came a day after campus police officers sprayed -- a campus police officer sprayed more than two dozen people with pepper spray as they tried to enter a trustees meeting. several suffered minor injuries. several students and advocates have criticized the tuition saying it violates the long tradition of community colleges host: any and comment on any ends?plan guest: tuition went up by its third last year in california and public colleges. 51% in just two years. that is squeezing the budgets of these colleges and they are trying to be creative to find new ways to gain revenue, such as charging more for the more popular classes. this is a community college, which is supposed to be one of

the sources of low-cost college for low income students. charging more for the more popular classes will freeze out the students who can pay and give a priority and to the wealthy students -- freeze out the students who cannot pay. if you looked at the ratio of the net price of college for low-income students to their total family income, at a four- your public college, it's about 55%. at an four-year nonprofit colleges it is about 2/3. at a community college, it is about 50%. this is not sustainable for low- income students. it forces them to shift their enrollment from four-year schools to two-year institutions. they are now going to be priced out of the two-year institutions, we're not

investing enough in our greatest asset, which is our people. host: next in north carolina, lia is a student there. caller: i graduated from a state public college undergrad and grant school. i worked for the college and grant school and still have $75,000 worth of loans. i have a good deal from what i came out of. i am on an income-based retain a plan. i paid $350 a month just in interest. i feel pretty lucky, like that is very low for what i owe. but that $350 does not impact me so much economically, but it does impact my sister, who is a single mom and her daughter. i would like to be putting back towards her so she could put

that towards her daughter. i don't have any kids. so i agree with your guest when he says this is not necessarily being felt in this generation but it will be felt in the next generation. if i keep paying my student loans at $350 over the next 25 years, i should be out of the debt by the time priam 60 years old, which is a good place to be according to your guest. i agree. -- by the time i am 60. when i get a job that pays me an annual salary of more than $70,000, then i will be paying more in student loans. but for right now i am ok financially. just wish i did not have the student loans to pay so i could

tell my sister. host: thanks for sharing your story which illustrates the point made by our guest. next is a phone call from falls church, virginia, on our other . james is on air. -- our other line. caller: we are almost talking welfare for the privileged. i went to college. i took out student loans and sweated it out. i got a liberal arts degree, so it took me awhile to generate an income. the costs were high and it was difficult. but it paid off in the end. a college education pays out and you make up the difference. you pay your money and take your chances. i have a friend whose son was born with down's syndrome. from the day that little boy was

paying fors like pin his college education from the start. nobody is saying we should not have to pay for that. it's not fair. people that take out a student loan are making a choice. if now suddenly they say lookit this horrible burden that will go into the future -- malarkey. you make choices. if you have to put off buying a new car, that's the choice you make. it pays off in the long run. the notion that somehow, oh my gosh, i have all this debt, somebody should take care of me, when you looked at the little boy that was born with down syndrome, it offends me. it's not that bad. why don't you just admit that what we are all after when we come from this perspective is that what all want everybody to have a taxpayer-paid college

education? why not just say everybody gets the taxpayer-funded college education and quit this little game we are playing? why we have to shed tears for people going to columbia getting large student loans and a lot of debt? they are getting well-paying jobs that will help them pay for atenolol run. host: let's get a response. guest: someone with a bachelor's degree earns 75% higher income than someone with a high-school diploma. so there is a personal benefit on average. if you major in a field that does not pay very well and go to one of the most expensive colleges, you will struggle to pay back your debt. on average, it yields a positive return to that student. it is not deprive the benefit. it is public. someone with a bachelor's degree will pay twice as much in

federal income tax revenue as someone would just a high-school diploma. that pays for the cost of the student aid in about a decade. the federal government -- typically people worked 40 years over their work life. so the government is getting 30 years of higher federal income tax revenue after the 10-years to pay a back. we should be investing more in post secondary education and not less. we have been cutting for the last few years government investment at the federal and state level even though that will ultimately hurt us by reducing federal income tax revenue in the future. i would argue that we should be doubling the pell grants and not cutting them. host: would you go so far as to agree with that caller who says if you're real policy agenda is to fully have taxpayers to fund college education? guest: i certainly think that would be beneficial to the nation.

i have not advocated for that. i have merely advocated for directing subsidies at people who are not able to pay for college on their own, such as low-income students. if we were to double the pell grants, we will have an additional 400,000 bachelor degree recipients per year. that would pay for the cost of the additional pell grants in less than a decade, yielding positive returns for the federal government. host: next is a call from carolyn, a student in austin. caller: thanks for taking my call. my question is a statement and question. as far as the last caller, he said it pays off in the long run to have a college education. i would love to believe that. i went to college on that premise. i got a master's degree. $150,000 in student loan debt

later and i have a job paying $17 an hour. my expected repayment plan is 1000 -- over $1,000 per month. tile i supposed to make this happen? what am i going to do for the next 25 years paying off this kind of money when i am not going to be making that much money? host: what is your field of study? caller: counseling psychology is what i have my master's. host: at the time you made that choice, did you investigate what the likely salaries would be for your profession? was it an emotional decision? caller: it was definitely an emotional decision. this is something i always wanted to do. was very naive. i did not have parents that taught me about college or teachers who taught me about college. they did not have an economics professor that said you better take a look at what you are doing. i went on my passion and now i

am paying for it. i am not asking anybody to bail me out or anybody to feel sorry for me. i made this decision and i can deal with it. i just want to know how to better education myself so i can take care of myself and my family if after making perhaps a foolish policy decision. host: banks and good luck to you in the future -- thanks. guest: one thing she should look into public-service loan forgiveness. if she worked for a 501 c three organization or doing social work, she could potentially get the remaining debt forgiven after 10 years with full time plummet in the public service job. full-time in public service job. maybe if you work for city, state, or federal government,

except for members of congress. it reduces your monthly payment by basing it on your income as opposed to the amount you owe. that is a reasonable solution for people interested in pursuing public service careers. host: to her point about not having any mentors to guide her through the process, how does the system do in teaching students before they make these big life decisions about the economics of the decision? guest: nobody teaches financial literacy. there are efforts by the jump- start coalition to have financial literacy courses in high schools. they have had only limited amount of progress in getting widespread adoption of financial literacy education. congress, when it passed the credit card back in 2009, recommended that colleges offer financial literacy training as part of the orientation session. but very few colleges have

adopted that. nobody teaches you how to manage money, how to mix more borrowing decisions. even in the entrance counseling of many colleges, it is a perfunctory review of the terms of the loan, not really trying to educate the students on how to make a smarter borrowing decision. it will ultimately cost about $2 for every dollar by the time you back the debt. you should ask yourself if it is still worth it after you double the price in your mind. host: on twitter -- just a couple minutes left. this is buffalo, new york. sandra is calling us from there. caller: i'm calling because i have a concern regarding the fact that a lot of these young people who have all this debt are going to have to delay a major life issues like buying a

house cat scans getting married and having children. -- and getting married. i am a parent and had a great deal of student debt after going to a public university. 10 years ago but there was an expectation of making a certain salary when you came out. but the fact is, with the economy and the downturn, it was really difficult for people -- young people who have certain expectations going in and not being able to have the jobs to support these loans they took out. and so, now at this point, other folks that don't have that are looking at buying houses and basically saving for retirement and for their own children's college. that is going to have a serious impact on this generation. i would like to see some sort of more aggressive way to deal with this on a national basis,

because of the fact that it is going to really hurt the economy overall. host: mark kantrowitz. guest: recent data shows first- time home buyers in the typical age of college graduates are buying homes at about half the rate they did about a decade ago. it is having an impact. law school is perhaps one of the areas where students are struggling more and there's a lot of chatter about law school graduates being forced to take jobs as paralegals on a variety rooms.school taproochat the number of people taking the law school test has dropped. if you look at history, it tends to cycle.

people who graduate with six- figure debt and are not able to find six-figure salaries are going to struggle for quite some time to pay back that loan. if they borrowed only federal loans, they could reduce the payment to an affordable level. other than that, there are not that many options for financial relief. host: the last call is from sean, a student in raleigh. caller: actually, i am no longer a student. i am a mother now. i did not get to finish college. i went less than two years to college and ended up with -- it only was like 2005 hundred dollars that i borrowed tono go to borrowedw alone i am paying back, because i got divorced and defaulted on the loan, the

interest rate almost tripled the actual cost of the loan i got. and my husband was in the military. he got -- the military pays for school and he is paying for stallone. so we have a two-year-old and we are trying to pay for of two student loans. one of them in with the amount of it is triple what i borrowed it and it is insane. i'm trying to get. through all get we did go through bankruptcy and you could not take it off of bankruptcy. host: was your own a private loan or federally financed? caller: federally financed. host: thanks for your call this morning. mark kantrowitz. guest: when you default on your loan, it is like a trip through hell. the government can garnish your wages up to 15% without a court

order, they can intercept your federal and state tax refunds, collect charges of if 25% of each pavement -- payment. they can prevent renewal of professional license. you cannot invest in the military if you have defaulted on a federal loan. you'll find it more difficult to get a va mortgage or fha mortgage. and it does not end when you retire. up to 15% of disability and retirement income can be offset your studentpayback or stallon loan. there are very few options of relief for a border who has defaulted. the main option is to rehabilitate the loan by making nine out of 10 voluntary full monthly payments, which is a pretty hard standard. there are some negotiations going on right now to set new

regulations that would make those statements more reasonable and affordable, such as using income-based repayment as the basis for those payments. but even so, the debt does not go away. host: the last caller mentioned her husband used the gi bill. the new york times editorial piece gives a nod to legislation being offered on capitol hill. patty murray of washington, chairman of the veterans affairs committee. the gi bill consumer awareness a -- act -- you argue that type of service should be available to students

that are not in the military on the gi bill as well? guest: absolutely. the consumer financial protection bureau has a proposal to provide disclosure concerning college costs and financial aid and college unaffordability. that should be made into a mandatory standard. when you get its financial aid award letter, it should be accompanied by a one-page summary sheet that says how much did you will have at graduation, what are the monthly payments associated with that debt, and other aspects, what percentage of the students at the school and are actively repay interest loans, so you can make an informed decision about the trade-off between college costs and college quality. host: mark kantrowitz is joining us from pittsburgh. you can find his organization at finaid.org. we appreciate your time. guest: thanks. host: we will have an education

theme park in our final segment. policy issue. cyber bullying anti-bullying in general. many states have taken this on and there have been laws passed. several members of congress are thinking about whether or not it should be federalized. we will tell you america by the numbers and included in the policy debate. we will be right back. >> for this year's studentcam competition, we asked students to submit a video telling us what part of the constitution was most important to them and why. today we will visit missile a pin, virginia, to speak with a 12th grader at middle of in high midlothian highlod school. the right to bear arms was your topic. >> we wanted to choose a topic that affect a lot of people in america. we figured that the right to

bear arms was a part of the constitution that affects everyone in the united states, because if you don't own guns, then most likely somebody near you has guns. if there's people all around that have guns for protection. there are collectors. you figured this was a topic that affect a lot of people and was probably important to a lot of them. >> in your video you ask if the second amendment is a necessary right. >> we were wondering if the original cointent is still applicable to our society today and we're asking if we live in society that guns are necessary in any way or maybe just the right to have guns is necessary. >> can you explain the difference between the original intent of the second amendment versus its current application? >> yes, in our research we wrote about a lot of a constitution and the right to bear arms in particular. the founding fathers when they were making the constitution

they were very thorough in writing, for good reason. the right to bear arms, the reason that was there a was because they wanted the citizens to have a chance in case the government to it put in place after they were gone, became too oppressive or corrupt. they wanted citizens to have a chance to overthrow a corrupt or oppressive government. it was thought that without the guns we would still possibly be a colony of england and would never be able to defeat the british army and gain our own freedom. >> you interviewed two virginia tech students. how did they help you understand the different sides of the issue? >> it is one thing reading about shootings and things like that on the internet and on the news, but actually talking to two people that are directly affected by a shooting, it feels

a lot closer to the issue. they told us that they had to -- there were these shootings and there were locked in the cafeteria and were not allowed to come out until the campus was determined to be safe. so they were really close to an issue that has to do with the second amendment and the right to bear arms. >> did your research affect your position? >> any decision i make on the second amendment, and the opinion i form should be well- informed and educated and backed up with facts. >> what was your favorite part about creating this video? >> really, getting a lot of the different opinions off the internet and from the two virginia tech students that we interviewed and sort of trying to figure out my own opinion seeing what the other members of

my group thought about it and what we all thought about the second amendment. >> thanks for talking with us this morning and congratulations on your win. now here's a portion of his video, "the right to bear arms." >> i ask, what is the militia? people is thethe most effective way to enslave them. make sure that they be properly armed. firearms are important for the constitution itself. they are the american people's liberty. armed mend our citizens -- armed men are citizens. >> you can watch this video and the others on our website and continue the conversation on facebook. >> washington journal continues. >host: our final segment is a

look at the bullying policy debate and how it's making its way into laws across the country at the state level and the debate in washington about school bullying and cyber bullying. i will start by showing you a graphic, a look at all the states in the u.s. the blue states have both a law and policy on anti-bullying. the dark green has a lot only. the light green on has a policy. it is a nationwide phenomenon that our two guests will talk about. catherine bradshaw is deputy director of the center for prevention of youth violence at john hopkins. jack buckley is commissioner at the national center for education statistics, a federal agency. thanks to both of you for being here. we were talking off camera about 21st anti-bullying locked into place. tell us how it got started as a possible legal remedy. guest: in 1999 the state of

georgia passed the first law. and there were the shootings in columbine, colorado. that was the event that got the issue of bullying on the national radar to be able to look at some of the incidents that were happening in regard to school shootings and we were not able to identify cause. there were multiple factors associated with it, but the bullying did play an important role. if several subsequent reports came out, the u.s. department of education and secret service were involved in, that examined school suitings and cases dating back to the 1970's and they found a common thread around bullying. so that brought it to the national attention. host: we will put our phone lines on the screen, the same as in the last segment. parents, students, administrators, and all others. if you would like to share your

thoughts about this and whether or not it is appropriate to have policy. all that on the table as we continue our conversation. why did you first get involved in tracking this as a federal agency? guest: in 1999 but longer than that we collected data on behalf -- in collaboration with the bureau of justice statistics and the census bureau, the national crime victimization studies. they maintained the school crime supplement. in 1999 we added questions about bullying. host: how is that defined? guest: turns out to be a harder question that you think. there's a lot of federal effort right now around how to best define bullying. especially now with cyber bullying. a brief introduction and then we give them a list of different behaviors which we asked

respondents as a definition of bullying and then we ask them of these different things, somebody done this to you? so we get specific and describe the behavior's. host: i'm sure parents are thinking and home, if my kid pushes another kid in the schoolyard, is this all of a sudden criminal behavior? how the policy makers distinguish what might be a national touted behaviours preternatural touted behaviors and something more onerous? guest: that can be a very complex process. that's why the reporting around bullying is very challenging for schools to understand. there are differences in definitions across different agencies. when you get to a building level, i think principles have challenges trying to determine what kind of behavior is might be. but generally in the research we think about three critical criteria associated with bullying. aggressive behavior that's intentional, that tends to be repeated over time or looks like

it's gone to be repeated, and typically occurs in the context of a power difference. difficult those are typica elements to discern when only looking at one behavior. host: looking at your first chart, these are incident rates. percentage of students that say they were bullied at school. there was a bit of a spike between. 2006 and between guest: there was. it was across the board. among boys and girls at among students of different races and ethnicities. there was generally higher reporting in the school year. i am reluctant to say there's a trend until we see more data, more years of data. but it is corroborated in other data sources. host: below is a question of -- it says that you did notify a teacher or a dog at school about

the bullying in the blue. and 63% said they did not notify. guest: a little more than a third of students actually tell us they notified and adult or someone at the school. we did look further into different characteristics of either the victim or the event that might be correlated with reporting. to reporting. for example, bullion episodes that were more physical involving injury or physical threat are more likely to be reported if they happened more often or multiple times as well. as students get older, they're less likely to report. older students getting in the high school years and towards the end of high-school are far less likely to tell the teacher. host: and they tell you what kind of bullying they experienced, made fun of, called names, or insulted, 18%, the largest percentage. what should we learn from this?

guest: it is important to remember bullying is not physical, necessarily. while those maybe the starkest episodes and the ones most likely to be reported, there's a lot of other behavior that students considered that did not involve shoving or physical contract, but was nonetheless damaging to the student. -- physical contact. host: what should we know about the likely matilda and to report incidents? guest: we hope parents understandable they play about having open communication with their children before bullying begins. we have been talking with a couple of organizations like the council to help parents understand how to have open communication so they can have a good line of defense. when there is a situation that they are concerned about, they feel more comfortable going to

an adult. it may be a parent at home or a trusted adult at school. that takes a long and concerted effort to be able to make that kind of change. slide.we look at this lig 2006 and 2007, higher incidence rates reported among both males and females. i want to put a spot on the screen from twitter by mary -- and this is a phone call from rochelle, a grandparent from brooklyn, new york. caller: thank you for the pleasure of being able to get in on the conversation. i have called on other topics other times. this one is dear to my heart because i have a grandson going through this problem in junior high school, first year of junior high school. i did not exceed the

documentary "going," but i saw anderson cooper's coverage of it recently. right after i saw the show, i called a teacher i had been working closely with, helping her prepare her daily curriculum for students. i am very into education. i called her a and asked her if she thought that there was adequate -- that students and teachers and parents were adequately being educated to the damages of bullying and was that something on any kind of curriculum in the school itself. she said, well, yes, we have signs hanging around and it is like a passing conversation. i was saying that it should be on the national agenda.

it should be on a national curriculum in every school, in every school building, and just like they have to take a course in english, math, science, there should be some course in children understanding the harm in bullioying -- even calling names. that's where it starts, name- calling and nitpicking. and parents are not involved in the schools. guest: i think she raises are really important topic in regard to professional development that needs to be provided to staffed --all staff, not just classroom teachers but other personnel and bus drivers, cafeteria workers that are really on the front line. i recently worked on a project with the national education association, the teachers' union, where we surveyed teachers and support professionals from across the country, over 5000 of them. we found major gaps with regard to professional development

being provided to teachers and staff. they found overall there was a great desire for more training particularly on issues around cyber bullying and relational aggression that the staff were not comfortable intervening on. so i think she hit it on the w -- the head. host: there's some discussion in washington about it being on the national agenda. sheila jackson lee in the house has entered legislation that would amend the crime control and safe streets act of 1968 to require the attorney general's staff to establish guidelines -- this has been referred to committee. it's one of four pieces of legislation we found regarding bullying. the white house convened an anti-bullying summit meeting this year. let's play a little clip of

that. >> consider these statistics. one-third of middle school and high-school students have reported being bullied during the school year. almost 3 million students have said there were pushed, shoved, tripped, even spit on. it's more likely to affect kids that are seen as different. whether it is because of the color their skin, their clothing, a disability they may have, sexual orientation. bullying has been shown to lead to absences and poor performance in the classroom and. babylon should give us pause. no child should be afraid to go to school in this country. today, bullying does not even end at the school. they can follow our children from the hallway to their self phones to their computer screens. in recent months, a series of tragedies has drawn attention to how devastating bullying can be. we have been heartbroken by the stories of young people who

endured harassment and ridicule day after day at school and ultimately took their own lives. host: that was president obama. that demonstrates a federal interest. but there's another point of view that is exemplified in this column. bullying should not be a crime no matter how many kids killed themselves, it's s.. -- it says -- it says it's the job of parents to teach their kids how to handle bullying or being embarrassed. it will happen to all of us.

what is your reaction to that point of view? guest: it's always interesting when we talk to anybody about bullying, most people can identify with it. clearly the author of the article has had some personal experience. occasionally we do hear that story. what is important is to know there is significant research documenting pretty serious impairment that some young people experience as a result of bullying, including mental health concerns, like internalizing problems such as depression, anxiety, and some cases that could be linked with suicide, particularly when coupled with other mental health concerns. host: a similar comment on twitter --

guest: we don't recommend that strategy. i'm in the field of public health, so we typically encourage you to have non- violent ways of trying to resolve these types of situations. certainly seeking help and support from other adults and your peers and developing strategies to get out of those situations or for them before they happen. host: dr. buckley. guest: i want to add to the earlier comment about what is the proper federal role. there have been white house events that we attended and other events. the secretary of health and human services was there. as well as my department was concerned about the education and making sure all kids have access to a public education and not be afraid to go to school, to be terrified in the classroom or not be able to learn.

perhaps popping the kids in the mouth is not going to solve the problem. host: let's look at a couple slides that breakdown of reporting on bullying. what do you learn about whether or not it varies among different demographics, ethnic groups? guest: students of any ethnicity could become a victim of bullying. it is not concentrated in a certain type of kid. host: this is white students, black students, asian students, hispanic students. guest: typically we see a difference where asian students are less likely to report there were victims, but in general it is a significant percentage across the board for any type of student. host: and this is by school location. rural, suburban, urban, and other. guest: again, it is not just confined to urban schools or rural schools.

something we see all across america. in any kind of school. host: it is fascinating that 2007 across the board, but there was some kind of change in the way the accounting place. guest: in terms of our measurement, it did not change. the problem is there are so many other factors going on in the world of policy and everything else going on in the country, that it's hard to attribute something causal. host: and it's before the recession. so you cannot speculate there were more economic stresses on families. it's hard to know. guest: we were chatting before this about some of the other data sources. the cdc as to the department of education to do you risk behavior assessment. we saw similar type of increase, up to three percentage

points in 2007 of victimization by bullying. interesting to see what may be was going on nationally at that time. perhaps increased awareness or some of the policies. host: this chart looks at the differences between public and private schools. guest: there is a statistically significant difference. 29% of students reported bullying in the public schools. in private schools, 19%. i cannot tell , but it is interesting. host: fayetteville, north carolina, scott, a professor. you are on the line. you are on the air. caller: yes, i am a professor right now within the university of north carolina system. i was a public-school teacher in los angeles. i'm calling to speak mainly about los angeles. even though i'm a journalism

professor at all, we're not allowed to talk to the media without permission. so i cannot talk about what goes on at north carolina. i think part of the problem that people may not know about within the public school system is that teachers are being bullied also. they're not really allowed to talk about a lot of things going on. i taught in the middle school system in los angeles and i have seen teachers leave the profession because kids' relatives may be no gang members and their work within the school system. i've seen cars being blown up. i've seen teachers threatened in the classroom. when a teacher tries to help a student, they themselves encounter the issue. i had to establish a policy that all my students hand in their homework before 7:00 a.m., before classes began, if otherwise they would be l bullied during recess.

in another case, we pulled a kid inside whose i had been cut. he almost had to go to the hospital and almost lost his eye. we were told by the principle we should not have helped that student because now the school may be liable. and that if you see somebody being bullied or injured off the grounds of the middle school, to leave them alone because that's their problem. no but it really takes into account the fact that the teachers themselves are being bullied. so it's very difficult for the teachers to help the students if they are living in fear themselves. host: do you keep statistics on teachers being bullied? guest: we do and we don't. some incidents the caller described our criminal victimization, serious assault. we do indeed collect data on assaults in any workplace including public schools or private schools. the more traditional definition

of bullying, we don't. katharine probably has the best data on that. guest: we have asked about that in several of our studies done in maryland and in the national education association study where we did find 34% of middle school teachers actually said they had been bullied by someone else in the building. that typically was perpetrated by students. sometimes it was the parents or other staff member. that was the highest among the group. 17% of elementary school teachers and 21% of high-school teachers. this is another issue and that the national education association is very concerned about in doing some work related to workplace bullying, how to prevent it. we have been looking at policies and very few policies address issues specifically related to bullion. host: an earlier caller mentionedb a documentary callerully." -- documentary called "bully."

you are both familiar with this documentary. what has its release done for this subject? guest: it has brought bullying back into the central discussion in schools and among parents. it is very much on the minds of parents. have not seen it yet. >guest: i have seen segments of the movie. the first lady of maryland will be hosting a viewing of the movie a little later on, so we are excited about the opportunity to have dialogue. what i think is really important is there are very serious

contents in the movie and we need to be cautious about how that is aired. putting the expletives aside, i am a little concerned about some of the content and how children particularly who might have experience with bullying might see this material. so i think it is important to have any viewing occur if in the context of a supportive adult relationship so they can talk to somebody about it. even some kids may have killed that they did not intervene when they saw bullying happen. it is such a common experience. host: how does bullying reporting increased by grade level? guest: we see kids as they get older, the rates of bullying decline. the first reason possibly is there is less bullying and social hierarchies are becoming more solidified and students are not bullying as a social

strategy. and there is possibly a reporting issue, where students are less likely to report to adults in their school that they have been bullied as they get older. also, they may be less likely to tell surveyor's they have been bullied. host: this is grade 6 at the bottom with the highest rate at 39.4. 20.4 in 12th grade. and this comment from twitter -- where at school does bullion occur most often? guest: most often occurs in the hallway or stairwell, between classes. it may be outside the teachers direct supervision. the next most likely place for it to occur is in the classroom. we do ask about a lot of other locations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, cafeteria, school

bus. schoolbus is interesting because in terms of reporting to adults, only about 6% of incidents occur on the bus, but they are more likely to be reported to teachers or adults if they occur on the bus. host: who is reporting them? guest: the student. host: ypsilanti, michigan, sophia is on air. caller: i have a couple comments. i am a parent and i was bullied. harassment is illegal in the first place. what about when they grow about and work in a hostile workplace? if the boyfriend goes by the girlfriend's house a few times, they are legally in trouble. in michigan, a grown man was

fined for setting a cusswords in front of the children and lady, because of an ordinance. how about we start teaching the kids that when they open up their mouth, there are consequences to what they set? -- s ay? -- say? it also happens in the cafeteria. if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothing at all. host: gthank you. and this on e-mail -- guest: i think we need to draw a distinction between bullying as

an act and perhaps why the bullying is occurring. certainly it's possible it can be occurring for homophobic or racist reasons. i don't think those things are exclusive. guest: the u.s. department of education released a letter two years ago in the fall of 2010 that tried to highlight the difference between bullying and harassment and honing in on comments or activities that would focus on protective glasses or individuals. there is an overlap between bullying and harassment. there might be some incidents that are better described as harassment and should be handled differently as a result. there's some guidance out there from the u.s. the problem of education about how to distinguish those. guest: it covers students up to 18, to make them legal adults in all states. so the legal environment is different for those students.

host: stuart is watching us in cordova, tennessee and says -- let's move to the statistic about physical fights and weapons. what do you learn when you ask about this question? guest: in the survey we also ask about other behaviors that students either have experienced or actually engaged in themselves. something we see across the board is students who are bullied are more likely to be involved in other sort of non- billion crime for victimization. there are more likely to be in a physical fight during the school year. there are more likely to bring a gun, knife, or other weapon to school. for not being able to show that bullying necessary causes that, but the same things are more

likely to be found among those students. host: syracuse, new york. ray is a teacher. caller: i have been a bullet and i have been bullied -- a bully. i see billions about dollars from our pockets going to washington and then coming back to us for what really amounts to a local issue. it drives me crazy that anyone would think that this discussion at the federal level, would have any chance of making the situation in the local area better. it is going to make it worse. and it will add a couple extra problems that we will now have to deal with. try to decide what

kind of government we want. it drives me up the wall that there are people who believe we don't know how to handle these types of things in our communities. host: your sentiment about the federal involvement is echoed by some critics even when states are discussing this. in the idaho reporter, there's this reporting -- would you comment about that? guest: two things come to mind. we recommend an integrated

approach so we don't have a separate session on bullying prevention for staff, but really try to address the link between bullying and academics. we know that integrated efforts within the school will be much more sustained and if people recognize the link between bullying and general issues rebounded poor school climate, how they relate to academic performance, i think it will get more attention. we have a lot of data to demonstrate the links between kids involved in bullying are less likely to perform well on standardized tests. they have poor academic performance and are more likely to be truant and drop out of school. we've seen a number of mental health concerns as well that disrupt the entire school environment and drawdown the school climate. it is important to recognize it should not be something campbell on the side but rather integrated more generally of into the other professional development of the already occurring within the building. host: i want to get to cyber

bullying. a quick definition, please. guest: this is a moving target. in 2006 through 2007 school year is the first, started to ask questions about cyber bullying. we are talking about students posting personal informations about other students on the internet or using social networking sites to do that, threatening them through e-mail or sending messages, or on the gaming environment like xbox live. host: so you began asking the questions when? >> in the school year of 2006 through 2007. about 6% of students aged 12 through 18 report that they experience cyber bullying during the school year of 2008 through 2009. host: not much reporting. guest: about the same percentage as in school. you don't have to be on your phone at school. this can happen after hours or on the phone anywhere or online.

host: when we look at the chart of anti-bullying legislation, do most of those laws also take into account cyber bullying at? guest: yes, most of them have been very explicit about including bullying that occurs to electronic communication devices. but doug about electronic aggression or something that occurs through electronic devices. host: in this set of numbers, we see what the various types are and the incidence. guest: the most common is something on wanted through text messaging. host: instant messaging even. kids text so much, so texting is the most common way and that's not surprising. guest: technology will change and we will need to add a bunch of new technology.

host: next is texas, kim is a parent. -- jim. caller: thanks for taking my call. you are never going to have an additional layer of bureaucracy making a positive impact on this. i say fine parents of students that are bullies. you will never get this done through a bureaucracy. parents have to take care of this. they will never jump into action until it hits their pocketbooks. that's why there's less bullying in private schools, because parents are less involved. guest: i don't think either of us is suggesting a layer of bureaucracy. but i don't know how we could fine parents without government

involvement. host: chris tweets -- you asked questions about video games and how that affects children's attitude or reporting? guest: we don't, but it's a good question. host: this your information tell you about the cause and effect of what children are exposed to and their attitudes about bullying and experiences? guest: yes, thethose who consume more aggressive videos or video games are more likely to engage in bullion. other factors within the home in terms of modeling violence, whether it be abused towards the child or domestic violence

affect bullying. that could be and learning how to resolve conflict through violence. host: richmond, virginia. caller: hello. i think that bullying is a complex problem and that is why we have so many different avenues that we have. to focus on something -- i had an experience -- this is a different county. parents came and were complaining about somebody in the school bullying their child. i come into the school and diei

seek out the child that was bullying their child. the parents had a conflict in the parking lot. i had to call a police officer to come and break up the fight of parents in the parking lots. it was very dramatic. there were many things going on beyond the students. it had gone over to the parents. i think of bullying -- bullies often hide in the shadows. you can separate students and you can have teachers make sure that they monitor what is going on. there will always be a hallway or transitional area where

conversations will not be monitored. host: let me understand what your attitude is about the policy attention. are you looking for support from school boards, etc., with regard to policing bullying? tell me what you think the larger community's role should be. caller: it is a good topic of conversation. there may be a few things we can do. it would be good for teachers to have that kind of a thing. fundamentally, bullying is a symptom of the larger issue of our society and civility, the

lack of it. you can see there are other factors that have been alluded to where there is a problem with the family. when we have families that are sponsoring around us and our -- then weing aronund us, have man-adaptive, ways of dealing with students that are not good -- mal-adaptive. host: thank you so much. we're running out of time. let me ask both of you to wrap this up. where does the data collection -- where do they intersect?

guest: with intervention type of efforts, this is not going to be an issue that will be settled through an intervention that the school will implement. we will have to work together and parents have to work carefully with their kids about how to resolve these situations. it will not just be a simple policy. locals develop their own policies. the schools and the community can actually have their own voice and implementation so they can be relevant for the families in those communities. guest: again, our role is to provide unbiased facts.

then they can decide what to do. host: jack buckley, thank you. you can go to the website for more information. thank you very much for being here this morning. tell us about your web site. guest: i would encourage people to go to the stopbullying.gov website. i would encourage people to check out the federal website because that has the best research and practice recommendations to bullying. host: we appreciate your time. thank you for being with us.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: a conversation with former trade representatives, assessing priorities for the trade agenda. they include carla hills, william brock, susan schwab, and charlene barshefsky. that should begin shortly. you are seeing live pictures now.

>> from the center for strategic and international studies in washington, mickey kantor was joined a number of trade reps. there will talk about the obama trade agenda including the trans-pacific partnership and u.s. trade relations with russia. the unemployment rate dropping slightly from 8.3% to 8.2% in the month of march.

mitt romney releasing a statement saying, "this is a troubling jobs report. the market remains stagnant. millions of americans are paying a high price." live coverage here on c-span. >> ok, folks. good morning, everybody. welcome. we are delighted you're here. when meredith broadbent said she wanted to hold this event on friday, i thought, you're crazy,

nobody will show up for this thing. it shows the gravitational pull -- quite a bunch. my name is john and i'm president of csis. i'm delighted to welcome you here. i'm reading a fabulous book. it is about the early history of america. i'm a political scientist. my version of history is about geopolitics. america's history is about trade. it really is. you start opening up the shaping of the american republic -- it was driven by the white we were going to connect in this larger world. been through have a lot of different episodes.

we were as protectionist as you can get. we passed legislation that it was free and open territory to still anybody's secrets. we had a pretty rich history of irregularities. now it is about time we beat humble -- be humble and think about where we're going in this world. we will talk about that today. i want to say thank you to all of you for coming. you have an important role and that is to make this a lively session. i know that you're in for it rich discussion but it will get better if you are engaged an active. i would ask you to draw on that and to bring the best out of these remarkable individuals.

i am grateful as a nation that these men and women were willing to lead in such an important way for our country and they are still willing to be active in the policy life of america. i had a short session upstairs. it is exciting to have people committed to making this a better and stronger country and working through the tough issues that we face. we're very thankful for that. where's mike moore? michael. thank you for coming. we will send you back so you can take care of russia. he is here now as new zealand's ambassador and doing a phenomenal job.

[applause] because i'mthe time taking it from the experts who are here. let me turn this over to meredith broadbent. david is going to be with us on april 26. he wants to deliver a major address on this point. let me turn to meredith. >> thank you. thank you for coming today. this is an event we all look forward to. next year we need to order two tables, so it can be like "the match game."

this is an exceptional group of talent. they have taken their time to give us their views on the prairies for the u.s. trade agenda. my assumption is that there is a huge amount of agreement among these six individuals that have served as the trade representative's under four different presidents. they are here because they care about the role that trade place in strengthening the global position of the united states. for those in our electronic audience, this is a cabinet level official with a rank of ambassador who is responsible to the president and congress for trade policy. please follow this event on twitter, csis.org.

as the united states looks ahead, there is more of a blank slate of what the president can construct as a new trade policy. the decks have been cleared and all the pending free-trade agreements are done. negotiations on the trans- pacific partnership are a work in progress. the economic questions of growth potential. the countries have declared there to be an impasse. the results that might have been possible is not to be in the near term. gone are the global mechanisms that were proposed like the

powerful swiss tariff cutting formula. what we do have is more freedom to calibrate and refine u.s. trade policy. when it comes to pursuing a job screening benefit of trades, there are many countries in the world that are like minded. we hope to hear about some opportunities today. we're honored to have these six former trade representatives. we hope there will be practical suggestions in how to move the trade agenda forward. each panelist will give a five minute opening statements to address a few selected topics.

we're not able to do justice to all of the major issues. with that, i encourage the panelists to comment on each other's presentations. then we'll turn to the audience for your questions. i will introduce the panel. ambassador michael kantor was secretary of commerce. he is a partner in mayer brown llp. he serves as a senior adviser. he led the stages of negotiations and the side agreements on labor and environment. he served as chief negotiator to agree to a large largest trade pact.

.e supported the president to his right is carla hills, ceo of hills and company. she worked under the administration of george h. w. bush. she was responsible for the blair house agreement, that led --the -- sh she is co-chair of the advisory chair as well as one of our trusties. ambassador clayton yeutter practices law at hogan lovells. he negotiated the u.s.-canada free-trade agreement.

in 1989, he was named secretary of agriculture. he steered the farm bill through congress. he has been president of the chicago mercantile exchange. ambassador charlene barshefsky is a senior partner. she was in the clinton administration and was chief negotiator of china's wto agreement and certain telecommunications products. ambassador brock served in

the reagan administration and served as president reagan's secretary of labor. he is chairman of the barack offices -- brock offices. susan schwab is with mayer brown and a professor at the university of maryland. she served from 2006 until 2009 and she negotiated -- the bipartisan may 10 deal. she negotiated the u.s. bilateral wto agreement with russia. in addition, she oversaw the

government decision to join the trans-pacific partnership negotiation, which was pursued by president obama. with that we will go to a five- minute opening statements. >> thank you, meredith. i don't know where the michael came from. the only person that, that was my mother. i do question the sanity of everyone of you being here on good friday and passover weekend when you could be playing golf or doing something else. second, i am honored to be here with my colleagues and friends. i think we'll have been friends. we have shared almost the same etiology, the same support of trade with very few differences.

i am honored to be here with all of you. i will be a very brief. we have 45 minutes about lumber later in the program. i know you will want to stay here for that. you'll miss lunch but that's ok. in my view, i will talk about where i think the trade policy should go in the next administration. you have democrats and republicans sitting up here. this is not about politics. hopefully, a workable trade agenda. this trade agenda has to take advantage of what we all want. implements disciplines on

all plus about international trade. that's what the big and small agreements are about. it and ito do more of tha needs to be put in a framework of trade that can work. this enhances globalization and enhances strategic and political and economic issues. you cannot divide these days what you do in trade from what we do together politically. let me get to it. enforcement is a major -- has a major role to play. it enhances the credibility of our agreements. it is important for access to markets.

it is what carla started so well and we were able to finish in terms of the salomon system. it is a critical component of trade. these kinds of disciplines are important and we need to continue them. we need the next president of the united states to advocate trade. we cannot pushed a trade agenda allows the president of the , if they do not would trade at the top of the agenda. i can tell you it just will not work. congress will not fall and the people will not follow -- congress will not follow. so the president has to

advocate. i'm going to say doha is dead. why don't we just admit it to each other? there are certain critical things that we can get done. the ita agreement, the telecom agreement are 15, 17 years old. look what is happening in information technology since then. we were in the dark ages 70 years ago. -- 17 years ago. second, we need to work -- do with worker rights in the environment. we have to protect the intellectual property. we need an agriculture -- our culture was supposed to be a

separate negotiation. we agreed to do it. i would like to of clayton talk about that. we have a chance in these areas, these sectorial areas to make some great progress if we quit spending so much time worrying about something that does not exists, the doha round. it will make a difference. the telecom agreement -- there were as big or bigger as the uruguay round. we to go back to them and make them more effective. it would be a tremendous boon to trade. the trans-pacific partnership. not because it is called the trans-pacific partnership. where is mike moore?

it started with new zealand. grew.t it needs to be bigger. we're growing in asia. noodlerowing a bowl of of trade agreements. we have korea, japan, and china trying to reach an agreement. we have got to come together and begin to address the critical issues in trade, which would address 55% of trade if you put the u.s., canada, mexico, and havelved with -- we just split. indonesia is not in.

burma is not in. we need to bring these countries in. it is not going to be easy. if we do not think big, then we're not going to make progress. then we are allowing trade internationally to drift, and that is a very dangerous. we need to address large issues and have this happen over the next four to eight years. thank you. >> this is a real reunion. the six of us have a terrific time when we get together. we have had a lot of fun. i agree with a lot of what mickey has said. we will discuss a variety of

trade initiatives. some stalled and some dreamed about. in assessing their relative apportions, i like to think about what a good trade agreement can accomplish. in my view, a great multi bilateral trade agreement should strive to accomplish five strategic goals. one, to open global markets, which will generate growth for rich and poor nations alike. to reduce global poverty which furthers the united states development goals. dr. kline has done a wonderful survey. this reduces poverty by 1%.

to advance our security aims. impoverished nations do not govern well. they become failed states and breeding grounds for international terrorism, crime, narcotics trafficking, and a lot of bad things. four, to integrate poor ountries -- the bangladeshes, pakistans. that creates future markets for our entrepreneurs. just like the marshall plan. to enhance rule of law. bilateral agreements can accomplish some of this. the geographic reach is much more narrow. they cannot accomplish as much. they can stimulate members of

the community to move forward. we saw that with nafta. uruguay had collapsed in brussels. we came home and began to negotiate nafta. president bush signed in december of 1992. it was put through congress the following year. within five months, we completed the uruguay rounds. people did not want to have the north american market not have the benefits for the global economy. my friend to my left thing is that doha is dead. i believe there is a way to bring back. >> i'm still to your left. [laughter] >> no change at all there.

i believe doha could contribute to those of five strategies i just mentioned. a simple package that would harvest some gains. i would move forward if i had a chance to do so. i think the trans-pacific partnership could be grade. the stated goal is to bring together economies from across the pacific into a single trading community to serve as a platform for broader regional integration and a free-trade area of the asia-pacific. the trans-pacific partnership involves nine nations. we have trade agreements with four of the nine. brunei, new zealand, malaysia,

be add-nam' would ons. the potential for trade would be quite small. china, japan, india, south korea are not included and they account for over 75% of gdt of dp of asia. so mexico and japan, that would add real heft. after these leaders -- the canadian prime minister, president obama, and president calderon met. the administration is split on whether they want canada in. economic minister said

he wants an answer by the end of the month. in my view, to achieve the strategic goals, that will require the the addition of additional economies. i favor the concept of moving forward. i do see four risks if we keep it small. it would not accomplish the goal of bringing together developing economies into a single trading economy. it would divert trade from asian's poorest states and make them worse off because of the diversion. it was but the -- it would split -- we have established an ambassador in jakarta.

we have supported a secretary iat. we've talked about a free trade agreement. them would be a loss. it could induce a competing trade bloc because china because in.ot making it opened to any member that wanted to be bound by its terms. collet open architecture -- call it open architecture. that is what we did with the information technology agreement. moving from the pacific to the atlantic, we have a high level working group studying the possibility of a free-trade

agreement. in spite of the group's financial challenges, together we command more than half of the world's gdp. a bilateral agreement would have will haveeft. we might be able to come to an agreement removing or reducing agricultural supports. that is a question for my friend clayton yeutter. we have both negotiated a very similar trade agreement with south korea which could be used as a starting point for the negotiations and expedite the process. a u.s.-e.u. accord could stimulate incentives to move forward on the multilateral funds. in the western hemisphere, and

now that the u.s. has trade agreements with every single government that borders the western pacific except ecuador, one not focus on brazil? the president of brazil will be here on monday and will be meeting with president obama. commodity prices are high. they might have grounds for interesting conversation. with the private sector still leverage, and our government continuing to spend more than they collect, trade is providing a much-needed economic cushion. whenever we do, let me say that we of to work closely with congress. whether we're able to get trade promotion authority, so-called fast-track, we need to meet regularly with congress to

explain our strategic drive and what we can accomplish. it is tougher our trading partners to sit down and put their issues on the table and take theheat at home and not be assured that this will be voted on up or down. if we want to double our exports and reduce global poverty, create future markets for our entrepreneurs, strengthen our security, we need a trade strategy and to move ahead aggressively on opening world markets. thank you. >> i will just say amen to all that. what a pleasure to see all of you today and to be on the

podium with these long term friends. i will try to cover the agriculture this morning. that is of interest to everybody. you do not put much of an agreement through the congress if you do not have agricultural support. that is critical. knowing how our culture things at the moment about trade issues is pretty important. the first thing is tpp. i don't think agriculture has given up on the dohoa round. potentialsliver of a that remaines there. multilateral market access in agriculture is pretty important. focuss where everybody's

is at the moment, not because there's a lot there now, but because of its potential and that starts with japan among the three countries that have indicated an interest in joining. if japan comes in, then makes everybody's eyes light up. protectionism in japan could be eliminated. it is important for japan to because that could jump- start the economy. what japan needs to do to be invited is a different matter. we have had a longstanding beef controversy with japan and that needs to be fixed. it looks like japan has awakened

to that and they may fix it soon. another controversy is japan post, which has implications to the u.s. insurance industry. japan seems to be going in the wrong direction on that. that could jeopardize japan's opportunity for participating in this negotiation. there's a little of that with the canada, as well. the canadians -- it would be a wonderful thing if we were invited to join this negotiation. but work dairy and poultry are concerned, we have to find a way to take care of things. inat doesn't go over too big the u.s. or in countries like australia and new zealand. the canadians have to be serious

if this is going to happen. if you have those three, that becomes a meaningful negotiation. i'm not sure that anything gets added into those negotiations. the payoff for tpp is if a number of other countries, and at a later time. it would be countries like taiwan, the philippines, thailand, and indonesia. there you have some potential growth in market access in agriculture. some additional quick points on agriculture. the wto istry into important. u.s. agriculture has had

access into russia and they would like to do more in processed foods. that has been a roller-coaster. wto disciplines on russia would be welcome. that has competitive aspects to it. with no competitors in argentina and brazil will take full thentage of russia's into wto. we can talk about the farm bill later. we do not know what will happen in the farm bill. it expires in september. there is no consensus among u.s.

organizations. will there be a safety net? organizations will insist on it. a lot of people would share that view. there will be a safety net. there will probably be several safety nets. it will probably beat 3 or four different safety nets -- it will probably be 3 or four different safety nets. will the cost of the farm program go up or down? nobody knows. i can remember the roller- coaster of the 197's and in 1980's.

everything collapsed in the 1980's and we bankrupt thousands of u.s. farms. the cost to what will be the trade implications -- will the new programs be more less -- i do not know. it is too early. direct payment programs are likely to be eliminated. those are the least distort ive. in every sense, trade distortions are probably going to go up. -and u.s. european union. i am delighted that finally people are picking up on that and paying some attention to it.

can agriculture be handled in that context? the answer is yes. i spent half my life criticizing the agriculture policy in vivid terms. our agricultural policies have grown closer and closer together. our culture is not the issue that would preclude the doha route from coming to a satisfactory conclusion. that challenge it is in -- we can solve agriculture in the context of the dohoa round. bill. >> ok. you're going to hear a lot reputation in terms of attitudes

appeaup here. they will take it out of the cabinet over our dead bodies. [laughter] [applause] second, i think we have to keep in mind that the united states is really unique. we are the only country that has the capacity to truly lead in an affirmative fashion. we can only do that by example. we cannot do that by force or pushing. we have to recognize that our strength is not in our military but and our economic capability. if we use that strength, we can avoid a lot of other adverse situations.

we desperately need a trade policy. we do not have one. we something that sets the property parameters. always focused on a multilateral system? do we have something that is more fundamental that we're trying to achieve? i will shift you around to the other half of the world. maris asked me to talk about the middle east and north african --meredith asked me. i'm not sure i can say anything more other than the stakes in this area are incredibly high. we have problems that are not going to go away. the arab spring is the phrase that is used to too often describe something that is

enormously complicated and fast- changing. what do we do? how do we do it and when do we do it? each of those has an effect on the others. understanding the political situation there and here has a whole range of additional factors that you have to play or work with. let me just talk about two different aspects of our approach. we have a part of the world that is terribly poor, in most cases almost totally dependent upon one export or resource. in most cases very inadequate or almost nonexistent to some, manufacturing sectors or service sectors. huge amount of bureaucratic interference.

governments that is at least intrusive if not counterproductive. bureaucracy, red tape, too much corruption. the problems are endless and legion. if you look at the region does have something of an identity. and they have to be treated in one fashion in that particular context. i would hope would begin to think about more directly and immediately is a regional approach. there are a number of ways you can do wit. president bush suggested a free trade agreement.

president obama has declared a policy. there is an understanding in the congress and the administration that if you begin to create a more coherent approach to give some sense of hope to the people of that region, you begin to change the political dynamic that would advance our cause and that of our allies. there are ways to do it. there was an example in africa and the caribbean based on preferential agreements. that is one way to begin. we can expand a program and make it more effective, more comprehensive. there are too many areas that are not covered in terms of product. those are the things that could begin to compose a more

rational and effective regional approach and create a sense that we do know that we have a stake in the region and that we are willing to stick our neck out again, to begin to address the political and security issues we have there. let me go to the specific nations. there are a huge number of countries. there's one that we have dealt with over the last several decades that is and has been for several thousand years the lead and that is egypt. egypt is more risk than anytime in my lifetime. i was negotiate a free-trade

agreement with israel and i went to egypt and offered to have a free-trade agreement with that country. they were not ready. they are not ready now. then't think we can ignore opportunity and responsibility we have in the country. i'm not saying we will put all our eggs in one basket. we have a dangerous situation over there, much as because of the advent of the muslim brotherhood. it goes beyond that. look at the riots in the streets. there were not just a bunch of college kids that were unemployed looking for freedom. most of the people in the streets were hungry. you have a country that has relied on subsidized fuel and

subsidized wheat, bread to keep the country stable. they are running out of resources and reserves. they have to devalue their currency. they have to import their own fuel. we have a serious problem. i would like to see us work towards a free trade agreement. that's a long-term solution. toon't think it makes sense think in terms of trade being an answer without a whole lot of other factors. we're to think about how to support them in terms of their governments. we have to get more involved in giving insurance -- assurance. we have gone to raise the level

of assurance so that business can invest there. the essence of my statement is that we have a deeply rooted, really serious, complicated problem. it will not be solved by trade. if you do not start by using trade as your entry vehicle, you're not going to get there without facing the prospect of a different egypt and a different middle east. it will be more of a hazard than a help. we have to raise our efforts in all these areas and reduce our expectations. it is important not to overpromise either there or here. if we do that, maybe we have a

chance. >> thank you. does it former str's take to screw and a light bulb? >> six so far. >> i was wrong to say non. e. we will persuade you don't need a light bulb. i agree with mickey. without presidential leadership there's no effective trade agenda. with carla, the five underpinnings that she pointed out have really been the consistent rationale for trade since the end of world war ii when roosevelt and truman recognize that without trade, a fragile peace would never take

hold and countries would have no real commercial interest in each other's stability. what carla pointed out was important and that is to remind us of why we are all here on good friday, but the importance of trade. theink we're all aligned on big initiatives that need to be seriously considered, especially sympathetic to bill brock's view on the middle east. i have advocated a brought holistic approach on the economic treatment of the larger muslim world, which is the 37 nations, many of whom are the poorest on the earth. i think fourth, with respect to sectoral agreements which proved very effective in the 1990's,

the global telecom and the financial services agreement need to be updated. the world has changed very much since then. the information technology agreement is going to be renegotiated and extended and expanded. on the sectoral side, there are areas that need to be considered. as well as newer areas. or an agreement on fisheries. or agreements in areas that are newer to the global economy in which there are far fewer vested interests. biotech may be one on that. i think it is important that we not lose sight of perhaps the

single most important thing in the united states could do it and appertains to its own domestic policy measures. there is no reason we cannot fix the problems in this country, particularly with respect for macro situation. many of our broader trade initiatives will fall flat without that. we will not have the leverage that we need and we will not have the sympathy that would meet in doing these kinds of agreements. it is import that the u.s. domestic policy agenda be set in motion and fixed. looking at the external challenges that we face, there are many when you think about global trade. one i want to focus on that meredith had asked me to focus on has been on the front page

now for some time. that is china and the treatment of u.s. intellectual property and technology in china. this is a pivotal issue for the united states because it speaks to the potential hollowing out of our intellectual capital, which is extremely serious. the me just say -- let me start with two minutes on china's technology policy. to understand what the policy comes from is to appreciate how difficult it is for the u.s. position. so,china's goal is to become an innovative economy. it is a great goal.

the problem is the implementation of that goal. so, you have a number of underlying decrees and documents that have been around for a long time. the thing about china is, if you read what they put out, you learn quite a bit. it is reasonably transparent. so, i will take two. one is their medium-term blueprint for science and technology. china is determined to reverse the ratio of foreign technology and foreign ip from what they calculate as 60-30 to the reverse. 60 indigenous in china. it laid out a series of -- [inaudible]

[no audio] this is the world's largest filer of patents. it would be in the top five of countries whose patents are retooled -- routinely cited in major scientific publications. it is a long way from that. and, the rapid commercialization -- it wants technology and either -- the second big plan is the plan to 20-50. china points out in this plan that it missed the first industrial revolution. of this great economy, a third

of the world's wealth until early in the last century, it missed entirely the industrial revolution. it is still catching up. the goal of the second plan is to not miss the second industrial revolution in which we are all in, but to leave the second industrial revolution. a variety of industries are singled out for special attention from the government. a variety of focus on technology, and alito property, and its importance to china and its indigenous asian. you have the 12 plants. march 7 -- all the industries over all these years when you have to read the stuff. this indicates the strong technology orientation of the

chinese economy. so, all of this is great. it is impressive. the problem is, there is an enormous gap in china between aspiration and the ability to actually execute. there is an enormous innovation in china. it is still a heavy tech- absorber. not a technology creator. who fills the gap? between aspiration and current ability to execute? u.s. companies european companies. multinational companies who are in china and who, because of a

series of interventionist policies, are increasingly under pressure to transfer technology. to transfer intellectual property. i do not know of any major company who has not felt this pressure. and a series of policies that try to force the indigenous asian of technology -- indigenouzation of technology. or, special encryption algorithms or you need national standards to which companies have to conform and to show conformance, you have to expose all of your ip. there is a range of programs here that are involved that all interlink. they work together in a very powerful way.

there are lots of responses to this. fewer commercial responses. they're a china-government relations responses. and there is the u.s. government. the u.s. has used the wto and that is fine. it is missing a fundamental mechanism for helping. there's been a large hiatus on the u.s. side for various reasons.

using a bilateral investment treaty could allow u.s.-european companies the protection of intellectual property they cannot quite get in the wto. all of these measures we are talking about, all of them, diminish the value of human investment in china. they diminish the value of a joint venture. they diminish the value of your fdi. that means is a treaty violation. that means international arbitration. it is a whole different playing field. a whole different playing field. so, i would add to the list a policy prescription for the next administration getting on the dime and negotiating an extremely broad, including an ip-focused bilateral investment

with china . >> i would celeste bilateral treaties that they (countries. ok. we are at the point where everything has been said that not everything has said it -- everyone has said it. i am delighted and honored to be here with my colleagues. the four merc and echo the point that we do need to question all of us for being here. thank you for hosting this event. we do need to give this audience credit and i give my colleagues credit. part of the reason we are here is we do actually care about this stuff. we do genuinely care about these

issues. that is kind of fun. we are kind of wonky. my assignment was to cover what my colleagues had not covered, which is not a whole lot. trade agenda, i am to your right. you are sandwiched by folks who do agree that it is dead. we do not need to get into that theological debate. i think we would all agree that we need to get beyond it. let us declare victory and move on. i think the key in terms of what is going on in geneva today, sadly, is that we have a number

of -- a couple of the larger emerging economies that are looking at what is or what was on the table in the doha around and realize that even though this one is not going anywhere and believe me, it is not going anywhere, the next thing they realize will not be as sweet. whatever the next iteration will be, particularly on industrial goods, there will be a differentiation between developing countries and developing countries. the larger developing countries will not be treated the same way as the smaller, poorer developing countries. there will be more of a continuum. they are probably kind of hanging on to what was on the table, even if it means nothing actually. it is in everyone's interest to

move on. who is hurt the most? there is this proliferation of bilateral regional deals. the answer is, the smaller players. the poor players that are out there. if you look at the 300 bilateral free trade agreements that are out there, and they tend to be amongst the larger countries. my focus is going to be on the why old roads, whether we're talking about bilateral or plural laterals i'm going to touch on all those -- why all reads should be -- all road should be leading to a reinvigoration.

we need to reinforce the multilateral system over time and realize we are kind of stalled out in geneva. while we have a proactive agenda on the bilateral front, those activities should not preclude ye -- i do agree that at the end of the day the folks in geneva really should be focused right now on moving on beyond doha. that should be the number 1, 2, things on our agenda.

the investors ought to be talking about that. how to move on for the help of the system. the number of you -- a number of you have heard me say that the biggest threat of that -- to the too is the doha. while we're waiting for the next multilateral round to show up, what kind of bilateral agreements should we be talking about? we have talked about some of those today. we have talked about the ttp. i would stress some of the points that have been made. how do we make sure that these can be evolving systems? college design, so much they could be concentric circles that they can grow. such that we can open them up for countries that are willing to take on the responsibilities,

to take on the new issues that are built into them. after all, and some of you i think we're here at for the discussion -- here at csis for a discussion on partnership. one of the most significant things about the negotiation is that the next generation of trade negotiators -- the precedents are being set in the negotiations. whether it is about the state owned enterprises and state- supported enterprises, whether it is about -- these are things that are ultimately going to get reverse integrated into the multilateral system at some stage. they will be proliferated through other bilateral,

regional sectoral deals. watch this space. how will rules of origin be designed so these are not closed system so that ultimately, you can build a concentric circle. you can reverse integrate and these can become the wto plus structures. ultimately, wto-supported structures rather than exclusion. structures -- exclusionary structures. second, sectoral deals. we talked about the information technology agreement. that is exhibit a. charlene deserves a huge amount of credit. i would commend any of you who have not read it, i t i f put out a study on the ita.

97% of all trade is covered. this is an mfn agreement that needs updating. the u.s. does not need any authority. we have residual authority to expand the coverage. the agreement was negotiated before gps systems were invented. there are new semiconductor technologies that can be put into this new expanded coverage. it is the absolute perfect example where the countries that are not signatories,, brazil, for example, have so obviously shot themselves in the foot when you look at the data. a free rider is on the slowest car in the highway. so the benefits that have

accrued to the producers and consumers have accrued not just to the producers and consumers of ict equipment, but to the consumers. the upstream consumers. the users of that equipment to make any number of other things in any number of other sectors. it is really a compelling example of how liberal trade is a multiplier effect. sectorial agreements, whether it is in this sector or we have talked about medical equipment. you can talk about foursomes -- pharmaceuticals or a variety of other things. poor laterals, services is a great example of where we should not be waiting around for other countries to agree. as it happens, there is a group in geneva called the really good

friends of services liberalization. there are 16 of them. i do not know what really good friends means. maybe they shower together. [laughter] >> >> tmi. >> it is a new world. [laughter] [applause] >> this is a no-brainer. whether it is a financial services, express delivery, transportation services, e commerce, again, these are things we should be doing unilaterally. if you cannot get your all legislature, you're on executive branch to do it that way, leverage somebody else's and let us do it. let us sing to my eye and do it together because it will make our own domestic economies grow. we have talked about a variety

of these kinds of things. it you get where i am going with it. trade facilitation, customs facilitation, again, does not like tariffs. why let thing said at the border? transparency, we are trying to get rid of corruption. what better way to do it than to build transparency. apec has been doing this. we should be doing this together in geneva. architecture is a great example of that. let me close with just echoing one thing. russia pntr -- we have talked about leadership and priorities and the compliments of trade policy. russia is going to be a member of the wto. this summer. jim, july. period. whether congress moves russia

pntr or not. therefore, it is not about russia joining the fight -- wto, it is whether the u.s. will benefit from russia being a member of the too. -- the wto. pntr is not leverage. the sooner we go about doing it, the better because it is in our interest to do it. it has nothing to do with russia. that requires leadership. it requires the administration. the white house. the department of state. foreign policy establishment because the debate and discussion is largely poor policy human rights debate discussion -- foreign-policy human rights debate discussions. there are legitimate issues associated with russia, not having to do with the trade, the

wto, pntr. the sooner the better. it is a bipartisan issue that congress should move this. i would argue -- i have argued in writing that it is in our interest, the u.s. interest, for foreign-policy reasons. it is in russia's interest. it is in the economic and commercial interests of both countries. i leave it at that. we have plenty to talk about. thank you for inviting us here today. [applause] >> man gets some help up here so we can on blood this? -- may i get some help up here so we can unplug this? [laughter]

that's it. we are moving. [laughter] are right. who wants to respond? us? i want you to respond to each other. there is no burning comment. >> we have talked. she will come with a microphone. >> thank you. >> that microphone is not on. [inaudible] it is not on. >> -- [inaudible]

put yourself in a position where you were able to devise -- [inaudible] what is the most important some bite that you give that will be meaningful to listeners of both fox and msnbc? >> you want one? >> weddigen question. >> i will give you one. i do not know if it is a good one. 95% of the consumers in the world live outside of the world. we are 20% of the world's economy. we are going to be a less part of the world's economy if we are --

if we are going to finance everything, we have to take advantage of the rest of the world. you can only to the economically through trade. that would be my sound bite. >> that is a bit ago. that is a keeper. >> i would like to add -- jobs. people did not seem to realize that global trade creates jobs everywhere. for the importer. the exporter. the producer. the manufacturer. the transport. there are millions of jobs that are related to trade and more trade, the more jobs. we need to get off of this staying at -- this pitch that exports could come in -- export

is good, import his bed. -- import is bad. >> trade makes u.s. posture. go to the hill and personally sell that idea. call people into the white house and explain to them 5% of the world's population -- where are we going to put it? what are the opportunities in terms of our security, our national interest -- trade makes the u.s. -- this is what our national interest is all about. >> if you look at polling data, you discover that when

presidents are out there talking positively about trade -- when candidates are saying negative things about trade, you see more negative attitudes among the population of that trade. so, when president come out of presidential campaigns having talked down trade. it said prius apprises the negative public attitudes about trade. they are saying positive things about trade. there is a positive impact. leadership counts if -- that is worth noting. candidates pay for their negative rhetoric.

>> of the presidents you all worked for, who was the best in articulating? >> george h. w. bush. [laughter] >> reagan. what are you talking about? >> can i respond. -- bill clinton was a phenomenal president on the trade side. what we did in eight years is breathtaking. on -- we tell the sectorial agreements. his challenge was that the visual on trade, the closed

factory gate moved to mexico. one picture tells an unbelievably powerful story. the benefits of trade are much more diffuse in an economy is 50 more jobs are here. there is a rise in living standards. it is very hard to put that in as powerful a context rhetorically. i used to talk about this quite a bit because -- he used to talk about discredited because he was a believer in open trade. he always found it is very difficult to bring the issues at a public level in as powerful a manner as the one picture closed. >> very quickly, to give you a fact, i hate to do with a fact.

in july of 1993, -- by the time nafta passed the congress, over half the american public supported them. 30% were opposed. you can move the needle. that is not just -- i hesitate to say anything because everybody thinks you are just lacking from bill clinton. yes, i am. [laughter] it is an example. all the presidents have done it. he is not the only one. presidents have to do it more. that was something i started to start with. -- i tried to start with . >> i would love to hear candidate saying, what are we afraid of? for gosh sakes, we are the strongest most productive people in the history of the world. what are we afraid of? the opportunity is there. let us go get some jobs.

>> us at so-called experts who raise questions asked questions we know the answer to. i want to ask a question i do not know the answer to. a number of people have recently been arguing that there is under way a fundamentally -- a fundamental resolution in terms of energy markets. the low cost of natural gas --

does this change what we should be doing? what our priority should be doing in trade negotiations? assuming that part of this so- called good news about the relative u.s. position an advantage in energy markets becomes true? >> i will take a quick shot at that. others can add. i do not claim to be an energy expert at all. i think we have got to be careful about over promising in that area. this is another area where unrealistic expectations can get us in a great deal of difficulty. i think it is great we are working on all of these alternatives sources of energy and of course agriculture is heavily involved in that.

but, the fact is, we are going to be dependent upon -- heavily dependent on fossil fuels for a long time to come. so, we need to figure out a way to generate greater production of fossil fuels from areas other than countries that do not like us very much. i am from inside u.s. trade. i have two questions i was hoping to draw on all of your experience. the first question is about negotiation and that is about the ttp. you have these two created -- these two -- gis to

-- you have these two created many of you seem to believe that that is important, bringing those new folks in an order to broaden the economic value of the deal. how did you come as a negotiator, deal with this two competing priorities. should they just say, let us slow down these negotiations and bring in the new important players or do you try to finish it this year? the second question is about congress. many of you talked about russia pntr. is that doable this year ending -- in an election year? you know how politics can come into play, especially in an election. thank you. >> thank you. ttp membership. then he asked about russia pntr. >> if you had open architecture

and have your agreement tied to the debbie to, the way sharleen did with us government procurement agreement or the intellectual property -- ita agreement, then it would be an open door for all those able to meet the commitment. you do not have to slow down. you have to keep your door open. >> let me just add that even if you assume the existing nine with no edition, your question assumes that one can finish it this year. that will not happen. even with the existing nine. the issue is whether it will slow things down inordinately by adding other countries. it will slow it down some. it is worth it. >> absolutely. let me just say, you have to

learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. [laughter] you can do that. this is not rocket science. to be able to move this forward, to do what we did indeed ita and then at the same time, bring in japan, canada, mexico. that is difficult politically. we have got to do that. we have got some countries in asia. it will hurt them. we ought to move on both at the same time. we can do it. it is something we need to do. it leads to a bigger agreement in the future. i hope the near future finally involving china. we have got to take the stairs steps toward this. this is the way to start. we should not wait. we can do this now.

election-year does not matter when you are doing these trade agreements. i hope we start now. >> i do not know whether i am agreeing or disagreeing with my colleagues. i think -- negotiating a buyout -- a bilateral and with eight other countries is very different. negotiating with eight versus 12 is orders of magnitude different. ok? and when the others include japan or canada with supply management in theory, for example, to pull a hypothetical example -- or japan with japan

post and some sensitivities in agriculture. i agree. i agree that ttp was a path to take it from p5 though to the free-trade area. or wto plus. meaning taking it out ciba region. -- outside the region. if anybody else was willing to take on very robust-our commitment and ultimately reverse integrate into the wto, that was fine. however, the first requirement is the precedent setting. the precedent setting has to be the high bar. i am not sure you can achieve that high bar if japan is

sitting there in the first negotiating exercise. i say that as an open question. when you resist as for a long as you are, and i am not sure how far that is because i am not privy to the negotiation, getting done that high bar and then having to have the opportunity for others to come in, recognizing that you -- if you think of the tpp 9 and tpp1.0 and tpp 12 as tpp 1.5 -- that is probably what we are talking about here. your soe provisions might

change if you are talking about china coming in at some point. maybe not. ideally, you will white soe provisions that you would like to see china signing up to. am i making sense? negotiating tpp with your original nine as opposed to negotiating it with that 12 is a very, very different proposition. i am not sure you are not adding three, five, or seven years on to the exercise that you would not want to add on. >> go ahead. >> i am not disagreeing with the additional complexity, but in terms of approach, we have an opportunity in japan that does not come very often.

you have a governor -- a significant portion of the government that want to do this. >> do they want to do this? >> it depends on who you were talking to. [laughter] there are a lot of people that would give a lot to be able to do this and it would help them deal with some domestic issues. you may not have to bring an end. i think you have to say you want it. there is a difference. we would have to say that we have not -- we have not said enough about how we would feel. we have been dancing on this thing . >> i would love to have the japanese in tpp. >> that is not what i'm saying. if we have a tough agreement with an open architecture and we say that this is it.

we want. we welcome. we encourage. >> other countries? >> i would say japan. i think that country has got to -- we really need that country. we're not playing any right cards at the moment. i am discouraged. >> could i? if you are going to negotiate a trade agreement with a country, you have to understand what their intentions are. or, you are taking on a huge amount of work with no pay down. i agree with mickey. the fact is, indonesia has no particular desire to be in tpp. i would say, move ahead with those that will. move ahead. do not wait.

similarly, japan. i had an interesting discussion with a number of high-level japanese who assured me they were very interested in tpp. i said, i am delighted. i am too. i read about it in the newspaper. what will you do to show your interest? we are going to reemphasize how interested we are. i said, no. no no no. what will you do to show that he will be capable of doing -- what will you show that shows what you do by the end of the year? silence. until japan has its own internal situation, then, the u.s. should move forward with those that can. having said that, there is no

question-agreement needs to be bigger to be the economic consequence. and, there is no question -- i agree that we have to indicate to those countries that are not part of this negotiation, number one, we want them in. then we need to go a step further and number two, work with each one of them as we are proceeding on this negotiation to find out informally where they get -- and to begin thinking how that will be resolved. walk and chew gum at the same time. when they can make a leap, they are ready to make it and you are ready to agree that it is significant. >> can we move on?

>> as. >> we will get back to the ncr. -- pntr. i want to go back to the comments on china. >> india has done a lot in the last year in the same phase in brazil was starting to do the same thing to compete with china. the question is, what is the solution for these complex localization requirements? some of the more traditional. some are more complex. tpp has a few provisions that are helpful in the commerce, encryption. by the time is negotiated, it will be out of date. even though u.s. -- even though we are trying to make an agreement. what are some other ideas in this space because we are one of

the industries that is targeted as a strategic sector for import substitution. i do not think this trend will go away anytime soon. thank you. >> i think this is the $64,000 question. by that i mean, i do not have any particular simple answer and there is no silver bullet. india, brazil, korea, china -- a number of other countries are following this example of indigenous innovation of localization, forced local content, focusing on the one element they do not have. that is intellectual property. and so, this is an extremely serious problem. the u.s. could suggest to those countries where this is a problem that we had better sit down and come to some

understanding on the rules of the road to be on the wto or it will affect the investment environment in those countries as well as the investment environment here for their investment. the difficulty here, frankly, is the companies that complain. if you were china and you received $70 billion of inward investment last year, what would you change? nothing. that is one of the difficulties. these countries have to feel the sting of investment elsewhere. in that regard, i have often thought that there is a big bet missing. for ossian to declare an ip- protected zone, you see an

extraordinary amount of investment going there. bottom line is, i think the u.s. is a policy matter. i put this high on the agenda. it will have to sink through some form of agreement or understanding amongst the other major players in this space. this issue will only get worse. >> i agree. let me remind us that we have been contemplating the new bilateral investment treaty for 2.5 years. china has asked repeatedly to join with us in a bilateral investment treaty. such a treaty would go a long way to prevent discrimination against inward investment and how the domestics are traded. we need 1 -- we needed was yesterday. we still have not decided what our bilateral investment treaty

will cover. secondly, it is true, china has $70 billion worth of investment. it also has the largest number of new patent holders. the best way to get a country to move forward on intellectual property is when the pressure comes from home. we are ready beginning to see that. at the last meeting of the j see see t -- jcct there was a commitment by china that there would be an odd and. -- audit. since that time, the standing committee's direct person to get complaints to has changed. this is not a perfect answer. at least china is putting it on the agenda. bilateral investment treaties and continuing talking about this is what we need to do.

>> thank you. i would like to comment on the issue of enforcement. could you comment on the significant number of regional and bilateral settlement mechanisms? when you look at what is happening, very few of the settlement mechanisms within these regional trade agreements have been very well utilize or proven to be very effective. many disputes between the u.s. and canada could very easily have gone to a nafta panel have been set on to the too. many of the disputes within

merkel certification have gone to the wto. when we now have day tpp without a deputy 0 block -- without wto law, it has to go with in these regional trade agreements -- how do you see this tension getting results with trade enforcement? >> i would say that having negotiated the last four fta's and gone to the canadian lumber deal, it is one of the frustrations with the bilateral regional deals. it is one of the things that makes me optimistic that we will cycle back to the multilateral system. there is no comparison. what is done is, you are starting to write into bilateral

deals arbitration. that is a very blunt instrument. for those of us in the trade policy arena, the wto process where you have sort of a panel of peters and you have the opportunity to try to work out something that makes sense because, as you know, the day you win the case or the day you retaliate, you have really lost. it is a much better process. it is a much better outcome. it is a much better means of enforcement. i hope, at the end of the day, the reason will cycle back to be multilateral framework. for now, the bilateral approach is much less enforceable. it is less satisfactory. >> the other element here is,

there are 400 agreements. most are glorified tariff agreements. very few deal with agriculture. very few deal with services. the rules are quite close. baier discretionary in any event. -- they are discretionary in any event. the single most important sectoral agreement would be zeroing out tariffs. you would completely disarm almost all of the 400 fta's because they are glorified tariff agreements. if you take away terrace, what is the point of the agreement? you are back to the wto. as economic studies -- the lower your tariffs, the greater the growth. tariffs are taxes. on your own input, which is ironic.

the u.s. should be looking for as many as zero terrelle options as it can find on a broad sector of basis. >> i agree with that statement. we really have some high tariffs on some of the poorest countries. bangladesh pay 16% tax on a very small quantity of exports to the u.s. great britain, less than 1%. i can go through all the poor countries that are large. indonesia pays six times more. pakistan -- we are trying to make friends there. they paid 10 times more. this makes no sense at all. to answer your question, under the wto rules, article 24, if you have substantially all trade being covered, you can put the agreement in the wto. similarly, article four. if you have the agreement with

an article -- the wto, then you have a dispute settlement mechanism that everyone understands and does not have this complexity of roles. >> let me go back a little further than your time in office. in the tokyo round, one of the things that the u.s. wanted the most to get out of that agreement was a change in u.s. countervail and -- kanner rehr la. -- countervail law. so it would be more efficient and benefit the u.s. economy. up until the last few minutes, there has not been a whole lot said about what the u.s. should want to change out of u.s.

practices in any of these trade initiatives. though, as has been set come increasing imports is an important reason why we participate in these agreements. what are a few of the highlights that you would recommend be the top of the priority list that we should seek to change in an agreement where we get adequate compensation from our trading partners? >> good question. since i am the only one here who was alive at the tokyo round, maybe i can -- [laughter] maybe i can start off. i can remember those very discussions that you are talking about. we add an entry provision to our law at that time, as he recalled.

at the great insistence of the european economic committee as it was called then. we got zero in return. it was the worst deal made in the entire tokyo route. it says that -- anti-dumping laws would be a great place to start. if we were going to make changes in our own system. we have set a terrible example for the rest of the world in the way we run anti-dumping. the rest of the world as copying us. we are getting a kick in the rear for what we have been doing to the rest of the world for a good many years. the fact is, anti-dumping laws are written such a way that one can find anti-dumping in 90 plus% of the cases.

-- 90 plus% of the cases. what we ought to do is shaping up anti-dumping laws everywhere and as was said earlier, the u.s. needs to set an example in some of these areas and exercise some leadership. that is one example where we have fallen down. >> great. >> hello. i just want to thank everyone for their great presentation. makes me feel 10 years younger, actually. [laughter] the thing that was not addressed, and there is a lot of momentum about trade going right down the line for the decades if i might say -- it seems to have dropped out at investors swapping. what happened the day you left office and why did it happen? >> oh.

>> why do have this policy now? this policy of no trade policy, which i think you all have implied. someone once told me that the president does not get it. [laughter] >> alright, i will take a shot. for most presidents, the first couple of years of the first term are spent on domestic policy. for bill clinton, it was a little bit different because sitting there was nafta. this end of the year rewound of negotiations.

there was an apparent dig to make administration decisions. do we goethes -- there was an apparent need to make administration decisions. do we go forward with the euro route? that is a typical. for this administration with the president coming into the situation he did, which is to say massive deficits, and then of course the war, i think that his attention was probably occupied elsewhere, frankly. one could argue appropriately so. it seems to me, under those circumstances, it would have been wise for the administration to better empower its cabinet, which i think was something of a surprise to many of us who watched.

with this embrace of tpp and the passage of the korea fta, i think the administration is seeing this could be an area of important advance for the president. especially in light of his idea of doubling exports in five years. my hope would be, it is president obama at the next four years, or a new president, my hope would be that the momentum that justice has begun now -- that a little more momentum is now put behind these efforts. thus, i do think you are right to say that all of us agree in one form or another that there has been a bit of a slowing off the block in terms of trade.

>> i did not imply anything. [laughter] >> are you running for something? [laughter] the rest of this will imply. >> you cannot understand the first year or two because you have come out of a campaign. you have made commitments to your constituencies. we have yet to see that decision. it is not tpp. we have an economic problem in this

country. it is not just the fiscal deficit and the opportunity is up there for us to grant. we are not seizing it, because we aren't taking the initiative. we are the only people that can carry this country has to talk about trade as an issue of political consequence. we do not do that. we treat it as an issue for tax -- the textile industry, or the ethanol industry, who that kind of thing. it bothers me that we seem to sit back and left the negatives take control of the debate. >> one other element here for his death to many people, including people at the highest -- to many people here, including people at the highest level of the health

administration really do not see trade as a big deal. facing domestic policy as a big, who -- they see domestic policy as a big, big deal. the fact is it is incredibly important, and it is way more important that if -- then it was 20 or 30 years ago. somehow, people have to get the. >> that is why you should continue right team, and you should make it clear to the strategic issues are not only on the economic, bilateral benefit of the trade transaction, but also how it effects foreign policy, who developed a policy, security policy and our economic growth and prosperity. >> we have tons for one more question. there you go. >> in that regard, for the end

of a career, they studied the future of the foreign aid program. it quickly developed into a study of of u.s. programs for the developing world, and i think i counted 26 of the time. among the conclusions was that trade was infinitely more important to the reduction of poverty than bilateral assistance, but another point was the u.s. system was done very well coordinated. if there are all kind of see systems. if there is an element of trade. if there is agriculture and so on. my question is, how do we give trade to have a bigger voice in the broader government, because it does in effect poverty and security, and everything else, is there a way we can better

coordinate without having to reorganize the government. thank you. >> i think it was very well- coordinated in the clinton administration, which is why he created a national economic council to ahead there was complete quantitation on the economic side, as well as on the security, and diplomatic side through the nec and the joint meetings that were held all of the time. >> let me follow what. i was going to say that. she -- she says it better than i can't. -- can. when we set the table, president clinton insisted that bob rubin was there.

warren christopher was there ahe i was there. it forced the discussion of issues and decisions made in a way that was coordinated. you are right. it needs to be done better. there is no doubt about that. we tend to think of these things as if we all live in silos, with our own problems, our own agenda, and our own priorities. if we do not often enough share them, in a share across the government. it ought to be done better. moving the box will not make it go better, frankly. that is the only comment i will make on that. we have an imperative -- and opportunity to make -- to take the advantage of a world that is changing its for the better, had

we need to provide leadership. trade is a critical element of this. >> we know how to do this. from my experience, we have a tightly controlled experience. we have every cabinet person involved from state, treasury, commerce. we shared it. we know how to do it. we have proven that it works. all i can say is why the hell? >> we use to help a wheatley -- why not now? >> we used to have a weekly discussion, and when you articulate the issue, the parties and to roll towards a consensus in the middle.

>> a absolutely. >> it is good to do it regularly and death the deputy-level -- and at the deputy level. you head the president regularly having lunch with the chair of ways and means. he knew what was the unwind. if we gave him a note of something that we wanted him to raise, he raised it, but it was important to him. trade was important. we have to elevate because trade is absolutely vital to u.s. prosperity and peace. >> thank you. >> does anyone else at this table think you accomplish these objectives of better coordination and higher priority for trade in the commerce

department? >> we do not want that part reaching that km -- we do not want that the redh. ] >> we want to conclude here. the initiative will have chairman dave camp to talk about the trade agenda. i would like for you guys to put them on your agenda. i appreciate your attendance, and have a good holiday. >> it is so great of you to come. >> i have had a great time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> heading into the holiday weekend, as they do the first friday of every month, the labor department released on unplowed statistics for the previous month. the month of march showed growth of 120,000 jobs, with the un and clinton rate falling slightly to 8.2% character has been a reaction, including from mitt romney who said this is a week and troubling jobs report. hectored three years in office, the president's excuses have run out. a statement representing the good news for americans able to secure employees, but after three years policies have produced slow growth and continued high unemployment

terahertz the president also made comments about the jobs number -- the unemployment numbers. the president also made comments about the jobs number. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. everybody, please, have a seat. thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> everybody, sit down, sit down. i was going to head over here earlier, and they said no, this place is full of women, and they are settling down. i said what do you mean, what are they doing? creating havoc? welcome to the white house, everybody. it is a pleasure to be surrounded by so many talented, accomplished women. it makes me feel right at home, though usually i have my white man -- wing man bo with me.

i want to thank everyone who has made this possible hophead -- possible. >> and joe is not denying it. [laughter] >> i want to sit thank you to the members of my cabinet that are participating today, and to all of you that are lending their time and energy to the critical cause a broadening opportunity for americans when an apparent right now, no issue is more right now, no issue is more important. that begins with making sure everyone who wants a job has won. we welcome today's news.

[applause] >> we welcome today's news that our businesses created another 100 plus 1000 jobs last month. the unemployment rate ticked down. our economy has created more than 4 million private-sector jobs in the past two years, and over 600,000 in the past three months alone. it is clear to every american that there will still be ups and downs along the way, and we have a lot more to do to re. that includes addressing challenges that are unique to women's economic security, who challenges that have been around since long before the recession has hit. that is why one of the first things i did was create a white house council on women and girls. i wanted to make sure every agency considers the needs of women and girls in every

decision we make. today we are releasing a report that the set women's economic security through all stages of life, her from young women have further in their education or are beginning their careers, to working women who create jobs and provide for their families, to seniors in retirement, or getting ready for retirement and. there has been a lot of talk about women and women's issues lately, as there should be, but i do think the conversation has been over-simplified. women are not a monolithic bloc. women are not an interest group. he should not be treated that way. [applause] >> women are over half of this country and its workforce, not to mention 85% of my household if you count my mother-in-law,

and i always count my mother-in- law to carry every decision made by those of us in -- la.. of the decision made in public life impacts women. i would like to spend some time talking about why we have done what we have done. for me, but least, it begins with the women who shaped my life ah. i grew up the son of a single mom who struggled to put herself through school and make ends meet, but had to rely on food stamps. she earned her education. she made it through with scholarships and hard work and my sister and i earned our degrees because of her motivation, support, and her

impact. told this story before. is to wake me up before dawn when i was living overseas, making sure i was keeping up with my american education. when i complained she would let loose with this is no picnic for me either, buster. [laughter] [applause] >> that as part of the reason why my sister chose to become a teacher. when my mother needed help, my grandmother stepped in. my grandmother had a high-school education. my grandfather got to go to college on a and g.i. bill. my grandmother was not afforded to those opportunities even though she worked on a bomber assembly line in world war ii. nonetheless, her she'd have a job the local bank. she was smart, tough, disciplined, who worked hard, and eventually rose from being a

secretary to been vice president at this bank. i am convinced she would have then the best president that a bank would have ever seen had she gotten the chance, but at some point she hit the glass ceiling, and for a big chunk of her career, she watched other men that she had trained, younger men that she had trained past her up that ladder to ahr. there is the woman who once advised me of the law firm in met.ago where we canno [laughter] >> [laughter] she gave me very good device -- advice. when is why i decided to marry her. once we have our girls, she gave the all suit balance, in

pursuing a career whether it was something difficult on her because i was gone a lot. i was practicing law. i would be traveling. we did not have the luxury for ork.not to wirth ahe and she was with the girls she felt guilty she was not giving enough time to work, and at work she felt guilty for not giving enough time to the girls, who in like many of you read both wish there were a machine that could lead at both places at once ahee. she had to juggle it, and had an extraordinary burden for a long time. finally, as a father, when of the highlights of every day is asking my daughters about their day, their hopes, where futures.

is what drives me every day when i step in the oval office. every decision i make is all about making sure they grow well in a country that gives them a chance to be anything they set their minds to, a country where more doors are open to them than were opened to us ahe. when i think about these efforts, when we put together this council on women and girls, who this is personal. it is at the heart of all of our efforts. these are the prisons to which i view these efforts. that is what we mean when we say these issues are more than just a matter of policy. we talk about the issues the primarily impact women, we have to make sure they're not just women's issues.

family issues. the economic issues. they are issues about economic competitiveness. impact of us. when women make less than men for the same work that hurts family. the job does not offer family leave to care for a new baby, where six leaves to care for an ailing parent, the burdens men as well. when insurance plans to deny coverage, who that puts a strain and emergency rooms in drives of the cost of care for everyone. and any of our citizens cannot fulfill the potential they health because of factors such a thing to do with talent, character, or work effort, and

that diminishes us hall. it holds all of us back. it says something about who we are as americans. right now, when the car a growing number of bread-winners in the household, but they are still earning eight just 77 cents for every dollar a man does, he and less if you are african-american or latino. overall, women with a college degree turning hot -- and doing the same work as a man will earn hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a month over the course of their career. in this gap is about far more than simple fairness. more women are bringing home the bacon, but less of it, it weakens families, communities, it is tough on kids, headed weakens the entire economy.

[applause] >> which is why the first bill i assigned her into law was the fair pay half -- the first bill- signing into law was the fair pay act. [applause] >> = pay for equal work we are pushing for legislation to give women more tools to fight a discrimination. have encouraged companies to make workplaces more flexible, so women do not to choose between being a good employee and a good mother. more women are also choosing to strike out on their own. 30% of small-business owners are women. businesses generated hot $1.2 trillium last year -- trillion

last year through outstanding work in parts of our and administration, who we have extended more than 16,000 new loans worth $4.5 billion to women-owned businesses. [applause] >> the to mention cut taxes for small businesses 17 times, so more women have the power to create more jobs and more opportunity. are also focus on making sure more women are prepared to fill the good jobs of today and tomorrow. last decade, when and have earned well over half of higher education degrees awarded if in america, the once they get out of college, which still have a lot of ground to cover. just

3% of fortune 500 ceo could tell our. are women/ a possible congressman death things done -- would get more done if there were more women in congress? [applause] i think the as fair to say. that is almost guaranteed. [laughter] >> white women account for four and five degrees in areas like -- while for women account for four and five degrees in areas like education, we have to recognize that only two in- business degrees go to women, who fewer than one in four

science degrees to go to win in. no unspoken bias or outdated barriers should never prevent a girl from considering careers in these fields. when creativity is limited or ingenuity is discouraged, where it hurts all of us. we have to do more to encourage women to join these fields as well, when making it easier to will for the education required, send a clear message to our daughters, which i am doing every night -- math, science, nothing wrong with it. how lot right with it. we need you to focus. why race to the talk has put a priority on science, technology, and math education, rewarding states that took steps

to make sure that all stevens had the opportunity to get excited about these fields at an early age, when we have helped more than 2.3 million more young women pursue higher education with increases in the pell grants. >> the [applause] is good news. another example. health reform. that has been in the news lately. because of the health reform law that we passed, when finally have more power to make their choices about their health care. [applause] >> last year, who more than 20 million women received expanded access to services like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings at no additional costs. nearly 2 million women enrolled

in medicare received a 50% discount on the medicine they need over 1 million more young women are insured because they can stay on their parents' plan. this year women will receive access to recommended preventive care like domestic violence screening and contraceptives have no additional costs. [applause] soon, insurance companies will no longer be able to buy coverage based on pre-existing conditions like breast cancer or charge women more just because they are women. we have not gone on the dry cleaning thing yet. i know that is still -- that still frustrating, i am sure. [laughter]

>> so, when it comes to our efforts on behalf of women and girls, by a cut of the accomplishment we could point to. we have a lot more to do, but there is no doubt we have made progress. the policies we put in place over the past three years have started to take hold, and what we cannot do now is go back to the policies that got us into so many of the problems which we have been dealing with in the first place. that is what is that state. when people talk about repealing health-care reform, who they are not saying we should just stop protecting women with pre-existing conditions, they are also saying we should take about 1 million young women off of their parents' health care plans parent when people say we should get rid of planned parenthood, they are not talking about restricting a woman's ability to make her own health

restrictions, if they're talking about denying as a practical matter and the provide good care like mammograms that millions of women rely on. when away with student aid, they are not thinking about the costs to our future, when millions of young americans will have trouble affording to go to college. something like the violence against women act, which a bill joe biden offered, her a bill that was passed by unwind, bipartisan margins -- a bill that was passed by why, but partisan margins is suddenly called into question how, how that makes no sense. [applause] >> that is not something we should still be arguing about five. the need to tell anyone here that progress is here -- hard.

changes slow opportunity and equality do not come without a fight. nga to keep fighting even after you have won some victories things and now we move forward. do know that these things are possible. our crews to that. incredible collection of accomplished women, who are close of change. so is the fact that for the first time in history, her young girls across the country can see three women sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land. [applause] >> or they can read about the extraordinary leadership of a woman who went by the title madam speaker. [applause] >> or they could see that one of

the most formidable presidential candidates and senators we ever had is doing a job as the best half -- one of the best secretaries of state that we have ever had. >> and they can see that every single day another 500 when and how just like yourselves take the helm of their own company right here in america into their part to open the doors of opportunity just a little bit wider for the next generation. as long as i have the privilege of being your president, who will work every single day to make sure those stores stay open and widen the circle of opportunity for all of north kids. thank you for what you do. keep it up. god bless you. if god bless the united states of america. [applause]

[chanting] >> in a statement of unemployment, the white house says the unemployment rate for construction workers is more than double the national average. again, the jobless rate fell to 8.2% in march, when the economy adding 120,000 jobs. that broke three months of job gains exceeding 300,000, suggesting a recovery is hampered by factors including high gasoline prices. >> tonight, reporters and photographers who have covered the conference in syria, afghanistan, libya, in egypt talk about their experiences.

>> i have always said that some of these guys have a reverse personality. when things are really, really good, they can be on manageable perez when things are really, really bad, they are calm. it is really amazing. i'm not saying they do not fear -- feel fear head how they do. they manage it, and a channel it. when they have to work, they concentrate. then you get back, and you have to wait for a helicopter, but i think when they are out there in the middle of it, when a work site-by-side with photographers -- i work site-by-side with photographers, who in a sense it is self organizing a pair of how

you are not in those situations when you are home. when you are home, you get stuck in traffic, when you're just a guy stuck in traffic. it is not so bad record >> if after that, who see a tribute to maryland senator barbara mikulski. last month, she became the longest serving female member of congress in u.s. history. >> begin my heart, i'm still the congresswoman from the 13th congressional district. i am still a fighter, still a reformer. high and that young girl -- i am matt young girl. -that person who with one little candle. i will continue to work with all of you in this room. how you are here because you make a difference. let's continue to work together to make change, and may the force be with us. [applause]

>> than a tribute to two former senators were honored for their 100 years of public service. >> it was a great honor and a genuine a privilege to serve with how each of you, her to learn from each of you. i know you wish i had learned more, haddad -- bob [applause] reporting on war and conflict, a tribute to its the bottom kosti, when the to be to former senators baker and dole. tonight, on c-span. >> this weekend marks the anniversary of the bloodiest battle to be fought in the civil war. we will for the battlefield with a chief park ranger saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. sunday night, the angel of the battlefield and flounder -- founder of the red cross operate in the missing soldier office

until 1868. join us, as we rediscover the third floor office as it is prepared for renovations. this weekend, on c-span 3. >> talks concerning the nuclear program in iran are scheduled for one week from today. next, from the world affairs council, a debate on the nuclear program and the prospect of military confrontation. we will hear about ways of preventing military action through diplomacy. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> good evening. welcome to the world affairs council, washington, d.c. this will air as a weekly television

hour. as a courtesy to our audience, i have asked that you turn off your cell phones, and also during the questions that will follow the debate, the microphone will be placed up here, and i s could you come to the microphone to ask your question. i am president of the world affairs council, and it is my pleasure to welcome you. our program is about the sanctions on iran by the united states and others and the prospects of military confrontation. this is the latest of a series of plans hosted that look at operations with the islamic republic of iran ahead in january, a program was broadcast on our weekly television program, when it can be viewed through the council could the website and on our

youtube channel. we have a debate that will give -- talk about the effectiveness of the sanctions in place and the wisdom and involved in military action. the doctors will be our speakers cut by will and leave it to our moderator to introduce them. it is my pleasure to introduce our moderator, her beverly occur. she is the ceo of a media consulting company, when a member of the world affairs council, who board of directors. she previously incurred for news channel 8, and hourly news briefs produced by national public radio for broadcasts across the country, and spent six years as a correspondent for the nbc news channel, covering national stories including the september 11 hack attack, the

aftermath, the 2000 of a mix, and the clinton impeachment. before joining nbc, she was a local government reporter in lexington, kentucky, where she also produced and hosted the monthly minority public affairs program. she holds a master's of arts degree in international politics. she is also a graduate of western kentucky university with degrees in history and broadcasting. please join me in welcoming our moderator and our health care -- panel. >> thank you. our debate tonight could not be more timely, since the talks between the permanent five members of the u.n. security council and germany and iran are

expected to resume this month. assuming that they do happen, they will take place against a backdrop of ever tightening sanctions that iran calls a brilliant tactic, and does the threat of possible u.s. or israeli military action if iran does not stop the activities the west suspects are intended to produce nuclear weapons. iran says the sanctions will not be for them, and claims the program is peaceful. how effective are the sanctions, and what impact have the head of the development of the nuclear program? is a pre-emptive nuclear strike necessary to stop the program? would it be justified? taking the position that the military action is premature and might not be effected is dr. holland, an associate professor

at georgetown university, the school of foreign service and is a senior fellow at the chair until four new american security, and a former deputy defense secretary for the middle east. arguing that time is running out and a military strike is less risky than a new killer- armed -- a nuclear-arms iran is the author of "8 score in the balmy, her technology transfer and the spread of nuclear weapons are all welcome to you. both gentlemen will make opening statements followed by questions and answers on the sanctions and the prospect of military confrontation. if you also, -- you will also have the opportunity to ask questions before we wrap up

with closing statements carry i want to begin with youth, in your opening statement. >> thank you very much for that introduction. it is a pleasure to be here. i would like to citywide to the world affairs council. i think many of us would agree that the rapidly than seen nuclear program poses perhaps the greatest security challenge to the country, and deciding how to deal with is the biggest question facing america right now. there are only three ways to resolve have we could get an agreement, acquiesce, where we could take military action. i think a diplomatic settlement would be ideal if we could get it. i believe there is good reason to believe that we cannot. it is hard to imagine any overlap in terms of what would be agreed sooth that would simultaneously reassure

washington and the international community. as beverly pointed out, we plan to return to negotiations with iran, but iran said they would be unwilling to talk about their uranium enrichment program, if a european diplomat when asked about the possibility of getting a deal could only say how haiti miracles health care, i think. -- "maybe miracles have been." i think the united states will have a difficult choice of acquiescing when taking military action harahan a nuclear iran when he pose threats and lead to further proliferation. it would lead to further proliferation around the world as iran itself became a nuclear supplier transferring in richmond to other countries -- transferring in richmond to

other countries. right now, iran fears retaliation, the with nuclear weapons it would be emboldened to push harder. as iran is throwing its weight around, who can see even more crisis. with new nuclear weapons in the region, there could be an exchange. and giving the size of israel, it could mean the end of the state of israel. once the iran has missiles capable of reaching the east coast of the united states, there could be an exchange with the u.s. that lee is as with the military option. there are significant risks the united states could almost

certainly destroyed facilities. this would said iran could the -- iraq and her back between three and 10 years. there are also many of risks to military action. the risks are less severe than many people would have imagined and the united states could mitigate many of those risks. think we will talk about some of the risks and how the medicis can manage them, such as iranian military retaliation. in short, is the united states finds itself making this a difficult choice between simply acquiesce into a nuclear iran or taking military action, the united states should build a coalition to conduct limited strikes against nuclear

facilities, uxor retaliation, -- of sort of retaliation-seat cds colleague the crisis. it is not a good option, but it is a way to deal with the challenges posed by a nuclear iran. >> thank you for being inside on such a nice night her. to advance five main points. the iranian nuclear threat is growing, but is not imminent it is premature. to talk about military action. a fish as agree with a red -- action. it could take at least a year for them to produce a device.

. several years for them to create a device sophisticated enough to put on a tip of a missile. while there is no doubt iran is positioning itself to have the capability to make this decision, where is no evidence the supreme leader has made the decision. the most powerful argument is that to build a bomb in the short term he will have to use declared in richmond facilities -- ebrichm officeent levies, which would be detected by international inspectors, and therefore the supreme leader is not willing to make her that a decision which to make that decision anytime soon. at the point i would like to make is a nuclear iran would be a

challenge. there is a lot of hyperbole surrounding this. some of the arguments matt about-is the threat. there has never been a regional proliferation cascade. israel developed nuclear weapons .n the 1960's re-a did not set off a chain reaction in east asia -- north korea did not set off a chain reaction in east asia. the may candidates are a long ways away from getting a job -- a bomb. the most likely candidate is saudi arabia. of course the pakistan is would

be nervous about providing this. ma mosttt other scholars who have looked at this not believe iran would use a weapon. rational to know the united states would bring massive retaliation. the possibility of a red and golden to use proxy's in the region, who that is an issue we should take seriously a rare. already does this without nuclear-weapons -- iraq and already does this without nuclear weapons. the question is whether it would escalate to nuclear war. the big new as is the only mechanism for a crisis to happened is proxies'

and terrorists. it seeks to avoid direct confrontation with more powerful states. it is highly unlikely that even if iran is in golden, who is returning to the types of nuclear crisis that the nightmare scenarios assume petrohawk lastly, where is the consumer which it assumed. -- lastly, i find that hard to believe . matt description's holds more risk than he assumes it to/ be more difficult to communicate limited aims. a lot of room for miscalculation, mutual distrust , actions that could set off reciprocal fears.

a war would be a widespread affair. it could lead to retaliationd and have a dramatic effect on global oil prices. there are reasons not to invite such an attack. the attack does not solve the crisis of the buzz is the way -- crisis. all it does is delayed just buying a few years, but you are probably redoubling the motivation to get a nuclear deterrent. it does not solve the challenge, but simply refers it

to the future by a small number of years. the good news is we still have time for diplomacy. station are having a good effect. iran could still leaders have signaled their willingness to return to negotiations. i do not think will get a break through the next few months, but i think there is a possibility to build confidence to the iranians taking steps to buy of the form below the 20% level. i think we have to let that process play out, and not rush to employ a military option, which should be our last resort go ahead. -- our last resort.

>> thank you. there was a report that said confrontation might be delayed because sanctions are been deemed defective. se?t is your response tha >> it depends the who administers the strike i think it. real will be looking closely at the talkss. -- israel will be looking closely at the talks. the red lines, wherever they are, they're certainly to the left of where u.s. headlines are, so they are more if she on the trigger finger. i would agree, but i want to pick up on a new saying the

sanctions judged the be effected. they are having the fed, but not the effect we want. we've seen no evidence that it is changing the calculation. is the objective. col outlin things that would be a nice hot wish list -- collin laid out a nice which less. and getting them nuclear weapons gets them those things. it does not serve the supreme leader in the same way. it all

we can get a deal, but i am pessimistic >>. the story is changing constantly. there has been some movement. to you think that kind of significant, economic pressure might push the ball further away? >> it is worth a shot, but i am pessimistic. nothing we have done so far has changed their mind. their currency is collecting we do. not so signs of them changing. collin said plenty of time to

let them play out, but i think we of less time than he thinks. i would haveran enough for a bomb, have to construct that into a weapon, and third when a delivery vehicle. the point of this hwang highlight of years, when it comes to nonproliferation, all that matters is the first step, the material. once they get the material, our policy is reduced to crane how they did not construct a weapon which i. estimates are that if iran made a decision today, the timeline is shrinking.

outside estimates expected, and to have shrunk by one month the can give to. come cn stations one more shot. it is not too early to think about plan b. >> hi long as israel likely to wait for the sanctions to show significant progress in a way they have not shown before? >> we do not know if the sanctions will work or not. suggestionmatt -- matt suggested they will get them to stop there is every suggestion

that they will work in a nonlinear way. it is only across a certain threshold of pain. ftc of the threshold has been reached we will have to see if the threshold has been reached. they have to be conscious of the fact that a certain point sanctions could be so severe that it generates a rest or brings about a strike. that is why they might dial back their program. we are about to go through the experiment. agreed that we are not likely to see a breakthrough. and the damage the floated the

idea of a 5%. that is important because the one-month scenario presumes they have a bomb's worth sitting around her, which they might buy the end of this year the less. point i would make is that the new devastates has enough military forces in the region to go to war with iran has within days. we still have time to see whether we can get a diplomatic solution, where build progress towards the. the problem with a coalition physic to convince the regime they will be attacked the matter what they do, it could have a perverse incentive on their willingness to engage in some

compromise, who not largely because of the threat, but because it creates a domestic environment where it is difficult for the regime to save face by backing down. you are ordering that a military strike is something that should be considered. >> that is something we should be concerned about. one of the concerns is what iran can do. they do not have a powerful conventional military. they have been investing in the aged metric military groups. it has ballistic missiles. it can cause problems in the

persian gulf. those would be run's retaliatory options. i do think that in the event of a strike, if they think the regime is at risk and they have nothing less to lose, they could escalate -- exercise some of these retaliatory options including possibly trying to close the strait of hormuz. that is why it is important that if we decide to use military force, we are very clear in our public statements and private messaging and targeting the we are only interested in a limited strike against the facilities. we are not interested in coming after the regime. put yourself in the shoes of the supreme leader. the primary goal is for the regime to exist. if you are destroyed, how will you respond? i do not think your responses to pick a fight with the greatest

of our power on earth, the one country that can lead to the war and destruction of your resume. he will in for some kind of calibrated response. we can plan their fears by sending a message and making it clear that if they close the strait of hormuz and retaliate by conducting terrorist attacks in the u.s., the u.s. will be willing to escalate and respond with more devastating use of force. if they are willing to retaliate token way, we would accept that and the escalating crisis. that would be a good trade. to trade in nuclear facilities for a token retaliation. >> forgive me for being a bit of a skeptic, but this all sounds great on paper, but as we found out over the course of the past 10 years what happens in an actual ground war and an actual battlefield, it can be very

different than what ideally happens on paper. how do you sell the american public on this kind of military strike in a country that has were fatigue? >> good question. first, i am not sure it would be that hard to sell to the american public. if you ask the american people who the united states's biggest threat is, it is iran. if you ask how to resolve the nuclear issue, the largest response is diplomacy. if you asked, would you be willing to support the president if he decided to use military force against the nuclear program, you get a vast majority who say they would support that. if the president decided this is what he wanted to do, the american people would support it.

many people draw the comparison to iraq but it is misleading to do so. there was a great book written called "analogy's at toor." when it comes to foreign policy, people reason by analogy. he argued it was almost always a mistake to do so because people see these on a superficial similarities and miss the details. what i am talking about with iran is very difficult from iraq. for these two reasons -- iran is much closer to having nuclear weapons. there are inspectors on the ground visiting facilities every two weeks. they reports every three months. second, the reason iraq was so expensive in terms of blood and treasure was because we put 100,000 troops on the ground. nobody is talking about that kind of conflict with iran. what i am talking about is limited strike against the run key nuclear facilities. we're talking about six

facilities at the air defenses we would need to take out to get there. this is a campaign that could be over in days or weeks. it is not a 10-year grant for . >> -- >> i do not think that the prospects of a large-scale u.s. invasion of iran is on the table. it is a mountainous area of 70 million people. there is no appetite for that. none of the prospective strike options have been talked about and they do not presume that. general car right -- cartwright testified about two years ago that the only way you would permit all it run's military program would be to invade and occupy iran. that is actually where the iraq analogy is historical matters the most. the first war related to the wmd program was in 1981. that is when the israeli struck the nuclear facility. it did not stop the program. it drove the program

underground. when inspectors arrived after that, they realized they were closer to get a weapon because there was a clandestine infrastructure that were spurred out by the israeli strike in 1981. we have the 1991 gulf war and we had 12 years of containment, isolation, sanctions, truces, inspections followed by a ground invasion in 2003 and reaching change. the lesson of iraq is comedy might be able to start this with a surgical strike, but that is not where it is when to end. if we are going to cut deployed military action, we have to be open to the possibility that this will be the opening of a decade-long campaign of military action. if we're going to go down that path, you should do it with your eyes wide open to the enormous costs. obviously, you have to weigh the costs of doing that verse is doing nothing. but the costs are substantial. not just the strike but also doing this. the other thing i want to say is

that if the regime thought we were coming after them in a strike, there she was lashup. the regime already thinks we're coming after them. they are to blame computer viruses and assassinated scientists said mysterious explosions on the regime change by some combination of the u.s. and israel. whether that is true or not. they see even minor actions as the regime change. if you hit the crown jewel of the regime, their nuclear program, they will see this as the opening shot in a regime change campaign and are likely to respond in a kind of fashion that one would find if we were going after a regime change. the last thing i want to say is, we should send all the signals and try to take a punch but once americans are dying in iraq or afghanistan or elsewhere at the hands of iranian proxy or once the iranians are threatening shipping industry of hormuz -- in the strait of hormuz, we could be drawn

deeper into a conflict. i think we have to have our eyes open. war is not a neat, caliber of thing where you move your pieces on a chessboard and you kind of like everything. there is a lot of friction. a lot of fog. especially between two countries that do not like each other. they have no means of communication that are reliable and timely. the prospects for this calculation is a lot higher than people think. >> do you want to respond? or can i move on? i want to move to the strait of hormuz. and the threat that iran has put out there that if the u.s. or launches a military strike, it would shut down the strait of hormuz. can they do that? is that just a threat? everybody is afraid that ships going through there might be attacked.

>> you know, there is a 1987 document by the cia that has been declassified. at the height of the war, the iranians had the capability of trading at -- closing this reform was 40 of weeks. -- the strait of hormuz for two weeks. their capabilities are much greater than they were in the 1980's. they have the ability to close its for a longer. of time than that. that said, i think they will be very careful not to try to do that. but, they are likely to threaten it. they're likely to threaten it because they want to bring international pressure to bear on whomever the combatants are. they will make threats in the strait of hormuz, but at the same time, they will start to do things for defensive purposes that would be very difficult for us to interpret in the context of those threats. they will start dispersing their messiahs, dispersing their crafts, dispersing their minds

out of stores facilities. they will activate their air defense network along the strait of hormuz. they will do all of these things as soon as they are attacked for defensive reasons. in the context of the tensions in the aftermath of the strike and threats to close the strait, the u.s. military will see all of these moves as extraordinarily threatening. they will have an incentive to destroy those capabilities before they get dispersed. do i know they will do that? i do not know that. i can tell you that the prospect of miscalculation in that scenario is very, very high it, even if you presume the running and do not intend to close the strait . >> -- the iranians do not intend to close the street. >> if you run went through on the stretch -- on the threat, -- if iran went through this threat, the u.s. would close it. that is why they are unlikely. -- unlikely to do it.

unless they thought it was a final showdown and they had nothing to lose. >> they threaten us. is that something that we should really worry about given the economic situation in this country already with almost $5 a gallon gas? just even the threat. that is what i am getting at. even if they do not really close it, assuming that we can that back whenever they throw our way -- that anxiety that would be produced, is that something that this country and the rest of the world can handle? >> taking a step back. something that is important to understand as i laid out these three options at the beginning and they are all bad. if anyone is in the position of defending them what they are in a tough spot because they are not good. military option is bad.

when you are comparing these options, you need to compare them to each other. you are right that a strike on iran to attack nuclear facilities would lead to a spike in oil prices. traders would be worried about possible supply disruptions. it would bid up the price of oil. the matter what we do, we will have higher oil prices. we are seeing sanctions and the oil embargo is driving up the price of oil. a strike would drive up the price of oil for a couple of weeks as long as conflict was going on. if it died down, the price of oil would go down. a nuclear iran would lead to spikes in oil prices. oil traders would have to factor in a huge risk premium. you are dealing with the middle east in which iran is more aggressive. each of these crises on future middle east could react -- could result in a nuclear war in the persian gulf. the u.s. can say that we will reopen the street if they close it. if they have nuclear weapons,

that is more complicated. we would not destroy their navy if they have nuclear weapons. what we risk nuclear war? baby. maybe not. -- maybe. maybe not. a nuclear iran would lead to a risk being built into oil prices that could be in place as long as they had nuclear weapons. on oil prices and a lot of these other national security interests, we are in a bad situation regardless of the way we go . >> look. the best outcome is a diplomatic outcome. there is a lot of anxiety that is already causing oil prices to go up. in military strike on iran, at heard -- the have people i have talked to said it could easily push gas prices between $5.60 dollars a gallon

in the near-term. the question would be, if the markets became anxious that the war could continue to escalate or drag on, this is not a short- term thing. this is something that goes to take and keeps going up. that -- this is something that keeps going up. you could see this happening over many months. there, you start to see the possibility of slippage back into recession here in the u.s. and europe, which is even more vulnerable to these types of checks. -- he said speer the market is tight because iranian oil is being taken off the market. the markets have limited capacity to increase production. we have a strategic petroleum avers -- reverse that cannot be used. the economic crisis is substantial. we should give the policy more time to operate rather than less . >> i want to go back to something you mentioned earlier on and you mentioned the worry

about this calculation. and the potential for this to be a broader conflict, that it would not just out with a surgical strike on the run. -- iran. what is the likelihood of that spreading? experts do not think that will happen. they think it would be limited to the u.s., israel, and i run. nothing else would be brought in. >> if it is the u.s., israel, and iran this is a different ball game. i think that if we did it, we will try to make sure the israelis did not go along with us. it would be like the 1991 gulf war where we said, stay out of it. we tried to have a larger coalition to include arab states and having israel participate in this. israelis have an amazing military, but they do not add any capabilities that we did not party have in terms of going after the program. there is no value added.

the iranians will not draw any stations between the americans and israel. they do not draw distinctions when things blow up in tehran or the middle of the desert. they think the great satan and a little sick and are the same entity. they may not be able to tell who hit them and they will have an incentive to bring israel into your the one to be able to position themselves against the zionist crusader and d on the one hand and be the champions of resistance on the other hand. the way they would try to drag them is to get groups like hezbollah and the jihad and hamas and others to do rocket attacks and other things into his trial. once you start that ball rolling on any significant scale, there is a chance of a war. i have been to israel 13 times and have had hundreds of

meetings. they believe that israel will have another war with his cell at some point. -- has let some point. you can talk yourself into an argument. if they started, we might as well finish it. we might as well taken advantage of the fact that i saw is distracted. was the decision is made, it widens the war into everywhere else. it is not just about the gulf, it involves israel and may vigo's and maybe syria and maybe the turks and. i am saying is very much possible. they could have the effect on markets and other things. >> do you agree? >> i think it is not likely to happen. >> why? >> it is something to be concerned about but i think the u.s. can do a lot to mitigate these kind of worst-case scenarios. the first thing we would do, i

think, is we would need to go to israel and make a deal and say, we will be willing to destroy iran's facilities but you have to be willing to absorb some level of iran in retaliation. i think that is a deal we could strike. we struck one in the first gulf war. israel was willing to absorb the missile attacks from saddam hussein because we asked them to. that is a trait that israel be willing to make. that keeps his eye on the sidelines. i mentioned the reason why i think iran would have incentives to respond. if they did not strike back hard enough, it loses face. if it goes to art, they lose their head. we have to look at hamas and hezbollah. if iran were attacked, it would ask hamas and hezbollah to engage and rocket fire against israel. hamas and hezbollah will not just salute and do whatever they say. they have their own calculations.

has the law will not want to pick a fight with israel. i think they will choose rocket fire. the head of hezbollah just recently said that he thinks iran would not even ask has but to retaliate if it were attacked. i think that is unlikely but it might be an effort that he is making to distance himself publicly from iran. if called upon, he would not necessarily have to retaliate. i think it is possible. things might pyro out of control. -- spiral out of control. things might spiral out of control if we do not do anything. with a nuclear iran and israel and other nuclear states, that is much worse than anything we could imagine iran doing in response to a strike . >> let me follow up on the other actors in the area. if, as everyone years, iran eventually gets nuclear weapons,

who else is likely to follow immediately? saudi arabia, egypt? name your country. " who is most likely to follow suit if iran moves forward and gets nuclear weapons? >> in the short term, it is hard to imagine any country instantly snapping its fingers and having nuclear weapons. i think the demand is going to be there immediately. i think you see the demand is already there. turkish officials are ready talking publicly about the possibility of getting nuclear weapons in response to iran. the demand is already there. the thing that will be the limiting factor is other capabilities. none of the countries that are often put forward have nuclear infrastructure already. they do not have advanced industrial capabilities. it would take time for them to build up a nuclear infrastructure. the one exception might be saudi arabia. there is some reason to believe that saudi arabia and pakistan

have worked out a deal. it is possible that pakistan could transfer nuclear weapons to saudi arabia. not likely. possible. that would be the one scenario in which you can imagine the country getting nuclear weapons quickly. otherwise, you're looking at least a decade before any other countries in the area get a clear weapons in response. but, that is one problem -- one problem i have is people think about what nuclear-arms iran looks like. why worry about it? there has only been one country that has given up nuclear weapons. if they get them, it will have them forever. the possible threats posed by nuclear-arms iran are that we would have to do it forever. -- are threats we would have to deal with forever. i think that over the course of a deck or two, you will have to -- you will see a couple of states acquiring nuclear weapons in response. possibly turkey, egypt, saudi

arabia, iraq. if you're looking in that kind of longer time frame. you do not have to worry about proliferation in the area. there is a possibility in other aerias. the nuclear-nonproliferation regime by the weekend. other countries might be able to get away with this. they might pursue nuclear weapons. iran would be a nuclear supplier. i read a book in 2010 called "exporting obama." -- "exporting the bomb." jayron has signed an agreement with venezuela and bolivia. two countries in our backyard. it is an impossible that they could announce tomorrow that dennis will let is a country in good standing and has a right to peaceful nuclear arms. we are going to transfer technology to venezuela so they can produce fuel for peaceful purposes. then we have all the same problems we have been dealing with with iran in our own backyard in venezuela.

i think there are a lot of ways that a nuclear-arms to iran bleeds to put restoration -- proliferation .s ratione >> only nine countries have proliferated. it is not inevitable. there have been predictions of a proliferation cascade for 60 years and every single time one country crosses the threshold, people present up what is will be opened it to this happening everywhere in their area. it has that happened yet. does that mean it will not happen if iran does it? no. i do think we have to factor in that historically, the odds are pretty low. the country that is most inclined in terms of the motivation is saudi arabia because they are an international competitor for influence and dominance with the iranians. they see them as a threat. they would be the most motivated. they cannot come even the saudi arabia is rich, they cannot

develop an indigenous infrastructure very quickly. the possibility that people talk about is, do they have a deal with the pakistan is to acquire one? i think the prospect of pakistan being able to provide one of those and be the first country to actually transfer life nuclear weapons to some other state in the aftermath of the fiasco which embarrassed the pakistanis -- that is highly unlikely. it would be difficult for those weapons to be married to the chinese missiles that the saudis have without china getting in on the game. that would be difficult for the chinese to do. that leaves the -- that provides a deterrent to the saudis. that would require you to believe that the pakistanis want to increase the risk of having a nuclear confrontation with iran. and distract their focus away from india, there mortal threat and focus on iran.

saudi arabia is much more likely to except the u.s. security guarantee because we have some in our capabilities to protect them than a pakistani deterrent. the world does not stand still the moment iran gets a nuclear weapon. there will be other actors in place. some of them will do better things. some of them, like the u.s., could step into the void and try to provide disincentives for country to proliferate. we have options. but the we have had those options, historically, is the reason why cascades have never happened before. >> we have come to the point where we get to question each other. do not heard each other. -- hurt each other. [laughter] >> in the past, you have talked about if iran cresses redlines -- crosses redlines.

if they start installing next generation centrifuges, which would shrink their-time -- their dash time, if they had a covert facility, these types of things. if they process those red lines, should the u.s. be willing to go iran, with the run su-- even if we have to do it by ourselves? we should go to war with a large coalition. do you think you should go to war with iran even if it is just washington against tehran? >> that is a good question. if we get to this choice of the signing between nuclear-armed iran or a strike, the strike is the least harmful. we are not there yet. some people characterize my argument is wanting to go to work. that is not the argument. if iran take steps to take out

international inspectors -- if it were in rich 90%, i think those should be the redlines. the point at which the u.s. has to use military force or forfeit our last opportunity to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. i do think the u.s. should work in advance to build a national coalition. i think there are a lot of benefits to doing that. i am fighting the premise of the question. it is unlikely that the u.s. could not build a coalition. it is likely we could get british support, french support among others. nato would support us. i think the u.s. could build a coalition. the question is, how large of one? it is one of my concerns with our diplomatic approach. i think that we should be focusing on trying to get a deal. i think we need to start thinking seriously about plan b. it is possible they could kick out inspectors tomorrow and they could retire levels tomorrow, at

which point we would have to make a decision tomorrow. it is possible. we need to lay the groundwork for that possibility. we should be beginning now to reach out to the french and our other allies. and tell them that we are serious about using force and would they be willing to support us. here are what we see as the redlines. do you agree? these are the kinds of confrontations we should be having now. if we get to that point and we cannot build a coalition, i do think that the cost of a nuclear-armed iran are so high that it would still be worth striking. the cost would outweigh the cost of international condemnation that would come in the wake of a u.s. unilateral strike. we have done as a couple of times.

if the sanctions there, what would you recommend? if you got a call from a prisoner right now and he said, we have good intelligence that iran is enriching to 90 percent right now, what do i need to do? the western accord live with it? -- do i need to strike or live with it? i see that as a good question. >> that is a good question. i do not think the president would call me. there are smarter folks to call been made. [laughter] i think it would depend. our risk-reward ratios are different. i think that the running nuclear challenge is significant, but not quite as great as you do. the standard form using military force or approving military force is higher because the ratio is different. i am not a pacifist. i take the president obama position, i am not against all war, just dumb war. in my view, any israeli action

against the runyan program is down because i do not think they can have an effect. -- against iranian sanctions is down because they do not think they can have its act. is there smoking gun evidence that the iranians are actually going for a weapon? not just concerns they are, but actual evidence that they are? are there non-overt ways of getting at this issue that would not require large amounts of military force? if so, i would have a preference for those over military force. are we able to forge a large coalition? here, i think you and i probably differ. i think the only scenario in which military action conceivably make sense against is if it is like the 1991 war with iraq. not like the 2003 war with iraq. the reason is twofold -- one, it

is the only way to mitigate the consequences of the strike itself. second, if you do not have a large coalition going in, not just the french and the british, i am talking arab states, nato, u.n. mandates -- it will be very difficult to maintain the isolation of iran. what we learned from the rock the bachus that we put -- the iraq debacle is we put a botched of thought -- would put a lot of thought into the aftermath. if we are able to keep them bottled up and prevent them from rapidly rebuilding their nuclear program, we need the russians with us, chinese, arab states, asian states, europeans. unless you go into the war with a large coalition, you will not be able to provide -- prevent iran from reconstituting its program. the risk-reward ratio argues against military action. the difference between the two is that you see the threat as

closer and bigger. you see the risk of military action as lower and the benefits as higher. i come to a different conclusion on almost all of those. i think we can wait longer. i think we have other options and i think if we do this, we should go big or not go at all. >> go big or go home? [laughter] i have a question. president obama is the guy who made the call to go and get osama bin laden and osama bin laden was on. do you think that might be a deterrent factor on iran or make them think twice about what they want to do in terms of maybe provoking a military strike because after all, the guy sitting in the white house is the guy who said, go get osama

bin laden? is that any kind of deterrent? >> one of the reasons that iran is not taking some of the more pro-active steps they could take toward producing nuclear weapons, such as interesting beyond -- in reaching beyond 20% is because they are afraid of a possible military action. i do think there are things that we could do to make that threat clearer to iran and to strengthen that deterrence. in the past, u.s. officials used to say things like all options are on the table, but military option is dead. i think that puts the military option on the table and takes it off. over the past few weeks and months, the administration's language has become tougher. president obama said containment is in his policy. he does not bless. if iran build nuclear weapons, they will be stopped. the administration's rhetoric

has clearly become tougher. there is more we can do in this direction. i mean, we did not talk as much about the sanctions on the military side. as we go back into negotiations, i think -- is not clear to me we have a good strategy in terms of what we're willing to except from iran and what we're willing to offer them to and supplies them to put curbs on their programs and on the other hand, what kind of sticks we are bringing to the negotiations. on the stick side, we should make it clear to them that there are possible benefits for them, such as lifting sanctions. i think we should clearly to mitigate -- clearly communicate that if they take steps and in which about 20%, the u.s. will use force to stop them from building weapons. i think we should use tariffs and it sticks in a more strategic way then we have at this point.

>> frankly, their view of our military credibility is mixed. they have seen in the last two or three administrations, going back before that, a series of the iranian provocation. proxy attacks against u.s. forces in iraq and afghanistan. it is why they use proxy to create possible deniability, to prevent us from doing that. they may enter but we did not have the stomach to come after them because they killed american soldiers in iraq and afghanistan and we have not come after them. on the other hand, it is hard to argue -- president obama had the peace prize in 2009. he is not against using force when it is in the important to stress of the u.s. you mentioned osama bin laden, but of course there is a libya example and the afghanistan example.

clearly, this is a president who is willing to use force when he judges this in the national interest. he has argued that iran to attack nuclear proliferation risk -- if it crosses the line, but they will provide force. he said i nuclear iran is unacceptable. do we have to become even clearer in the way that matt suggests? i do not know. i think those threats are clear. by the way, we have 40,000 forces in the gulf with pointy objects pointing at the iranians. we have another hundred thousand on their eastern flank in central asia. i think they get it. we are there and we are present. the thing i'm worried about at the moment from folks who want to beat the award from even harder is, we have to calibrate this very carefully because the iranians could get to a point

thinking we are so committed to action that diplomacy is a sod, an illusion that we are trying to check the box on the way to war. therefore, there is no hope in this policy. or, you make the threat so in your face and overt and that it becomes very difficult for the supreme leader to back down because what is said over and over again is, we are not going to give in to pressure or threats. if he started getting their wish came over and over with military action, it starts reaching if you start threatening their regime over and over, it gives them a hard time to get out. a sufficiently credible military threat to buttress diplomacy, while not being too high in our talks about war. there is still a window of time for diplomacy. >> it is time to take questions from the audience. if you could line up at the

microphone, we have one that will be over here in the corner. if you could line up there and ask your questions, i would ask that you identify yourself and please ask a question, not make a statement. >> ok. >> thank you for the presentation.

>> we need somebody with like take five. [laughter] battle of technology. -- got to love technology. >> i am a retired armed service member. thank you for the presentation. i would like to ask you -- what is the likelihood of the rahm ran attackingon israel? the cause us trip is 40 miles away. it is not a jewish state. there are millions of arabs living in the same territory.

as mentioned, in jerusalem, that is the side of the third most sacred place for his bombs. -- for his bombs. i do not see any reason for iran to attack israel. or the other way around. the israeli economy is booming. tourism is strong. the stark market is not paying attention to the crisis because it is going higher and higher. what do you think about this? i would like to ask you about the crisis atmosphere that is created. to what extent does it benefit is trial and i ran -- israel and iran? usually, when the prime minister comes to washington, he is being reduced for west bank settlements. at this time around, they only talk about iran and israel and the underdog.

>> that is far more questions -- wrap it up. we have a long line behind you. >> iran is getting $90 a barrel. the oil is now $120 a barrel because of a crisis. thank you. >> thank you. >> i can try to go very quickly. the prospect of iran directly using a nuclear weapon or transferring it to a group like his beloved to use a -- like hezbollah is low. the iranians fancy themselves as the champion of resistance in blowing up millions of palestinians -- wind blowing of millions of palestinians do not add to that. this would end the revolution

and there -- it is hard to see what objective is satisfied by doing that. the regime is not suicidal. even if we did not like them. they would not use that against israel. as relates to whether this is diverting attention, look, it may have some of the effect you are talking about. from the rain in perspective, they are not happy with how far this is progressing. this is hurting their economy, their financial sector. now, there will sector is being attacked and they could be in trouble. maybe it serves their purposes, but now it is not the issue. maybe it helps avert attention from the palestinian issue, let that is not why they're doing it. palestinian -- israeli leaders genuinely believe that this iranian threat to them is essential. they genuinely believe that iran is the number-one threat. they're not just playing politics. >> i agree. it is unlikely that iran would intentionally launch would be suicidal nuclear work. i do not think we can dismiss

nuclear war between iran and israel because -- when we think about what's led to the relationship between the u.s. and the soviet union, almost all of those factors are absent when you think about iran-israel. it is rather, for example, would have to fear in the crisis. -- israel, would have to fear any crisis. it is too small. bombs against israel means the end of the state. israel would have strong incentives to go first. similarly, if you think about it from the iranian point of view, iran would have a small arsenal that could be from our bulletin an israeli strike. they could have the use them or use them policy. in that kind of situation, where

both sides have for strike incentives, in an escalating crisis, quds -- countries are doing things that countries there during a nuclear crisis like putting weapons on high alert. i think there is a real possibility that things could spiral out of control and result in a catastrophic nuclear exchange. >> next question, please . >> talking about building a coalition, a broad coalition in particular, after the gulf war thatnd the claims of wm thed's did not live up to expectations, how hard would the intel have to be to get relatively neutral countries on the side of a coalition? >> thank you. >> the iran situation today and

the iraq situation are very different. we have a much better window onto what is going on in iran. we have inspectors on the ground visiting their nuclear facilities. two weeks. they are writing reports. it is the international atomic agency. it is not any one country making these plans. it is not the u.s. intelligence community. it is a respected organization. i think the international committee believes us when we talk about what iran has on the ground. outside experts to discuss relations and say, if they made the decision today -- intel will not be the problem. in terms of can we build a coalition? i think we can. i think we have not even really begun. i think that is a mistake. we should be doing the initial outrage. we will have a better idea of

what kind of coalition we could build that was an overt part of our strategy . >> i agree with the first part and disagree with the second. if we started over diplomacy to the permanent members of the security council or others on a military action, it would confirm their worst suspicions about the u.s., which is basically, we are going to the motions of sanctions in order to justify military strikes. that could complicate but our ability to have diplomacy work and it would make it more difficult to enforce the coalition. the only way to do it is the way we are doing it now. -- that is to let the process play out. if it fails, make it clear it was not because of us and our unreasonable this or that but that our demands were shared by the international committee and it was the round that walked away from that -- was arena walked away from that. we have one case study windy

run -- when the iranians turned something down, the was passed a resolution 1929 against the iranians in the spring of 2010. that is the most severe sanctions they have ever had. we are playing it about right. it is not diplomacy checking the box like the bush administration did. we mean it. if they are not serious, then we pick it towards a different approach. >> my name is stephen davis. visiting be iaea website today, they have an eight minute introductory film. one of the commentators was henry kissinger. he said, if we are standing at the podium with 20,000 nuclear weapons under our feet, it is

very difficult to ask another nation not to develop one. if we are going to be serious about a nuclear-free world, do we not have to be serious about this -- disarming ourselves? ultimately, the non- proliferation treaty is reciprocal. state says it will not will not. states like the u.s. have an obligation to move towards disarmament. the obama administration shares the view that their obligations -- there are obligations on both sides. that is why they took risks. some of the cuts go too deep, that's what matt things. -- thanks. the administration believes we have to make efforts to start to shrink our arsenal.

it does not excuse iran's commitment. a lot of people ask, do they not have the right to have nuclear weapons? they give up their right to have nuclear weapons when they signed a the not. unless they want to pull out, theyat right is ironclad. >> when you put yourself in the shoes of leaders in tehran and think about how they are making their calculations, they are probably thinking, with nuclear weapons serve our interests? can we bill them? do we have the capacity? how close are we? how tough are the sanctions against us? can we live with them? will the u.s. and israel conducted military strike? i think these are the things they are thinking about. it is unlikely they are saying, does the u.s. at 2200 nuclear- weapons or 1500? if they have 1500, we will stop.

if they have more, we go ahead. there is this link and international treaty obligations. i do not think it is something playing on the iranians minds right now. >> is, sir. -- yes, sir. >> i have been working on these issues for 20 years. i would like to raise the question of north korea's. it is hard to argue that north korea or that iran is more irresponsible than north korea. the bush administration is willing to accept north korea getting nuclear weapons. where were the warmongers when this was going on? why were willing to accept north korea getting nuclear weapons and not to yvonne? obviously, one of the elements is israel. i think they are putting

president obama in an extremely difficult position. it is an election year. nobody's mentioned this. the idea that, if we attack, everybody does gas prices will skyrocket. it is one of the issues that is costing the election. you are putting him in a difficult position. >> matt? >> the first thing i would say is, some people think this -- this is a favor to israel. the u.s. has good reason to be threatened by either an's nuclear program, even if israel did exist. -- did not exist. iran is a threat to peace and security. on the north korea example, in 1994, the clinton administration considered the use of force. they decided to do it and then backed away. it is not clear whether that was

a good decision or that. -- or not. if you think about what north korea would look like with nuclear arms, it has been more aggressive attacking the suffering in exports. we have not even seen the full range of consequences from a nuclear-arms north korea. we could still have a nuclear exchange involving them. if the round looks anything like north korea -- iran looks anything like north korea, we should be concerned. >> on the israel issue, israel is a factor in our calculations. i can just tell you, from someone who was on the inside for three years, that is not the driving policy. a driving factor is a judgment by this administration and the previous u.s. administrations that nuclear weapons are a threat. israel matters in shaping

certain decisions, but not in the ultimate course. i also think there actually has been evident in the last couple of months that this administration is not a prisoner to israeli desires. how do i know that? if this administration had been presented those desires, all boller have laid out much clearer redlines than he did -- obama what have laid out much clearer redlines than he did. would have agreed and attack on iran already a set of telling them not to do it and it is a bad idea. and, we would have committed to doing it ourselves. this is a viable option. how do i know? half the republican candidates running for president have suggested exactly -- green lighting an israeli attack or doing it ourselves. there is a way in which you can be more in favor of the israeli view. we see that on the other side of the political aisle. at the end of the day, the

administration is making judgments on iran based on u.s.- national interest. israel factors into that because we want to participate to protect them. -- we want to protect them. >> high. -- hi. i am here who has a person has a lot of irani and friends who d.ed because o they're very active in the u.s.. the biggest enemy for iran are the people. considering that the u.s. has enough time to go to a diplomatic solution, where do you see these people over there who probably are waiting? there is a huge community here in los angeles.

where do you see iranian people fitting into this equation of inviting them to beat in the coalition against the government? >> we did not talk about the internal politics in iran. >> this administration has been pretty clear about the atrocious human rights record of the iranian regime. taking actions on the sanctions to designate entities that have been involved with it. there are folks that believe more should have been done. there -- this relates to the questions here. there is not a consensus in the opposition that the u.s. should attack iran. there is concern in the green movement that an attack will get the regime at -- give the regime an excuse to repress the opposition. i do not know what effect it would have . it might have those fx or another affect over the

long term. i do not see it as being productive towards helping the opposition or leading to a short-term regime change. the last thing i want to say is, i think we have to be careful with out -- prejean change would be good for the iranian people. whether it would sell the nuclear issue is an open question. it would depend on what type of regime -- the nuclear program is extraordinarily popular in iran. the dispute is over whether that program should be what a nice or not. that thing that concerns me about a strike on their nuclear program is, ultimately, it could convince people who are on the fence about whether or not they need a nuclear deterrent but that they need one. i do not want that conversation to happen. i wanted different composition to happen where iran dials back its activities in a diplomatic atmosphere and then we can continue to hammer them on their human rights record and everything else. at the end of the day, the people will determine whether the regime those are not.

not external actors dropping bombs on them. >> a strike on the nuclear facility is could have -- facilities could have negative impacts. i think that is possible. others have mentioned that you might get this kind of rally around the flag in the short term where it strengthens the regime. overtime may could lead to an opening for critics to criticize the government for bringing the crisis on the country. it could actually weaken the current regime. going back to what i said before that we have to compare the options to the alternative, it might be the case that a strike would strengthen the current regime. nuclear weapons would strengthen them as well if they were able to acquire the ultimate security guarantee to defend themselves. you are possibly looking at a strong regime in both scenarios. term ends nextama jenna di's

year. are there things we are not thinking of that could impact the discussions about iran's nuclear capabilities? >> the president -- the president has been marginalized here he has had a fight with the supreme leader. he lost. not only has he lost, but i think the office of the presidency has been weekend. the supreme leader is trying to put the president back in the box. i do not think that whoever is the next president of iran is likely to be a game changer. you did i get to run for president unless the supreme leader agrees that you are ok. -- you do not get to run for president unless the supreme leader says you are ok.

i do not see the 2013 election as being a game changer. it could complicate diplomacy for all the reasons that domestic politics in a heated domestic political moment complicates diplomacy because it allows you to play politics with the issue instead of actually selling it. it is having that effect in our country. i do not know why we should not have -- should not have an expectation of that happening in iran. >> i agree. >> yes, sir. that to have a comment and then a question. negotiating with iran is like the hokey pokey. there are a slew of negotiations that have been involved they are two decades or more. we have to take that within context. my question is, in 60 years