probably more in line with nathan's than with al's. i am probably within the 3- starke range -- -- three-star ranger. -- range. on the single mandate, i think the more important thing is whether there is an explicit inflation target than what the specific mandate is. the fed now has an explicit inflation target. even before, the fed was implicitly and inflation carter. the paper of the fed has not been seriously constrained in

terms of establishing low and stable inflation by the tool mandate. i do not think changing that dual mandate will have an effect on the inflation performance of this economy. they had made the point that the actual behavior of central banks is a lot more similiar around the world. the inflation-targeting central banks, than their mandate are. i would like to mention there is research that has compared that behavior of the fed to the ecb and the behavior of the fed to the bank of england. the other two banks have hierarchical mandates in that the first goal is plight -- price stability, and subject meeting that goal if they are instructed pay attention to other conditions. the research i have seen suggests the actual responsiveness of the fed and those other banks to

fluctuations in output and inflation is very similar. this suggests it is not really the mandate language that is driving behavior. it is the notion that stable low inflation is an important goal. i would say if there is a desire to change the tool mandate, i would not change it to the single mandate that is in that bill now that makes no mention of what the fed pause shorter- run objective is supposed to be. something more like the hierarchical mandate that a number of other central banks have would be an informant of mandate. on the second title about the lender of last resort policy, i found this section to be confusing, and it is confusing because it is written as if the dodd-frank act did not exist.

specifically, the act in section 11 01 requires any program be for the civic purpose of providing liquidity in a broad-based program and not take a a specific and single company. a bailout of aig would already be prevented by this provision of dodd-frank. and, it requires collateral be sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses. it prohibits the fed from borrowing -- it requires the fed to terminate lending programs in an orderly fashion. it requires the fed to establish policies in consultation with the treasury department that

would conform with these requirements. the fed has been working on these policies and procedures. they're not finished. i spoke to a few people at the fed over the past several days. they are and the works. they are well along, but not finished. the uncertainty is whether the fed intends to release these new regulations to the public. the legislation is not completely clear on this point, and i expect it will be made public, but i do not know for sure. the first step would be for the congress to make sure that these policies that are going to be governing lending programs are going to be made public. that is the most important thing. the question is, what more is necessary and what more is envisioned by this legislation that would be needed to provide a full lender of last resort statement? i could not tell from the act the way it is currently worded.

the next title about getting reserve bank presidents a permanent vote on the fomc -- this sounds reasonable, but i agree with al and don that it would make the fomc less accountable and subject to concerned about decisions being made by the majority that has not been reviewed by the congress. i would suggest not going in this direction. if the desire is to shift the balance of power away from washington and new york toward the other representatives, one way this could be done -- i am not throwing this out as something other than just thinking through an issue -- which peaked to change the voting orientation rules for the fomc. five presidents get to vote at every fomc.

this was devised in 1942. these rules are anomalous. they allow the new york fed to vote at every meeting. chicago and cleveland vote every other year. all the other banks vote every three years. it is not clear why those rules are still relevant in the modern economy we have today, and in particular, if one wants to make sure there is broad representation of the american electorate in the fomc, it is not clear what a district like san francisco that has 20% of the u.s. population votes as often as the president of the minneapolis fed, which has six times less u.s. population. there are anomalies that could be dealt with, and one possibility would be to include new york as part of aphotic rotation group so it does not " every meeting.

and to try to rationalize the whole rotating scheme which i think is due for another look. on the release of transcripts, i would not move this to be every three years. the basic premise behind -- behind the change is wrong, and that is that the earlier release would enhance understanding of decisions and the outlook for the economy. i think that is not true. the fomc provides a great deal of information about monetary policy. there is an fomc statement after each meeting. there are detailed minutes of each meeting, released three weeks after each meeting. there are quarterly forecasts of gdp creuse, inflation, and now the outlook for the part that federal funds rate. the chairman gives out quarterly press conferences. he gives congressional testimony, and there is a report, and there are frequent

speeches by fomc members that give their views on economic outlook. participants understand well the fomc's rationale for its decisions long before transcripts are released. moving that date to three years is not going to change the fact that almost everything that was needed to be known about what motivated fomc decisions have already been known. on the exchange-rate issue, this is not an area where i am an efer to so i will d others. credit allocation, i am uncomfortable with constraints that would be placed on the asset purchases under this part of the act. i would agree with don that the fomc is uncomfortable holding significant non-treasury assets on its balance sheet and would like to go back to an all-

treasury portfolio as soon as possible. i would not write that into law in the way it is here, and not with the unusual bar for conducting these purchases, because that is an extremely high bar that the fed has really used to characterize his rations when markets were disrupted, when they were not working properly. there can be significant circumstances in which asset purses could be a corporate -- purchases could be appropriate, there could be used when there is chronic weakness in the economy. i'm not sure fomc would feel comfortable declaring circumstances were accident or unusual based on chronic weaknesses. on the consumer financial

protection funding act, i fully agree with what is in this bill. the production bureau should be funded through explicit congressional appropriations. it was an egregious that it was ever found that out of the fed's budget, and that should be changed. >> thank you very much, steve. we will open it up for questions from the floor. i have a couple questions. i do not buy that argument that if congress passes this law, it lets the regional fed presidents vote, then that will undermine orgress'support of the fed, that it could. i wonder, there are lots of ways to pursue that, but let me try this one. suppose in addition some other nod the direction of

congressional approval for fed presidents accompanies this, so maybe fed presidents had to be confirmed. i suppose also, because i want to export diversity, that we were comfortable in the confirmation would happen. that is factual. there seems to be there is not an argument about having reached the president bowed. i would wonder if you agree with that assertion. >> my answer would be yes, but the problem is the -- as a practical matter, it would be difficult for me to see how this would not involve an intrusion of political considerations into this process that would be problematic. if there were some way for congress to do this without the kinds of issues that i see -- in

other contexts, then fine. my position on this is mainly the practical one of how it would function and the kinds of difficulties that would lead to. >> i agree with al. if you wanted to put the presidents through, confirmation by the senate, it would be one thing, but i would restructure the system to go down five presidents that always had a vote, but give them the external members of the monetary policy committee in the bank of england, make sure they had their own regional research staffs, etc., but the appointments process is so broken -- >> so compress all of a sudden can change all. the fact they can change the law

is relevant in deciding what the optimal lot is today. if congress sees something bad happened, they can change the rule again. >> things are already happening. >> there have been two vacancies for years and years. >> there is no hypothesis that the fed has all the support right now. i do not view it right there. if congress decides this is an act that restores its confidence in the fed, then arguing against it because congress will undermine the confidence in the fed seems odd to me. that is what i am saying. >> i am thinking longer term. this congress can make a decision, but we need people to be supportive of the federal reserve over decades, and to the extent the people see the private interests represented on the boards of directors of the federal reserve, the reserve

board having more influence, and the people they vote for, the trust -- the president having less influence strikes me as not being a good idea. >> kevin, you have been out of the fed for eight years. one thought occurs. one of the byproducts of the greater transparency has banned increased media attention -- has been increase be attention. the president's are much more -- the presidents are much more visible. to a national audience, these guys are being injured -- interviewed on bloomberg. one thing that could be done is for congressional committees in one way or another to bring these people before a committee, if you have something to ask a

group of presidents. that only happened once in all the years i was on. good luck to you, sir. >> i give back five stars. -- i give that five stars. [laughter] >> that would be a halfway measure if congress is not convinced it is a good idea. >> using it both ways in a way that was inconsistent. everybody is saying, the single mandate, we do not need to do that. that has not been universally true in the history of the fed. i think i agree with al, that the mandate in that direction is a solid idea because it will make policy more predictable in

the long run. i will open it up to questions from the floor. >> it is important to have an explicit inflation target. the evidence internationally shows countries that had pork inflation performance adopted a target that had a much more -- much improved inflation performance. you do not need to have a single mandate in order to achieve that good performance. you need to have an inflation target and you need to be accountable. i would focus more on accountability than i would on the mandate. >> if i could just make one comment here. i sense a little flavor of this today, when one talks about a single price stability mandate, what is on many people's minds, inflation, and the risk of inflation. there is not so much focus on

deflation. one of the things that has bothered me the most in recent years has been so much criticism of what are sometimes called the fed boss unusual -- fed's unusual actions. people think about job promotion and shoring up growth. to me, i would support most of these actions, maybe not all of them, because i believe there was a deflation risk in the early 2000's. the chairman has been motivated in taking many of these actions by an effort to do that. it seems to me a price stability mandate that is singular and phyllis guest -- and focused gets rid of that problem. >> i am very much concurring

with the point that steve is making, that the science of central banking, so to speak, the emphasis on accountability, the underlying analytics that drive policy, i see there being broad convergence as to the way the banks reacting to various kinds of shocks across the world. my deepest concern about this proposal, particularly with respect to the price stability mandate, is we are in a place right now where the economy is far from equilibrium. i am worried it could be a while until we get back to anything approximating a full employment. in this environment, tinkering with the fed's mandate just will increase the level of uncertainty about what policy is and where it is going. i see the fed for a much on a

trajectory already toward greater transparency, clarity, the establishment of an inflation target, forecasts, and i do not see what is to be gained at this juncture in opening the federal reserve act and trying to reengineer but the reserve is trying to do. at some point in the distant future, when this crisis is behind us, may be such a discussion would be constructive. but in this environment, i think it would be very risky. >> there is considerable evidence that monetary policy affects output and employment in the short run, even if it cannot affect the long-run equilibrium values. there is nothing wrong with seeking, putting people back to work, as quickly as possible, consistent with maintaining price stability over the long

run. i would hate to take the view away from that. it is not clear what is broken in the system now. the u.s. inflation has been similar to other targeting countries. there is worry about the future, but this is the fact that we have had this thing since about three years after the tdual mandate, the fed has been a starter since 1979 and has kept with it successfully, suggests that the benefit analysis macon was giving his at least -- >> are you suggesting the fed is ignoring the second part of the mandate? >> no, not at all. the fed is trying to minimize the deviations in employment and output from estimates of

potential, while keeping inflation close to 2%. i do not think it is ignoring the second part at all, but the two are not in conflict most of the time. >> we will start with the person over here. >> i will make two short observations. one is this notion of evaluating performance based on results. i think that is a dubious approach. monetary policy is made in an uncertain environment. things happen that one could not expect. the logic upon which a decision could be made at the time which seem to be an important consideration in value waiting how central banks are

functioning. -- valuatin how central banks are functioning. second, i heard representative brady talked about rules-based policy, and he implied that somehow this system he would legislate would move the fed in that direction. what i heard him described in the history sounded very much like john taylor's critique of fed behavior over the past few decades, a departure from his particular rule at one point. i wonder if anybody has anything they would like to say about how this bill might relate to questions of -- bursa's discretionary operation. -- versys discretionary operations.

>> i do not think the language of the bill as it currently stands specifies the rules-based approach. the remarks were more that there should be an inflation goal that is the rule that is driving the fed's behavior carri. it gives the fed considerable discretion on how to achieve the objective. >> i agree with mike's first point. if the results are not what you'd expect that, you should explain why it came out and whether your policies and how your policies were moving things back toward a more objective. i agree, the logic and the explained results are important. why cannot expect inflation to

be at 2% or employment to be all the time. it makes the rules-based policy difficult. it is hard to specify the rule. john taylor's rule is not the only world. the central bank should and it does -- or did while i was there -- look at how its policy winds up with a variety of different rules, and as a policymaker, looking at what rules the policy would be and thinking about where we were and what we might be deviating. i found this to be a valuable exercise and helping justify and think about my decisions. i would not be driven by a particular rule. i do not think can be. >> on the outcomes versus logic decisions -- i agree with mike's

point, and i think that is why transparency and monetary policy making is so very important. i think the fed of the last 10 years has come a long way. i think the federal reserve should continue to think about ways to increase the transparency of its decision- making process, its capacity to explain the logic behind these decisions. on the rules versus suppression point, the one place where i saw rules prominent in the discussion was the establishment of some lender of last resort policy. i was not clear based on the remarks and on the proposed legislation exactly how constraining that would be. that is one place where there is quite an emphasis on rules

versus session. >> i did not have anything to add on rules versus discretion, but i agree with you on your idea that we need -- public and the fed needs to understand how decisions were made and how this process as can be improved. for me, that is the reason for having the release of transcripts, getting more distance as part of the thinking. that is what makes me think five years is better. let me give a good example of this. some of you may have seen, there is an article of the current journal of the national association business economists, an article by two st. louis fed members. it uses quotations from the transcripts from 1992 through

but they 2000's, increase of the trend rate of productivity growth, how that was dealt with in the fed and how decisions were reached. to me, that is exhibit a in understanding how these transcripts can be used productively to understand and approve a policy function. >> the transcript question -- i up here -- the guys appea we're saying we already know one thing, but if we know that stuff, to release of the transcript should not be harmful, because it should be informative. in the world where it is not informative, i want to be informed. if they are saying one thing in the public stuff, but in meetings saying something different, that is something i think congress should be informed about when they are

voting on the confrontation -- on the confirmation of the federal reserve chairman. i like the three years. i think the argument is against -- >> do you want two? into thenvite the tv's meeting. >> i do not want to have them put on makeup. >> cream court deliberations, when the justices get the back at -- the supreme court divorces, when the justices get back -- >> this is completely different. >> the comment is you mentioned how moderate inflation targeting have flexibility.

but historical development of this, new zealand was first, and it included a central bank that was given a single inflation mandate and a target of around 1%. rightly or wrongly, over the next 10 years, it was viewed this was way too restrictive and it gave rise to political backlash against the reformers. the mandate got changed to allow more flexibility and a rise in inflation target to 2%. we should keep that in mind. -- i just forgot what my question is -- it seems to me this is driven -- this bill is driven to a large extent by the idea we have one policy, we should have one target, and that is understandable.

what do you think about making that target nominal gdp? it seems to me if economic arguments for that and what monetary policy does ultimately affects prices to spending. normal gdp is one thing you could stabilize. it is one thing you can affect in the long run. the growing band of conservative economists who are pushing for this -- it seems to me if you want a single target and a single policy, that would be something, but the drawback would be out to explain nominal gdp to the public. if you say is the size of the spending, it might be understandable. >> does anyone want to talk about nominal gdp targeting? >> it is complicated, and hard

to explain. it would result in potentially terrible inflation rates and be difficult for people to form a inflation expectations. doing more work on whether this would be a good idea and how it would go over, there's nothing wrong with that right now. it would be difficult to implement. >> one thing about inflation, we think that 82% inflation target -- a 2% inflation target would be stable over time, when you get into the business of finding trends and trying to determine a level, of normal consumption -- nominal gdp, it is very hard, and you have to take a strong view on what you think the level of potential is in the economy. it is a more complicated beast to try to try to find that target than an inflation target.

>> i would say this, and kevin, i do not think this is unrelated to the bill. once this things get into the process, there are people pushing for a nominal gdp target, and it is conceivable this could drift in that direction. i agree with a lot of the positions. whether you want to have a single mandate, this is not an easy question. the reason i favor the mandate is credibility. it gives the fed credibility in all the expectation, augmenting power for that. that is what is nice about that. nominal gdp is a different variable for the public to grass. it does not have that kind of relevance. if you are concerned about and want to put the focus on price levels, price stability, you can

view nominal gdp as a cover for allowing inflation to be over target. that is an operational issue i have been concerned about. >> we have one last question in the far back corner. could you possibly walked forward so you can be on camera. the camera is right here. >> hi. i'm joe mcclintock. hopefully a future fed economist. a lot of the talked about and that consensus is the fact that monetary policy in the long term is best have steady inflation or steady prices to ensure good output. the question is, in the short term, it is not monetary policy. who or what would be the best

action to deal with short-term low unemployment or high unemployment? >> yeah, congressman brady is not here to answer the question. i would guess they would say that is congress' job. i would like to say just to conclude this session that when congressman brady and his staff began discussions with steven and me to set this session up, that they asked us to assemble people who we thought would give us food for thought, and i want to say that is why i think the joint economic committee and congressman brady's leadership is special, because there are few politicians that would ask us to do that, and i would like to think the joint economic committee for helping us state this event, for getting congressman brady to come, and

we provided you with lots of food for thought as the process begins, and i look forward to see what happens to the bill next. i think it is probably going to be something we talked about for the next couple of years. thank you very much for coming, and i hope to see you soon. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i hope as we move forward in this world there are a number of problems that we have to resolve, problems of genocide in darfur, problems in that people's republic of china. have a lot of problems to deal with, and diplomatic solutions are going to have to be the answer in the future as we

start to deal with the problems coming. >> congressman donald payne was the first african-american member of the house from new jersey. he served on house committees on education, foreign affairs. watch his speeches from the house floor and other c-span appearances all archived and searchable online at deceased and video library. -- on the c-span video library. >> this evening, the alabama republican party holds a candidates forum in birmingham. they will hear from newt gingrich and rick santorum. live coverage at 6:30 eastern. the role of alabama and mississippi -- along with alabama and mississippi, hawaii and american samoa will also

vote tomorrow. the associated press reports that romney has 454 delegates over santorum, who has to his sentencing, compared with 107 for gingrich and 47 for ron paul. the nominee needs 1144 delegates to win the gop nomination. you can follow up the delicate count at c-span.org. >> government has to say to private business that owns critical infrastructure that we all depend on that an enemy might attack that we might say to them, you have got to meet this standard of defending yourself and defending our country. >> in the year 2010, the estimate is there were 3 billion cyber attacks on private and government computer systems. 3 billion.

so this is a threat that is growing exponentially and that we simply must address. >> senators joseph lieberman and susan collins detail how their cybersecurity bill differs from other senate bills to be considered this spring. icators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> president obama called afghan president karzai yesterday to voice -- first we hear from can salazar about energy prices. >> as you can see, i have guests with me. i am proud and happy with me to

have the secretary of the ar.erior ken salazr they are here to talk about a blueprint for a secure energy future, the one-your progress report that was provided to the president today. when i have visitors, i would like to have them speak to you for a few moments at the time, for you to address questions you have on their issues at the top, and then we can allow them to accept and i will take questions on other subjects. with that i will take -- turned it over to heather and you get started. >> today the president received a new report showcasing the administration cost historic achievement in securing our energy future. the conference which represent the efforts of six federal agencies underscore the administration's commitment over the past three years to promote an all hands on deck approach to

american energy and building a more secure future. i wanted to discuss highlights. a year ago the president said a bold goal of reducing or oil imports by 1/3 in over a decade. thanks to booming u.s. oil -and, more efficient vehicles, we have already cut net imports by 10% or 1 megan barrels a day. with the new standards, the president announced last year, we are on pace to meet our goal by the end of the decade. speaking of those standards, the obama administration put in place the first ever efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks, and we propose the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in u.s. history, requiring an average performance of 55 miles per performance of 55 miles per gallon