♪ ♪ > ♪ >> in 1789, the constitutional convention was in session. politicians debated about adding a bill of rights to the constitution.

federalist ordered -- are to the rights cannot properly be protected unless they were written down first. on september 25, 1789, congress passed an amendment to the constitution. these amendments are known as the bill of rights. >> the first amendment rights. >> is his right to burn that flag in protest. >> of our country's first national document, the declaration of independence, spoke of unalienable rights given to america by our creator. our constitution says we are

guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. we are given our rights from god including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> religion is one of the world's most recognized controversies. many countries still don't recognize certain religions. the first amendment grants the right of freedom of religion. this is my church. to fully understand the relationship between government and religion, my family took a trip to colorado springs revisited the united states air force academy cadet chapel, where the first chapel's commissioned by the u.s. government. the chapel not only accommodates pdf specific history specific to the first

amendment. [unintelligible] >> this freedom is not only important to meet because of my regular attendance at charge but because i am part of a traveling music ministry. although many do not share the same religion, the fact is that we all have this freedom. >> we are all cable all of making decisions. even if i cannot get up and leave that point, while i may be constrained in have to listen, i don't have to accept

that as part of my personal beliefs. >> you want free speech, standing center stage in advocating at the top of his lungs that what you have spent a lifetime of opposing at the top of yours. >> freedom of speech is recognized as one of the most important freedoms in our constitution. it is the freedom to say exactly what we want to say, not only in speech but in music and verse as well. as a performer, i have to use the expression as well as voice and speech to tell a story. although speech is about open communication, many believe [unintelligible] >> freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want to do. freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do. >> our rights are clearly

important, but it is based on a rule of law. we all are aware of the classic example of freedom to say anything you want, but you cannot stand up in a crowded stadium and yell there is a fire. >> even with these limits, it is agreed that -- every time one is this 3 speech. >> it deviates from the views of another person based on an argument that can cause a disturbance. our constitution says we must take this risk. >> with every expression, freedom of speech gives everyone the opportunity to have their voice be heard. >> america is dangerously unprepared.

>> if you think your immune, you better think again. >> freedom of the press and another right given in the first amendment. it is however americans get their daily information. i felt everything from local news to sports. most people recognize that the media is biased. however, it comes down to one simple fact. >> we have more information than we have ever had before. at the same time, we have the ability to pick and choose what we consume and what credence we give to that. >> the final freedom given to us in the first amendment is that of the right to assembly and

petition. we have many examples of protest the assembly in the past. the most recent is that of the occupy movement. >> across the country, they are exercising our first amendment rights and are petitioning the government and showing our grievances. >> also used often, this freedom is not always used in the right way. >> the right to assembly was assured in the constitution. it is associated quite closely to that right to assemble creek correctional matter how unpopular, this freedom is everyone's. what you want to claim this land as a land of the free? the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. it also has to be a citizen exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. >> respecting an establishment [unintelligible]

>> the right of the people peaceably to assemble. >> it is everything we are about. this is the land of the three. >> 02 studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos and consider that -- continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> next, discussion on afghanistan security and political transition the country is going through. then, conversation on the help of the u.s. housing market. later, richard cordray. >> major league baseball players and owners reached a new agreement last november. tomorrow, conversation on the role of collective bargaining in

baseball. executive director of the players association will be at the national press club. live coverage getting underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. later in the day, supreme court justices ruth bader ginsberg, sonya sotomayor or, and elena kagan in a tribute to justice sandra day o'connor, who was the first woman appointed to the court. she was appointed by president ronald reagan in 1981. live coverage starts at 6:30 eastern. >> they depart beneficial where rosen says the u.s. will continue to be involved in developing afghanistan after the 2014 withdrawal. he is represented to afghanistan and pakistan and was part of a discussion hosted by the u.s. institute of peace. this 90 minute event was moderated by former national security advisor stephen hadley.

>> good morning. my name is george moose, i'm the vice chair of the board of directors here at the u.s. institute of peace. i'm pleased to welcome you here this morning. before we begin i would like to ask all of you to turn off your cell phones and your pagers. because they interfere with our own electronic systems, including those that are streaming today's session live over the internet to our many listeners in our virtual audience out there. this morning i have the honor to introduce today's session on prospects for peace in afghanistan. as the size of today's audience is evidence enough of the interest in this topic. my dubious claim to this particular honor lies in the fact that i recently returned from a three-week visit to pakistan on behalf of the state department, which of course naturally qualifies me as an instant expert on the subject.

usip as an institution, however, has a much longer and much deeper involvement in afghanistan going back to two -- 2002 with the institute was asked to apply its special expertise in the areas of peace building to the task of promoting peace and stability in afghanistan. for the past two years usip has focused its attentions on the development of a strategy for the country's political transition and transformation. one built around constitution of development, credible elections, and a durable and inclusive peace process. in 2008, usip hosted minister as a jennings randolph resident fellow here. we regret he was not able to join us for this session but we look forward to his participation in future sessions. his research helped inform the

afghan peace and reintegration program which in turn has become the blueprint for usip's own reconciliation and reintegration work. as is abundantly evidence to all concern pakistan is also a critical element in any calculation of the prospects for peace in afghanistan. which is why usip also has a presence and a program there. some would question whether dick holbrook's original rand vision of a strategic partnership between u.s. and pakistan was ever realistic and viable, but i think there is widespread agreement whatever hopes there might have been for such a partnership have been shattered by the multiple shocks of 2011, the most significant of which was the raid almost a year ago on osama bin laden's compound. just when one thought the u.s.- pakistan relationship couldn't get any rockier, we have the

announcement by the u.s. government last week regarding lakshar leader, said, which was made on the eve of a long awaited visit by the pars to india and the eve of pakistan's parliament debate of a long awaited report on the future of the pakistan-u.s. relationship. and if that were not enough, we have the op-ed piece over the weekend by representative dana rohrabacher vigorously defending the resolution he had introduced in february calling for self-determination. which seems certain to reignite the passionate reactions of pakistani officials. now, these developments and others inevitably give rise to a series of questions. among them, how to respond to those here in this country who are increasingly calling for an end to u.s. military engagement

in afghanistan, how to ensure a credible political transition in afghanistan, one requiring both credible presidential elections in 2014 and an inclusive peace process. whether the u.s. can succeed in its efforts to bring about negotiated into pakistan civil war, in the absence of pakistan's -- afghanistan civil war and absence of pakistan's engagement and cooperation. in short, what are the prospects for peace in afghanistan? to provide answers to these questions, we are privileged to have a very distinguished panel of experts, true experts. i will not read their biographies since you have them, but i would offer the following highlights. marc grossman has held just about every major post one can hold in the department of state. ambassador to turkey, assistant

secretary of state for european affairs, director general of the foreign service, and undersecretary of state for political affairs, the department's third highest position. since february, 2011, he has served as special representative of afghanistan -- for afghanistan and pakistan with all of the challenges pertaining. and i think it's important to note that marc's diplomatic career was launched in pakistan. that was his first posting. in essence he has come full circle in his career. nilofer sakhi has written extensively. she is founder and chairperson of women's and activities of women's service association where she established the association for peace building and conflict resolution. she served as a country director at the open foundations, afghanistan program, where she also worked as a senior consultant on rule of law, transitional justice,

and human rights. ahmed rashid is pakistan's pre- eminent journalist and author. his writings are required reading for anyone seeking to understand the realities of afghanistan and pakistan. his publications which include "taliban, jihad, and descent into chaos" has sold millions of copies. his newly published work, pakistan on the brink is already being described by viewers as a must-read. where and how that rand design went awry. i will add living as he does in lapur and writing as he does with unrestrained honesty and candor also qualifies him as a man of considerable personal courage. last but not least, we are

privileged to have with us, ambassador omar samad, who is afghanistan senior expert here at the u.s. institute of peace. prior to joining usip he served as afghanistan's ambassador to france and previously as afghanistan's ambassador to canada and prior to that spokesman in the afghan foreign ministry. a graduate of american university and the fletcher school, he's widely own and respected for his determined efforts to promote the cause of freedom and democracy in afghanistan. now, given that extraordinarily qualified group of panelists, we knew that we needed someone with equally extraordinary credentials to serve as our moderator. we could not have found anyone better qualified than former assistant to the president for national security, stephen hadley. as a top advisor to president george w. bush for eight years, steve has left his mark on every major foreign policy issue the united states has confronted.

he has continued to do so since leaving office through his involvement in a host of policy study groups and his extensive travels, including his own visit to pakistan of last october. importantly for us here at usip, he's a former member of the usip board and we continue to benefit from his support and his sage advice. so it is with great pleasure that i turn the microphone over to steve hadley. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the panelists for being with us this morning. and thank all of you. i think we should have a very interesting hour and a half on this most important question. i want to outline how we are going to try to proceed this morning. i'm going to begin by asking each panelist what may look like a bit of a softball question, but it's kind of a framing question so each of them can take three or four minutes

in turn to sort of set out sort of a general approach to the problem. what we'll then do after that first round is i will then ask questions to the various panelists and i will try to see if i can broker a bit of a conversation between and among the panelists on the various issues of the day. i suspect when all that is done we will be basically an hour into this hour and a half which we have. and we will then go to questions and answers from the audience. you should have received as you came in or once you got seated a card. we would ask you to write your question on that card. if you don't have a card you can raise your hand and people will come and get you one. and we would ask that you would pass those cards then to the aisles and someone from usip will come down each aisle and collect them and they will then be passed to me. and that last 30 minutes i will ask your questions to the

members of the panel. we will try to end promptly at 12:00 noon, and ask you then to let the panelists have a moment to depart the hall before the rest of us exit. that's what we'll try to do this morning. and i think we could not have a better panel here to debate this important question about how to get to peace and stability in afghanistan and pakistan. so, without further ado, let me begin, ambassador grossman, i'd like to begin with you if i might. ambassador moose talked about political strategy. i think if you read the press on afghanistan there is a lot of talk about security, security situation in afghanistan, the transition to afghanistan lead security responsibility in 2014. but under the constitution president karzai's term expires in 2014, which means there will

be a presidential election. and one question is, will that presidential election result in a president with authority and support throughout the country, or could it be a repeat of the last couple elections which were contested and a source of division? accompanying the security transition strategy, could you say a little word about the political transition strategy and how the administration sees on the political side getting between where we are now and 2014 and beyond? >> thank you very much. let me just add my thanks to all of you and if i could add my thanks to usip and all the people who organized this wonderful event. it's an honor to be on this panel. i might if i could say a special word of thanks to steve hadley, who in the year i have been the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan has been particularly well in his

counsel of others. i appreciate it very much. i think the question, steve asked a great question, which is to say we spend a very large amount of time thinking about the security transition. security transition very important. laid out in lisbon in 2010, the transition and geographies which has already taken place. the military activity, the civilian development activity, all these areas we have been working hard on to promote the list done transition and then get through to a success at the end of 2014. i think i'll talk a little bit about the other transition. it's very important that we not lose sight of the success in list done. one other thing about list done, i had spent a couple weeks ago around europe talking about support for the afghan national security forces. stay focused on the lisbon transition is because for a public in the united states and also publics in europe it's a very important part of explaining the story of how we are going to go forward in afghanistan to get to 2014. security transition a very important thing.

steve's right, i think we ought to be spending a considerable more time thinking about what is the other transition that's happening in 2014. there are two transitions we ought to be considering. lisbon, then obviously the political transition as called for by the constitution of afghanistan. an election, change in leadership, and they very importantly getting to the transformational decade which was called for at the very important conference in bonn. i'll say three things about that. first, there is obviously a huge amount of work for afghans to do to get ready for 2014. because this election, how they want to run their own country, what their life will be like in that transformational decade 2014 to 2024 i think fundamentally is a question for afghans. we can talk about this and encourage and work with the election commission and consider questions going forward for 2014, this is first and foremost i believe an afghan question. i know that they will focus on

it and focus on it successfully. second, as steve said, there are two or three other pieces of getting ready for that transition that are extremely important. one, i believe, is the regional context in which that second transition will take place. i take you back if i could to the very important meeting in istanbul last november, the very important international conference in bonn last december which set a framework for secure, stable and pros fuss afghanistan inside of a secure, stable, and prosperous region. regional component of this, support of this transition in afghanistan is extremely important. second, let's not forget also the economic aspects of this. here steve and others have been particularly helpful to me which is to say that going forward to 2014 and after 2014 there's also got to be a even economic provision in connecting the economies with afghanistan and pakistan in the center. i believe that will also play a

very important role and access for these two transitions in 2014. finally, as george said and also steve repeated, there is the question of peace and reconciliation. george talked i think very rightly about the efforts the minister is making that we are trying to produce also for one and one reason only, which is to see if we can get afghans talking to other afghans about the future of afghanistan. but i believe the peace process, the question of this conference, prospects for peace, reconciliation, reintegration, all of these will play a very important role in whether we are successful in the dual transitions in 2014. >> thank you, marc. i'd like if i could to ask ambassador samad to pick up on that and particularly picking up on this -- the political strategy. there's been a lot of discussion about outreach to the taliban as an element of a political strategy between now and 2014.

i'd like you, if you could, to talk a little bit about the rest of a political transition in 2014. you have written, for example, in a recent article, you had a quote that said, much of afghanistan's loyal political opposition, women's rights groups, and civil society not only feel marginalized but are also increasingly concerned about a re-talibanation of the country because of misplaced priorities. that's a serious statement. could you talk a little bit about what you mean by feeling marginalized and what ought to be the approach of the afghan authorities and the united states to address those issues and that feeling? >> thank you. thank you for the easy question. good morning to everyone here. i thought the ambassador would get all the tough questions. that's the advantage of being an ex-diplomat.

by what i had written i'm trying to reflect, i think, what the afghan people are feeling in terms of the political transition that is about to take place, if and when it takes place and how it will take place, and what to feel first of all i think connected to a transition. you want to feel inclusive and included in the process that not only takes into account their aspirations, but also deals and offers them certain solutions and answers to questions that are really tough in terms of what are we doing with the taliban? which taliban? where and what context? these are questions that i think are on the minds of many people not only in afghanistan but also across the world, especially the main contributors and main stakeholders as to what

exactly are we going to get out of a reconciliation. a political process is the way to end the conflict and we hope that that will be the case for afghanistan. but there are many questions as to what kind of reconciliation. is it going to be narrow? is it going to be one where we bargain over certain gains that we have had, afghans have had over the past decade? what are we going to give up? what are we getting in return for it? if we are going to end up with a political sentiment, which is a bad word being used, what does it mean? what does a political settlement mean in terms of incorporating certain elements within the after began rooting structures, giving away certain positions. does it mean that this will guarantee the end of conflict. that everyone who is on today

will actually sign on to this? so there are many questions lingering in people's minds. i think that that's what's caused a certain amount of uncertainty and angst within the afghan population. and especially within political circles. civil society, and especially the parliament. i think we keep ignoring this body called the legislature or parliament, whether we like it or not, an elected body in afghanistan, elections are not perfect. but we cannot ignore their views and their input. important that it's that as we move forward with the political process, we keep in mind that afghans have certain questions. they would like to have some transparency as part of this process.

and they are really also worried about the regional context. as mr. grossman said, afghans see their immediate problems as originating not within afghanistan but originating within the regional context. and they see a lot of supporters outside of afghanistan as well as inside afghanistan. but the supporters inside afghanistan are our own supporters, we need to deal with them ourselves in our own way. but supporters outside of afghanistan are very difficult for us to handle. in the past 30 years of our history has shown that we need to find better ways of handling this aspect of supporting coming outside afghanistan. >> thank you. one of the things that i think may inform the conversation here in the work that the u.s. institute of peace and the center for american progress have been doing, we have tried to distinguish between reconciliation, which is thought of as an outreach to

the taliban, and a broader political settlement, which is making the afghan political structure more inclusive of both the opposition, women's groups, a sense that many view the afghan government now is narrow with a sense of entitlement, fair amount of corruption, so we have talked about outreach to the taliban or reconciliation with the taliban and political sell settlement in terms of broadening and opening up the afghan political structure. we might have that distinction in mind. >> you have been an advocate of women's rights. how do women in afghanistan see the outreach to the taliban and also the broader prospects for political stem -- settlement.

>> thank you very much. >> the elrich to the taliban but also this broader prospect -->> for pell stand to discuss the peace prospects -- for pakistan to discuss the peace prospects. among women groups, on the issue of the transition, especially on the issue of the reconciliation. they have good memories of the taliban regimes. it was not because of that. people were tired of the instability in the country and they wanted a solution where everybody could have a stake. then we started working with the different stakeholders.

all the bad memories that they had from the taliban regime -- with the passage of time and the changes that happened during the last two years, optimism does not exist anymore. they are afraid of -- there's been a lack of transparency in the process. there has been a lack of -- the private sectors, education and many other sectors. there were all part of a society and they were not consulted initially. it worked at the level that the international community just had been at the table to discuss the substance.

the presentation of women's groups has been very symbolic in the process. it does not contain any substantive talks. women are concerned that the taliban has not released a document or published anything that would except the constitution of afghanistan. has undermined the last 10 years of achievement. the support of the international committee has been focusing on this. now there is the level of pessimism that exists. there is no solution to the sentiment and reconciliation is not a solution.

wait for more -- we think there's more need for a division in neighboring countries. let's talk about their interest because their interest matters a lot. otherwise the foreign countries will not cooperate in the process. there will not discuss their interests at the negotiating table. the solution doesn't rely will talking to the taliban alone. >> thank you. you have indicated some reservations about where the reconciliation and the political settlement process are now. i want to come back to you in a moment and ask you to be prescriptive. how do you get this process back

on track? i would like to turn to mr. rashid. the importance of the regional players and the role they can have in terms of a stable peaceful afghanistan over the long term. there's no more important neighbor than pakistan. our objective is for a stable afghanistan and a stable peace for pakistan and they are related. i will start very basically. there's a lot of discussion about what does pakistan want for afghanistan? do they want the return of the taliban? let's begin -- what are pakistan pasquale's in afghanistan -- what are pakistan's goals in afghanistan? what are they willing to do to

bring that about? >> i wish i knew. i wish more people in this room new and i do not think they do. i think marc outlined a very comprehensive vision. i think part of the vision that must emerge in the chicago summit has to be the fact that the aim has to be an end to the war before you leave. if the nato forces will leave afghanistan in a state of civil war, then i think we're looking at total failure at the end of the day. we're looking at the collapse of the entire political system as it has evolved over the past

10 years. i would like to see eight u.s. vision articulated. our aim is to end the war before we leave. i think that will carry weight in the international community. we can talk about each of these things individually but i think that has to be an overarching policy. maybe we do not get that but i think the aim has to be expressed. if we look at the areas, the international situation is in a crisis. a lot of the europeans want to pull out early. the law long-term funding of afghanistan and the funding of the military. the regional situation -- the

tensions with iran and the tensions with pakistan. the domestic situation inside afghanistan with these recent incidents we have had is also very precarious. i think an enormous amount needs to be done and we need diplomatic efforts on all three fronts in order to get this process going. i've always believed that the military has essentially always had a maximalist position and a minimalist position. it has moved from one to another.

it has for a long time a strong maximist position where there is no compromise with india on afghanistan. micromanagement of any kind of political deal between the palestine -- and the taliban and eastern afghanistan. and then a minimalist position which is geared more around compromise of talks, and with india and not rejected it completely. given the crisis with the u.s. and pakistan, both are taking center stage at the moment. there is an element of anti- u.s. defiance, which is being propagated in the media.

this makes -- this takes on a hard line on afghanistan. how dare the u.s. talk to the taliban. how dare the u.s. talk about this strategy without sharing it with afghanistan. because of all the other crises, the military is weak. i think it would also be willing and ready to accept this minimalist kind of set of demands for itself. t a question of how the u.s. and the international community is going to play with pakistan. is it going to be aggressive or is it going to be a little more patient?

i think that is important. two things pakistan has to do. the time has long passed that pakistan can continue giving physical support for extremist and fundamentalists. i think this is going to require -- there has to be a deadline given to the outgoing taliban and to the fellow groups to move out of pakistan in order to speed up its reconciliation. pakistan has to play a more positive role then it is done so far. it is critical for the international community to know that pakistan is given a certain time period.

i think that is very important. there has to be a major effort at de radicalization. this does not mean confrontation in a military way. this is the kind of thing the international committee would give money to if pakistan did not have the resources itself. we have reached a certain stage improving relations with india but they cannot go any further. there's a limit to how far you can go in afghanistan with karzai. we can knock move forward -- we cannot move forward on last

pakistan is prepared to offer a program for d radicalization -- de-radicalization. >> the notion that the game needs to be to end the war before the united states leaves. i was there in october. if the goal is a peaceful afghanistan, it will take a long time and that is not something that can be accomplished between now and 2014. i would like your comment on the suggestion that that is a goal. there has been an announcement in the last weekend that there is now an agreement on the issue of night raids, which has been standing in the way of a

strategic partnership agreement between the united states and pakistan. is that agreement liable to be concluded? what will it say about a post- 2014 presence of the united states in the event we cannot get it all done? will it say about a u.s. commitment in afghanistan post- 2014? >> thank you very much. when i heard it had to be done by 2014 -- the bars are high but it cannot be that high. on the question of special military operations, at night raids. it does open the door for the strategic partnership documents. i think that is something

important to get signed an hopefully it will be done soon. i do not know how long it will take but we would like to have a good document. i think it is important because it starts to answer some of the questions. it also starts to answer some of the other questions that we have heard. let me just say to both of you and to everyone in this room, i think the idea that reconciliation and the process of reconciliation has to be done with any more inclusive manner around in afghanistan with the united states of america is right. reconciliation is not an issue between the government of

afghanistan and the insurgents. it is about afghan society. when you think about the questions that you asked -- what does it mean? one evanish i have had is that -- one advantage i have is that we set out in 2011 -- they answer some of your questions. people have to break with al qaeda. they have to live inside of the constitution in afghanistan with the rights of women and minorities and other groups. i want to repeat the point i made in my opening. the role of the united states in talking to the taliban is to open the door to a conversation

among afghans about the future. the questions you ask are questions that afghans have to answer about how they wish to live. all of us have said that regional to publish it has to go forward. i would like to tie my interest in the question of economic development to the empowerment of women in afghanistan. the most interesting people you meet in afghanistan are female entrepreneurs. i think there is a power to be unleashed there. women and other groups could help stand for themselves. the point about before we leave.

i think we should not detract in the proposition that on december 31, 2014, we're gone. if that was our policy, i do not think we could accomplish any of the tasks that we set out to do. there will be an american engagement that will be military, economic, political. will have to do with governments and democracy. it is not possible to say end this way before december, 2014. we have to continue on. i think about chicago, you have these lines of operation now. you have the military line

which is very important and needs to continue. you have the question of enduring presence. you have a question of reconciliation. the job in chicago was to bring all these things together. if we're successful, you take chicago, tokyo, kabaul, istanbul, and people have to understand. >> thank you, marc. some concerns about the reconciliation process. marc has begun to give the u.s. government's framework.

marc talked about a broader conversation among all elements of afghanistan. not so easy to do. talk a little bit about what kind of conversation should there be within afghan society and how does a get structured? can the election in 2014 it be a vehicle for having that kind of conversation and advancing the prospects for a broader reconciliation? i'll ask you to pull your policy maker -- put your policy maker hats on. if we could begin with miss sakhi.

>> sure. to follow up about the achievement in afghanistan, i think i've been through a series of changes from the provincial level to the capital. we want to make sure that the image we get from media -- the country is going -- i did not believe in that. i see the changes in the private sector. they are marvelous. we have been through the changes. it needs more structure and the systematic strategist to put in place. otherwise the achievement opens a great range of opportunities.

we need to be further engage in our country. thank you very much, ambassador grossman. i wanted to follow on that. it is a different picture of what we hear from the media. with the reconciliation of afghanistan, i think there was a lack of structure from the beginning in the process. for more structure, it has to be more transparent. there are issues that we cannot disclose. if the issues remain closed and transparency does not exist, how do we know as a nation that what are the discussions

happening -- between countries and regions -- even the afghan government is not in the picture. they are complaining about the process. that is damaging the sovereignty of the country. inclusiveness is not only to include women's groups. that is very important. i know the taliban does not recognize the afghanistan

government. how do we see the future? it is hard to predict a successful outcome. the taliban are not legitimizing or considering the government. this is a huge talk line. inclusive is not just about women's group. it is about the pakistan -- afghanistan government also. a broader process. we were expecting the peace process -- they were not able to reach the distant elements of the society which is education, which we did not name at the beginning and we have had

several talks. you have to have outreach and a member of them. they should at least -- i know that time is limited. we have to have outreach. they have started that. to have outreach. civil society was only -- they are not just society only. you want them to be included in the process. if we do not include them, you

will not be able to legitimize the peace process. they have to legitimize it at the end of the day. as we give structure to the entire process. the media should cover the hope. there is an extreme level of pessimism right now. we have to show the people that something is happening in the positive. otherwise, people think negatively about the entire process. if you don't have the support,

it will affect the legitimacy of the process. need a negotiator -- we need a negotiator. we have not started the process yet. there has not been talk about the substance. we've done the logistics. that according to peace building procedure -- this process has shortcomings. the process has not started yet. how are we sure that in another two years we will be able to create another outcome? work should be a little bit out

of the logistical efforts and should be focused more on the process, to bring -- talk about the substance. sepsis is where the interests of pakistan -- absence means what are the interests of pakistan? not only pakistan is involved. iran is another player. there are other stakeholders. they have to come to the table. and the third thing, mediator role is an important part of the process. right now the process is under question. the united states initiated and it is run and only happening, the taliban and the united states, the process. this has to be moved out of the mind of the people. international partners are a strong supporter for afghanistan. there are good points and bad

points. this will undermine the neutrality of the process. >> interesting. what i would like to do is i would like to turn to ambassador samad and heavy focus on the 2014 election. we have a good description of the kind of process to be seen. if you could talk about the 2014 election and what afghans need to do to make sure that gives a free and fair election. i will ask mr. rashid to talk about what more should be done with the regional players and give you a chance to respond to the comments we made here and then we will go to the questions from the audience. >> i just wanted to say that

what needs to be done is to consolidate these gains. afghanistan is a much better place than it used to be. we're discussing what might happen if the taliban returns or what might happen if afghanistan collapses. nobody 10 years ago thought we would have been at this point in afghanistan, -- this level of fertility -- fragililty. there's a certain level of fragilility. we just sort of agreed that there is a component that needs to be brought back into the process.

are putting our house in order in afghanistan. elements are coming under this big tend to -- elements are coming under this big tent. there's a taliban that is radicalized. it was not going to judge -- budge or change. we think this taliban is willing to come under the tent. ande trying to push him encourage him and inside him to come under the tent. know that cousin is outside of the borders and that pakistan

can have probably the definitive --provide the help that is needed in order to push the cousin back into afghanistan. then we can enter into talks with them. this is the picture we're facing right now. the international committee can create a role. there needs to be assurances. we had the kabul process. chicago is important and tokyo will give us the financial commitment that is required. what is the missing is the messaging to the afghan people and to the region. the international committee means business. they are serious about ending

the war and continued the work that began in 2001. afghan will be in the driving seat. as you drawdown the troops -- i am grateful for the international committee has done. the blood that has been shed on all sides. we need to end this but any one not just be saying that war will end in 2014. we need to be able to say we will now enter into a political sentiment face -- a political settlement phase. we do consolidate the peace and moving forward to rebuild

afghanistan. this will be critical in trying to determine which path we are going to take. we have had 10 years of experience with a democracy that is young and is learning the way forward. don't expect afghanistan to become the model of democracy within a generation or two. it will take much longer. but what choice do they have? what we have is a choice between an imperfect democracy but one that will be nurtured and helped along, and forces of radicalism.

so we have to make that choice. the election will be a critical testing ground. we need to make sure we stay within the bounds of the constitution. if the constitution needs to be reformed, there will be a discussion and debate in the country to reform it. that has to be inclusive. democracy has to stay within the bounds of the constitution in afghanistan. human rights and gender rights falls within that. the taliban have to fall within the bounds of the constitution. they need to become something. they need to be shown they have a voice and that their voice

counts. not more, not less than anybody else. they will have equal rights under the constitution. how do we do this? how do we convince the taliban? that is the trick that needs to be answered. >> does pakistan have the will ability to pressure these cousins that are outside of pakistan to return and take part of this process? what else needs to be done on a regional basis to support this process? >> there is hardly any discussion in washington about elections. how are you going to withdraw these troops and also have elections? who will stand by?

one idea is if president karzai brings the elections forward so that the international presence can be there and can play a role in protecting the elections. during the elections forward -- bringing the elections for would be an enormous help to the international community. you would like to include the taliban in this process, too. that is a big question mark. would they take a decision to stand in the elections or not?

it is probably vital that the transition to the next president should take place well before the final -- large-scale withdrawal takes place in 2014. on this reconciliation, i think president karzai has made enormous mistakes. he is not put forth a comprehensive team talk with the taliban. they are reenergize the ethnic issue. there is open talk of civil war in afghanistan. let's be realistic. between the north and the south. whether the army or military can stand those kinds of strains

-- the war -- if there is disbelief -- there's a belief that somehow the americans will get up and say goodbye and leave and the afghans will come into the trench and hold that tranche and hold the entire country against the taliban. if we will be in a state of war in 2014 when the troops start leaving, there will be a wave of attacks by the taliban if there is no peace process. one of the most important needs for americans and for nato is how to reduce the violence so the burden does not fall on this afghan army which is completely untested -- illiterate drug taking, etc.

we do not know how it will perform. i want to say there have been divisions in this administration in washington and i do not think we can ignore them. that's been a major cause for problems in this peace negotiation. the taliban has suspended the talks. the u.s. has to talk from one page also. the more divisions that there are in pakistan and kabul, it creates problems for the u.s. and for these negotiations. these other countries have an

angle on which to build their own defense on. there will need to be a massive diplomatic effort. did the state department is unable to do on their own. they have no relationship with iran. you need someone else to talk with the iranians about the settlements. it is tragic to with the u.n. has been run down. they cannot take up a position unless it is from outside. i think the americans can resolve this for themselves. it is a critical part of any kind of regional settlement.

in pakistan, the problem is, is a huge domestic crisis. you have a military trying to get rid of the government. read the judiciary lining up with the military -- you have the judiciary lining up with the military. this could escalate again. you have an economic crisis. now, it has been unfortunate that there has been so little pressure from the government on the military in a more comprehensive way to change pakistan's armed policy, because that is what is needed. there can be pressures to change it. other groups are trying to pressure the military to change.

things cannot continue. take that step to turn the ship around is something that nobody has the courage to do all right now in pakistan. the more aggravating measures there are like -- people see this as tit for tat thing that americans are doing. there were accusations about mumbai. i can understand the frustrations in the united states. people have seen this more less as a tit for tat thing. there's a huge domestic crisis

which is dominating everything at the moment. as long as that is not resolved, we are not going to see a reconciliation with the united states. the military, the government, the parliament have the hard- line rhetoric that is coming out of the media and these groups. unfortunately, i have no idea about pakistan. they will continue down this road. i hope they can come out sooner rather than later. turning that ship around, no one has the will to do it, neither the military nor the politicians nor the government. perhaps elections should be

brought forward in pakistan as well for fall of this year so that we can have a new government which could possibly tackle some of these issues that need to be worked on. thank you. >> i'm going to give you the last word. i will ask for the questions to go up and we will go to the q and a. >> the stage is tilting. i want to make sure there is lots of room for questions. there are a couple of things here. i would like to ask the question of reconciliation. it is important to emphasize this reconciliation process is about society in afghanistan. nor is it about the united states of america talking to the insurgents. there is one purpose and one purpose only and that is the point that you made.

the taliban does not want to talk to the government of afghanistan. somebody has to break through and open that door. our goal is to open that door. our porpoises to open that door -- our purpose is to open that door. the peace council has an important role to play here. i make a point to go and visit with the high peace council. it has to be more inclusive. talk to the people around the country. do not forget the

accomplishments. i take one lesson. for the taliban, it is not for afghan society to accommodate the taliban. it is the reverse. it is the job of the taliban to recognize what is happening in afghanistan over these past 10 years. how did the president --how did the president's make their own decisions? we have talked about reconciliation. reintegration is an important part of this as well. one point about tokyo. tokyo will be the place where

the international community will make some commitments to the government of afghanistan. bonn called upon the government of afghanistan to make commitments to the international community. i know people will be looking for that plan, as well. this room is full of former colleagues. i have many faults. not keeping the government fully informed on what we were doing is not one of them. i recognize that is what people say. i worked very hard so that people are not in the dark or excluded. pakistan is the place to start. they need to work on this issue.

when you say nobody is thinking of how to structure our forces in afghanistan for an election in 2014, that is part of the importance of an event like this and started to talk about these transitions. i was in europe a few weeks ago and this was very much on people's minds. two transitions are happening and they need to happen successfully. i go back to the question of, "we are leaving." the afghan national security forces are going to grow to 350,000 people and that number will stay consistent till the end of 2015. then it will slope down.

they can fight and do the kinds of jobs that are important. i come back to the point that this panel is all about. teat not just a peace process -- it is not just a peace process, it is and afghan peace process. if they will not take ownership of peace, it will be lowered. i believe the prospects are good. >> i have six questions which i've turned into four questions. we will go through them and see how much time we have at the end. do you think the taliban have moderate any of their views on women, or do they want to go

back to the policies of the 1990's? for those taliban that come into the practice, where it be think their views are on women today? >> that is a good question. we do not know if they have moderated their views. they are -- they want women's roles. there's interpretation about the law, whether they want to name that as a perfect model. i do not think we have reformed. the other think they are saying -- there are many issues relevant to women's participation in public, women

praying outside, a traveling with someone else. these are issues that show us that they have not modified anything about their take on women's issues, especially if they're focusing very much on the women's role. if it is islamic, we do not say women's right. it is good. we respect that. >> mr. rashid. >> look, why this is so important is that the tell about have been locked up in safe houses in pakistan for the

last 10 years -- the taliban has been locked up in safe houses in pakistan. they need exposure to these people. i would hope that the first thing that would happen is you take delegations from all walks of life and meet with the taliban. and the taliban working with people, all sorts of members of the afghan elite. this would give the taliban the kind of exposure to moderate afghan society that has come up since 9/11, more than ever before. >> the burden is on the taliban for this reconciliation process.

that would be an opportunity for the taliban to reassure women on this point. next question. how you assess the ability of the loyal opposition to mobilize afghans to participate in the country's politics? how'd you addressed the issue between the split between the north and the south, in the direction of democracy and development? >> these are very good questions. i think it would be good for the position to create their political platforms.

whether it translates to political parties, that is up to them. t of policies dealing with different viewpoints in a more coherent manner. so far their activities and behavior is somewhat ad hoc and not fully integrated within the parties as well as intra- movement. i think there are issues that need to be raised amongst the opposition groups that they share in terms of the interest, to move forward to credible elections, legitimate elections.

how to deal with certain constitutional questions. how to make sure we don't go off track with elections overall and the process that it needs. in terms of north-south, i believe the 2010 elections did demonstrate one of positive change. the ability of the top candidates to cross values and boundaries that existed in afghanistan prior to 2009. there they were an ethnic or regional boundaries. the main candidates were able to tap into committees that were seen as a possible to tap into prior to these elections. society is maturing and seeing beyond the committal interests

and this goes beyond that. this is a good outcome of what has been going on over the years. i think 2014 will offer an opportunity to expand on this achievement. the media in afghanistan has played an incredible role along people to express themselves about all of the issues. every time i turned to the media and listen to these discussions, i am amazed at what we had in 2001 and will we have today. -- and what we have today. this is an educational process for the afghans. whether you have access to tv and media or whether you're in the city, you are bound to be impacted by all of these changes and i think this is good

news for the political process. this will become less of an issue. >> interesting. during recent interviews, you have stated perhaps the biggest failure of the u.s. coalition effort has been the inability to establish a viable economy in afghanistan. what can be done to fix this? what are the priorities between now and 2014? we are talking about an economic transition. >> i think this administration has tried very hard to improve the economic situation right from the start. the war has intensified.

it is difficult to get out and to improve the economy and the agriculture. this should have been the main focus from 2001. this was the intention of this administration but they were not able to fulfil it. tens of thousands of afghans are going to -- this is a generation in favor of democracy and reform and change. this generation will be left out when they leave. no one is talking about setting up a computer chip factory in kabul. we're talking about having a self sustaining -- investment in agriculture. i think the only way that that can be effected in the long term is if the world wants to

subside or their wants to -- or there has to be a regional reduction in violence. surely, there are very good ideas for the next 18 months or so. what should be done now by the ambassador and others as i open of the tokyo conference is the theme should be played as to how you will develop the outside economy. down the road, there is the prospect of minerals, oil, gas. the chinese are already taking up options there. of course, it is going to be hugely beneficial. are they going to be capable of looking after the wealth?

and there is going to be a need for national -- for international help on that. we do not have copper or i and or warlords like we have drug warlords now. we are at a crossroads of asia that has been talked about a lot. this is a huge money earner. south asia desperately needs pipelines to provide oil, gas, electricity to pakistan. there are all these possibilities. it is going to be very dangerous and precarious. putting tens of thousands of jobs into the job market where there are no jobs.

>> in addition, specialization. for that new generation, to focus on youth is an important thing. it provides more education facilities, scholarships. that is, to have a long-term impact. right now, we have a scholarship on political issues but not on the economy. that is why we have few people that can get into the country and government also. investing in youth is one of the important things to support the economy. and the private sector has done a marvelous job in the last 10 years. the technicality and

professionalism that exists. >> last question. the first part of it is something you may not want to answer. but i will give you a half of its. you can avoid answering it if you so choose. what would be the optimum u.s. military presence in afghanistan post-2014? how do you balance what is needed to meet u.s. and afghan interests from a force standpoint against off-putting afghans, waivers, and the demand of the television -- of the caliban -- the taliban? how you balance and weigh those factors on what the u.s. presence should be? >> i'm going to go to the economic question.

the regional aspect is right. the private sector aspect is right. the foreign investment to support the afghan private sector -- two points. there are opportunities in the extracting industries that are available now. i have the economic vision. there are opportunities to be taken advantage of today. the other thing that is really important is we talked about the company's that are interested. what is the rule all structure in afghanistan for commercial law? how do i resolve why disputes? how do i work through it? afghanistan has got to set a legal framework to encourage foreign investments. finally, in 2011, we had the

afghan-pakistan issue. that number has gone up because people see what you see, center -- central asian economies connected to south asian economies. to the question you gave me, nobody can answer that question for you. on the second question, you could consider this not leave. -- naive. the last of the spd's are causing anxiety in the region. nobody knows what is going to happen. people will connect their economy to it and realize that there is going to be an american presence in afghanistan for some time.

the region will say, how do i react to that? i think a decision will take some steps for an afghanistan sable -- stable and secure process. >> i want to thank the audience for your participation, the good questions, coming and attending this session. let me thank the panelists for their participation as well. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up next, a

conversation on the house of england housing -- on the u.s. housing market. then, richard corporate. finally, president obama at a fund-raiser in hollywood, florida. tomorrow, a discussion on the u.s. criminal justice system. attorney general eric holder will speak at the conference founded by reverend al sharpton. live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. on c-span, a conversation of personal changes to the tax code, including the warren buffett ruled. >> the head of the agency regulating fannie mae and freddie mac said the mortgage companies could see benefits from reducing loan amounts from

some owners. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> and the director of economic studies at brookings, i am pleased to introduce today as keynote speaker, edward demarco, acting head of the fhsa. he has been at his current job for almost three years now. serving as a conservative of fannie mae and freddie mac. since going into conservatorship, he has cost taxpayers $185 billion and counting. previously, he served as the chief operating officer and

deputy director of the office of federal housing enterprise oversight. he also served as assistant deputy commissioner at the security administration. prior to that, a director at the u.s. department of treasury. before that, he worked at the general accountability office. perhaps you are noticing a pattern here. it is safe to say that he has dedicated his professional life to public service. this is something he takes very seriously. which leads us back to his present position. at the wall street journal editorial pages yesterday, he is a career as simple -- servant who drew the short straw and ended up as he acting chief of the federal financing agency. he sits here at the center of a

controversy, having been labeled the nation's top obstacle to economic recovery as well as being called america's most dangerous man. with some members of congress calling for him to be fired a. he also has a tie to brookings. he was a doctoral student at the university of maryland and his adviser was my colleague, hank aaron, a longtime brookings senior fellow. when i asked him for his recommendation, he said, ed was the kind of guy any daughter would want his -- any father would want his daughter to marry. at demarco was the name of the person in the cross hairs. he wanted to check whether it was the same person he had known and he thought it would have been hard to have anticipated that a person as quiet, nice, and smiled as edward demarco would be the center of the controversy he is

in. i am sure there are many who share his surprise, including the director himself. getting on to the program, he will speak and then my co- director will moderate a question and answer session. then we will have a panel discussion featuring several distinguished experts in the housing and finance area. with that, i will let director demarco taken away. -- take it away. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. it really is an honor to be here today.

i would like to thank karen for that introduction and welcome. it is a particular privilege for me to have hank aaron here this morning. as part of the audience. i am very grateful to him for all of the support and guidance he gave me. reflecting on what karen said, i cannot wait to get home and tell my wife how lucky she is. [laughter] over the past six years, many efforts --over the past six years many efforts have been launched by the federal government to stem the losses arising from the housing crisis and to keep people in their homes. some programs have worked better than others, but almost all of them required trial and error, and were more difficult to actually implement than many had expected. as conservator of fannie mae and freddie mac, the federal housing finance agency has been deeply involved in many of these

efforts, and we have seen our share of successes and missteps. today we find ourselves in the midst of a national debate regarding mortgage principal forgiveness -- would homeowners, the housing market, and the taxpayer be best served by providing outright forgiveness of mortgage debt for certain homeowners who currently owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth today? i am grateful to the brookings institution for this opportunity to offer some perspectives on this debate and to provide some preliminary findings from fhfa's most recent analysis of this issue. i will not be announcing any conclusions today -- our work is not yet complete -- but in view of the state of the public policy debate on this subject, i am pleased to have this venue to enhance the public understanding of this difficult question and to explain how fhfa

has approached the matter. the brookings institution's reputation as a home for thoughtful policy analysis and debate of challenging public policy questions makes this a most appropriate setting for this endeavor. typically when i begin a speech about fannie mae and freddie mac, or the enterprises as i will refer to them, i set the context by reviewing fhfa's legal responsibilities as conservator. i do so because i believe it is essential for people to understand that congress considered the objectives it wanted fhfa to pursue as conservator. these objectives may not be easy to meet but they are clear -- fhfa's job is to preserve and conserve the assets of the enterprises and, in their current state that translates directly into minimizing taxpayer losses. we are also charged with ensuring stability and liquidity in housing financing and maximizing assistance to homeowners. today however, i want to set

the context for my remarks in a different way -- i would like to begin with a few words on the human element of this housing crisis. throughout this crisis each of us know of, or have heard about, many individual stories of homes lost through foreclosure. one cannot help but have sympathy for those who have suffered such misfortune. and surely no one can look at the dislocations in the housing market and not feel frustration at how so many people and institutions failed us, whether through incompetence, indifference, or outright greed or fraud. yet we are also blessed in this country with people and institutions who care, who are

strongly motivated to provide assistance and find solutions. the staff at fhfa has worked tirelessly since the enterprises were placed into conservatorships to seek meaningful, effective responses to the housing crises. with the staffs at fannie mae and freddie mac, department of the treasury and department of housing and urban development, and numerous financial services companies, fhfa staff has sought to develop and improve on loan modification and loan refinance programs that bring meaningful options to struggling borrowers who want to stay in their homes. in a moment, i will describe these efforts and their progress to date. we know we have much more to do and the strategic plan for conservatorship that we submitted to congress in february identifies that work as one of our three strategic goals. there is another human element in this story that does not seem to receive much attention. clearly, many households got over-extended financially. some accumulated debts they couldn't afford when hours or wages were cut or jobs were lost. others withdrew equity from their homes as house prices soared. others bought houses at the peak of the market, often with little money down, perhaps in

the belief house prices would continue to climb. yet there are other americans who did not do these things. there are families that did not move up to that larger house because they weren't comfortable taking the risk. perhaps they had to save for college or retirement, and did not want to invest that much in housing. and there are people working multiple jobs, or cutting back on the family budget in many ways, to continue making their mortgage payments through these tough times. many of these families are themselves underwater on their mortgage, even though they may have made a sizeable down payment. whichever of these categories any particular homeowner falls into, the decline in house prices over the last few years has reduced the housing wealth of all homeowners. the federal reserve has estimated that from the end of 2005 through 2011, the decline in housing wealth to be $7.0 trillion. six years into this housing downturn, the losses persist. the debate continues about how we as a society are going to

allocate the losses that remain. asking hard questions in this debate does not make one unfeeling about the personal plight this situation has created for so many. indeed, the majority of those most hurt by this housing crisis did nothing wrong -- they were playing by the rules but they have been the victims of timing or circumstance or poor judgment. in short, the human element in this unfortunate episode in our country's economic history stands out and commands our attention. virtually every homeowner in the country has suffered a loss. but that doesn't make the answers any easier. and it poses a deep responsibility on policymakers to weigh all these factors in seeking solutions, including the long-term impact on mortgage rates and credit availability of the actions we take today. with that as backdrop, my goal today is to answer two questions. what do the enterprises do to assist borrowers through these troubled times in housing?

how has fhfa assessed principal forgiveness as an option for assisting troubled borrowers? let's begin with borrower assistance efforts. some critics have concluded that fhfa's refusal to allow principal forgiveness raises questions as to the agency's and the enterprises' commitment to helping borrowers stay in their home. to put the principal forgiveness discussion in context, i think it is useful to start by reviewing the enterprises' current borrower assistance programs. the enterprises have an array of foreclosure prevention programs for borrowers that are delinquent or in imminent default, most of which allow the troubled borrower to stay in their home. for those who are current on their mortgage, refinance opportunities allow borrowers to lower their monthly payment or shorten the term of their mortgage. the primary focus of the enterprises' foreclosure prevention programs is on providing borrowers the opportunity to obtain an

affordable mortgage payment for borrowers who have the ability and willingness to make a monthly mortgage payment. let's look more closely at foreclosure prevention efforts. the enterprises' current loan modification programs are designed to help homeowners who are in default, and those who are at imminent risk of default. the first modification program the enterprises use to evaluate a borrower is the -- we will be posting a lengthy version of these remarks on line. this chart shows that, for troubled borrowers, seeking a loan modification, the mortgage

servicer will first work through -- with the borrower to determine what they are eligible for and whether they can benefit from a home affordable modification program. these are the steps that are taken to reduce the borrower's monthly mortgage payment down to 31% of their current gross monthly income. some borrowers are not eligible for cannot benefit from a modification. fannie and freddie have their own proprietary modifications or standard modifications that they also offer. the second column works through that modification approach as well. the idea is to get the borrower into an affordable monthly mortgage payment. you a note in these columns that they both talked about for bearing on principal. with the principal forbearance modification, a portion of the loan principal amount is set aside. that is the underwater portion. the homeowner does not pay interest on that portion of the loan. this means that a lender allows the homeowner to defer payments

on a portion of their principal until they sell their home or later refinance a home. during this time of the deferral, they are paying no interest. this approach allows the enterprises to reduce the borrowers' monthly payment while avoiding an actual principal right off. interestingly, this is the same approach used in many government-guaranteed loan programs, including the fha program. the enterprises also offer temporary assistance. loan modification is not always the best solution. for someone who lose their jobs, has a medical emergency, or faces another short-term issue, a lone mod is not necessarily best. in such cases, benny and make -- fannie and freddie allow a borrower to make no or partial payment for period of time. -- for a period of time. there are also plans for borrowers who fall temporarily behind and needed opportunity get back on track.

since the start of the conservative ships -- the conservatorship, fannie and freddie had entered into more than 600,000 such plans. there are also non-retention options. most troubled borrowers should qualify for home retention option they have the ability and desire to stay in their homes. if the borrower does not want to remain in their home or has experienced a permanent and significant loss of income that makes continued homeownership in feasible, the servicer is obligated to consider the borrower for a short sale, a deed in lieu, or a deed in lease. this allows the homeowner to sell the home in an arm's- length transaction. fannie and freddie have completed more than 300,000 such home forfeiture action since conservatorship.

fannie mae and freddie mac's instructions to mortgage servicers are clear -- only after all these home retention and home forfeiture options have been exhausted should a servicer pursue foreclosure. let's turn to the results. while mortgages owned by other financial institutions or held in private label mortgage- backed securities have a much higher delinquency rate than those owned or guaranteed by the enterprises, the enterprises have been leading national foreclosure prevention efforts. fannie mae and freddie mac own or guarantee 60% of mortgages outstanding but they account for only 29% of seriously delinquent loans. even though other market participants hold 71% of seriously delinquent loans, the enterprises account for more than half of all hamp permanent modifications.

between hamp and their own proprietary loan modifications, the enterprises have completed 1.1 million loan modifications since entering conservatorship. not only are the enterprises leading efforts in completing loan modifications, the performance of their loan modifications have been better than most other market participants. this shows the re-default date. while there are many decisions involved in what the enterprises should employ principal reduction accommodated modifications -- data on modifications from enterprise loans show that performance is not strongly related to current ltv. while not a definitive analysis, if current ltv had a

strong effect, we would expect that the more underwater the borrower, the higher the re- default rate. however, fannie mae data presented in table 3 show that performance on modified loans does not vary much across current ltv. it is important to note that the performance of modified loans is a function of the payment change, as table 4 shows. this tells us that what matters most is that the performance on loan modifications seems to be more a function of the payment of change to the borrower rather than a loan to value. the greater the payment decrease that the borrower gets, the better the re-performance rate on the modification. collectively, these efforts have made a meaningful impact on reducing foreclosures. since conservatorship, the enterprises have completed more loan modifications than

foreclosures and, adding all other foreclosure prevention actions to the 1.1 million loan modifications totals to some 2.1 million foreclosure prevention actions, more than twice the number of foreclosures the enterprises have completed during this same period. fhfa and the enterprises offered are more assistance for those who are current on their loans. the fhfa developed this program, harp. allows underwater and near- underwater borrowers a pack to refinance their mortgage without allowing -- obtaining new mortgage insurance or some other credit enhancement as would otherwise be required.

the enterprises have acquired 10 million refinanced mortgages, of which more than 1 million were harp loans. these results fell short of what we believe we could have achieved. consequently, fhfa engaged with the enterprises from the treasury, and a wide array of market participants to identify and resolve impediments to the program. the changes were made already. there has been revised -- and increased interest. we expect the volume of such loans to increase in the near future. let me turn now to principal forgiveness. in the original program,

principal forgiveness was always permitted, but it was reviews. in 2010, to encourage greater use the principal forgiveness for loans with loan to value ratios above 115% from a treasury supplemented the original program with the hammer principal reduction alternative -- hamp principal reduction alternative. hamp pra is an investor option, not of our war option.

.

>> we were hindered by fragmented and complete authority to ensure compliance. we have little power over the servicers and they knew it. it was frustrating for us and the people were trying to help. it proved largely ineffective. as i came to learn later, the unhappy experience i suffered an ohio was the same struggles that occurred in many other states as well. things are different. now that we have the new consumer financial protection bureau on the scene. although we realize a one size-

fits all approach does not fit everyone. including both base and their non-big competitors. we will also be able to back up any new rules we write with sharp teeth. we have authority for the first time ever. this allows us not only to examine mortgage servicers to make sure they are following the law, but also to enforce the law against them when they fail to do so. we are also building on reports from fellow banking agencies that have documented the widespread and serious problems in mortgage servicing. problems that were determined not only to violate the law, but to be so pervasive they constituted unsafe and unsound practices that adversely affected the broader market markets. the recent market selling -- the

recent settlement was only a partial step as it covered only financial -- certain financial institutions and only certain categories of the service. in particular, it did not encompass the many independent services that specializes in an independent loans. we are already using all of our tools to extend new protections to the kind of shabby service that has been so thoroughly documented. by considering these new rules, by examining compliance with the law, by investigating perforce meant matters when they rise, and individual complaints. as we continue to engage in this war, we will collaborate with our sister regulators. we recognize that we share a common interest in reforming the market as well as on behalf of consumers.

the rules we are considering on mortgage servicing are just beginning of our push for a mortgage document. we know what is happening in which shares are less frequent and all reasonable efforts are made kef who fall behind their payments and remain in their homes. by ensuring accountability for borrowers, consumers would have clear information about their options to keep their homes and to be in better position to be accountable. if we look across the range of consumer harm that occurred before, during, and after the recent financial crisis, the harms may be the greatest of the mall. if we're going to make life better for the american consumer and strength in the course of the american economy, no task is more important for us right now.

we simply must and we will. that fact is on my mind. we are determined to make a difference for some in the american families who deserve better treatment at the hands of their mortgage servicers. the u.s. for time and attention today. [applause] >> good morning. the director will be taking a few questions this morning. if you can raise your hand and say who your name, affiliation is, and ask your question. >> i am a realtor in washington d.c.. and i have been through the foreclosure process. >> i can hear you. >> i've had many clients call me

to say, i'm behind my mortgage. can you help me? if i may realtor -- not a mortgage lender. my first response is to call your mortgage company and let them know what is going on. i have now gone through that. i went through foreclosure. i love my mortgage company no months in advance. they did not want to hear that. "can you pay this month's market? i think it is important that the opera with the home owners before they run into trouble when they're made aware of it. it was a difficult process. they really did not care. when i fell behind, it is as if i did not warn them. it suggested not happen. is there anything you can put into place to make them work with the homeowner before the homeowners actually defaulted?

>> i appreciate the question and it goes to the heart of what we are trying to accomplish today as we propose these new rules. it is the case for those homeowners that they are confused, bewildered, it has never happened to them, and they do not know where to turn. we spent several years when i was at the local level encouraging people to call their lender. typically, the lender does not want the house. what the house payment. which we did not appreciate at that time is how difficult it is for the homeowner to even know who their lender is. and to get a response. the rules we are proposing today are all about making sure that mortgage services are required to do early intervention.

that they are required to keep the information comprehensive, correct, and accurate and to correct errors that occur. they have been very different -- in different in the process. it is not simply a debt collection exercise that runs toward foreclosure, but instead there is ample consideration given. the consumer knows what their options are to a potentially avoid foreclosure. getting a loan modification or the other processes that are often available that the consumer does not know about them. if they get conflicting information, it defeats their ability. >> listening to the details of your announcement, operation hope need to more than i thought we did. there are certain things that are just beyond our reach.

dealing with some alone services is like herding cats. you just cannot get your hands around it. i was at a market workshop with a responsible lender -- it was wells fargo. there was 1000 investors. 1000 investors. 1000 investors represented the mortgages that all had to be coordinated and talked to. if it had not been for the workshop, you cannot negotiate a deal. luckily, the companies using its credibility to try to force responsibility from the servicer. that is one day, that is one event. and it is back to business as usual. but i guess my point is that this is 80% of the issue. of just chasing around

servicers, i lost this document. we will not accept that payment. and even rules. an uneven playing field. if this is what her agency is about, there is no more important addition 40 of them. you could start right now. [laughter] >> you mentioned earlier that among the things operation hope does is standing issues and the death -- they at least have one advantage. they have done it before. they have done it several times. the have a sense of how to proceed. for the homeowner, foreclosure is often a once-in-a-lifetime event. it can change their trajectory.

their base in the woods. they need some as a responsibility from the mortgage services. as a would have the ability to require an to enforce. we expect to make a real difference. if you in your organization have worked with thousands and thousands of people who of been through this process. it has been more difficult than it should have been. more difficult than it already is. >> good morning. thank you very much for your time this morning. much like he was commenting on the financial literacy, we believe the financial education is a key component of this. can you speak to the intersection of consumer education and your efforts, as well as some of the resources you have available to understanding -- i think in the past few weeks to launch the new consumer website. there is a lot to make the

required on the web site at the top of the disclosure. >> that is a good suggestion. that is part of the reason we like to come to these events. it is not about me talking so much as people of ideas and suggestions will help us do our work better. let me say two things. you're referring to the launch of our website. as we prepared and trained our folks internally to take mortgage complaints, credit-card response -- credit-card complaints, we developed a large number of questions and answers that we knew there were likely to encounter from people grappling with these situations. we're less trouble than hoard that information, we ought to make publicly available so that people could benefit by it all across the country. i would echo something john said in his statements. what we want above all is not

just to have a federal agency that protects consumers, but a federal agency and many other organizations like consumer -- like operation hope that enables consumers to protect themselves. gives them the no-out, things a report by checking their credit report and the like, and thyssen the ability to do it. it is helping consumers muscle up. understand how to better. ford. -- to be better informed. maybe decisions about retirement plans and processes. we also want to bring decisions down to their more accessible to people where tauruses are clearer, simpler, expressed in straightforward language. -- where decisions are clearer, simpler, expressed in a

straightforward language. they know they do not know what they should know. they know they need to know a lot more. they're not sure they ever will. the all some of these decisions are bewildering. complex. dance. a very hard to penetrate. -- dense. >> we have time for one last question. >> director, one of the things that is being mentioned about this event this morning is that there is some much information that is coming down on consumers. the ag settlement. at the independent review. it is hard for me to keep up, let alone the average consumer. is there any effort to help the

homeowner, the consumer, just to know what resources are available to them? maybe that is only available through housing counselor now. even that is a lot to ask about particular person. just try to get a sense of the bigger issue and had no direct people to places or the can get the most help? >> it is an excellent point that you raised. it is notable in an area of mortgage servicing where federal and state agencies paid little very -- very little attention. that's not work well for anyone. there now has been a rush of activity. and before closure prevention efforts that the banking agencies have undertaken. it is has complicated the stage for further for people who are

dealing with a waterfall of information coming from different sources. there must in charge of the settlement information. and now, here we come to address the whole market with checking gorgeous badly needed. it is incumbent on us. to be a measure of our success to work together with one another. to try to put that information together and bring it together with certain flows and to make a success -- accessible. one thing is to commit -- is to inform consumers. another thing is to help them make decisions so that they are more understandable so people can have the confidence and the ability to make those choices as well. we'll continue to or whether federal agencies and state general. it will be to take a different choices that now sell the devices may be six or nine months ago and make sure there

is a clear set of information that people can access. that is something we will try to do via our web site. a lot of it involves cooperation. his support for them to have that spirit. >> one more question. >> i do not work. i can pay the market out of my monthly check. but we are afraid if we let the lenders now that they are going to take the house away from us because there is nobody -- what would you say? >> modify, reform alone? >> i can pay out of my disability check.

is quite a bit. if they find out my mother has passed away, will they take the home from us because there is nobody working when they tried to refinance the home? >> here is what i would say. number one, you should not bury our head in the sand and assume that the mortgage owner won't know. they will know. if payments are not being made, there will know soon enough. if you're able to make the payments, obviously that eases the situation. if you find there is a point where you can no longer make the payments, there's no point pretended it will find that out. if you have trouble and you are unable to make the payments, you can contact the consumer bureau. with a help line now for mortgage problems for people who get behind or are facing foreclosure. we to have tried to navigate

this for you. operation hope sounds like it does some of the same work as well. if you find it to the point where you are no longer making the payments, you can come to us and we will try to work with you. >> now that she has passed, will they ask someone else to refinance? >> let me address that. this is a great question to and on. with the director has said that if you get in trouble, and if there is a crisis, then contact his agency because they have their protections in place for consumers that did not exist before and resources that did not exist before. what is being announced today is you have a level playing field with respect to services you did not have before. you're not given area. you're in a very good position. you're making your payments and you can afford. i can look in your eyes and see

of the dignity and respect of wanted to make your payments. operation hope will stand by you and do everything we can to insure the lender respects the fact that you can make the payments, you were doing that, and the desire to do that. i cannot imagine anyone's gonna throw you out of your house because your mother has passed in your pain and disability. this is a great example of a great partnership. if operation hope can do it, there are many resources. >> thank you so much. >> this concludes our announcement this morning. thank you for joining us. >> one last thing. you get to keep the designation. >> all right. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by naal>> president obama held a political fundraiser last night in hollywood, florida.

that is next on c-span. and then mitt romney campaigns in wilmington, delaware. and then rick santorum announces that he's ending his presidential campaign. we will have that later on c- span. >> major-league baseball players and owners reached a new agreement last november. today, a conversation on collective bargaining in baseball. live coverage it is under way at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. and later in the day, supreme court justices ginsburg, and the lactating, pay tribute to former justice sandra day o'connor was the first woman appointed to the court. she was nominated by ronald reagan in 1991. live coverage from the museum starts at 6:30 eastern. >> april 15, 1912.

nearly 1500 paris on the ship called, unsinkable. >> once the lookout shouted and saw and i spurred ahead, the rate of the bell three times. it is a warning saying there is some object ahead. it does not say what kind of object. with the lookout then did after they struck the bell, he went to a telephone and called down to the officer on the bridge to tell them what it is that they saw. when the phone was finally answered, the entire conversation was, what d.c.? >> the response was, iceberg right ahead. >> the response and the officer was, thank you. >> the truths and missed on that night. part of american history tv this weekend. >> president obama was in

florida yesterday where he attended three campaign fund- raisers, including this one in hollywood, florida. it is about 30 minutes. >> hello, florida! >> our florida finance share

this year. the outstanding john legend is in the house. john wanted me to sing a duet. i said no. not tonight. [laughter] maybe if you practice a little bit. [laughter] give her a big round of applause as well. now, i am here not just because the weather is really good. i'm not here just because there are lots of great friends in the audience. i'm not even here just because i need your help. i'm here because your country needs your help.

[applause] a lot of you got involved in this campaign back in 2008. because he thought it was going to be easy. when you support a guy named a buraku same obama for president -- -- a guy named barack obama for president -- [laughter] yun node is not a sure thing. you did not join the campaign just because of me. this was not just about a candidate. this is about a vision we shared for america. a vision that all of you shared. it is not a vision were people were left to fend for themselves. the most powerful complete by their own rules. it was a vision of america where

everybody works hard, everyone is responsible, and never has a chance to get ahead. the notion that no matter where you come from, what you look like, what your last name as, black, white, hispanic,. it does not matter. you have a shot at the american dream. that is the vision we share. that is the change we believe in. we knew it would not come easy. we knew would not come quickly. though we had confidence and faith in the american people and our capacity to bring about an america that was moving closer to our ideals. and you know what? in just a little over three years, because of what you did

in 2008, we have started to see what change looks like. changes the first bill signed into law that says women deserve an equal day's pay for an equal day's work. our daughters should have the same opportunities as our sons. [applause] you made that happen. changes were the decisions we made to help prevent a second great depression to rescue the american auto industry from collapse even some politicians said we should lead detroit go bankrupt. when 1 million jobs a line of let that happen. today, gm is back on top as the world's number 1 automaker making record profits. hiring back workers. more than 200,000 new jobs over the last 2.5 years.

in the american auto industry. it is coming back. that happened because of you. [applause] changes the decision we made to stop putting for congress to do something about our oil addiction. we have doubled fuel efficiency standards on crush -- on cars and trucks. we will be driving cars that the almost 55 miles to a gallon. that happened because of you. [applause] we decided, let's stop handing out $60 billion in taxpayer giveaways to paying source -- and to banks that were matching the student loan programs. let's give the money back to students. because of you, millions of young people of god help being able to afford college and to compete. that happened because of your work in 2008 and beyond.

yes. change is health care reform that we passed after a century of trying. [applause] reform that says, and united states of america, nobody should go broke because they get sick. [applause] and because of that law, right now 2.5 million young people have insurance who did not have before because they can stay on their parents' plan. right now, millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs. right now, every american has the assurance that they cannot be denied coverage or dropped whether insurance company when they need care the most. they can get preventive care regardless of who they are. regardless of where you come from.

that is what changes. that happened because of you. the changes the fact that, for the first time in our history, you do not have to hide who you love to serve the country you love because we ended a don't ask, don't tell. [applause] it is over. [applause] and changes keeping another promise made in 2008. for the first time in nine years, there are no americans fighting in iraq. we refocus our efforts on the terrace to actually attack this on 9/11. al qaeda is back on its heels and a sullivan law and is no more. that is what changes. [applause]

>> four more years! [chanting, "four more years!"] actually 4.5. >> [laughter] >> and we have begun to transition into afghanistan. bring our troops home. record investments in clean energy, education. restoring sides to its rightful place. [applause] -- restoring science to its

rightful place. everyone knows with a lot of work to do. there are still some americans out there who are still looking for work or tried to find a job that pays a little more. homes under water. we are still recovering from the worst economic crisis in generations. even economic front of these last two years, we have seen businesses at more than 4 million new jobs. manufacturers create jobs in the first time since the 1990's. the economy's getting stronger. the recovery is accelerating and the lesson we can afford to do right now is to go back to the same, worn out, tired, uninspired, and don't work policies that got us in this mess and the first place. [applause]

but, of course, that is exactly the other side wants to do. they make no balls about appeared they cannot hide the ball. they want to go back to the days when wall street could play by its own rules. they said, " we want to roll back all the reforms or put in place to protect consumers. make sure we do not see taxpayer bailouts again. they want to go back to the days when insurance companies could deny you coverage and jack up premiums without reason. they want to spend trillions of dollars more in tax breaks for the very wealthiest of americans, even if it means adding to the deficit. even if it means getting things like education, clean energy, or medicare. their philosophy is simple. if we just let those who have

done best keep on doing what they do, and everybody else is struggling to get by, somehow that will grow the economy. they are wrong. in the united states of america -- [applause] we are greater together than we are on our own. we are better off when we -- are

we going to stand with those folks who of been the backbone of economic growth in this country throughout our history? we could fight for an economy that is built to last. an economy built on american manufacturing, american energy. skills for american workers and the values of everyday americans of hard work, fair play, and share responsibility. but i think with to make sure

the the next route takes place right here in united states right here in florida, in detroit, in pittsburgh, in cleveland. i do na great teacher can inspid plant that seed of possibility in a child, no matter how poor they are. that is why i do not like hearing folks just bashing teachers. i cannot believe in just defending the status quo. i want schools to have the resources that keep the teachers on the job.

stop teaching to the test. give us a chance to train teachers who are not doing a good job, get rid of those -- and train teachers who were not doing good job, get rid of those who are not. when kids to graduate, americans owe more in that tuition debt and credit cards right now. colleges and universities have to do their part. state legislatures need to do their part by supporting higher education.

right here in united states, biotech common man and technology, clean energy. we have subsidized oil companies for 100 years. it is time to and 100 years in taxpayer giveaways for industry that is profit.

we have got to give our business is the best access to the best roads, the basses' railroads. faster internet access. -- the best roads, and faster internet access. we can put folks back to work right now rebuilding america. is there a light show going on here? [laughter] it is nice. [laughter] sort of a disco rally. [laughter] is a somebody gonna pull the roller skates out now? what is going on here?

and finally, we have to make sure that we have a tax system that reflects everybody doing their fair share. i just spoke about this earlier today. we have to reduce our deficit. it is a long-term challenge. we have to do with the balanced way. we have to make some smart choices in terms of health reform. that is what is driving a lot of increased government spending. we also have to make sure that revenues are there to pay for the things are absolutely necessary for us to grow our economy, to maintain basic safety net for our seniors, folks were vulnerable.

they want to decimate basic historic -- let's follow the buffett rule. if you make more than $1 million a year. i'm not saying you have a $1 million next day the accumulated wealth saving for retirement. i am saying, if you make $1 million a year, you should not pay lower tax rate than your secretary. [applause] that is common sense. they may call it class envy -- that is just being fair. by doing that, but also allows them to say to folks are making to under $50,000 or less, like

98% of american families, that their taxes to not go up. this is not class warfare. we want americans to be wealthy. we want them to be successful. but this is just basic math. because of somebody like me, who is doing just fine, tax breaks i do not need and the country cannot afford, then one of two things is going to happen. either it gets added to our deficit and the other side says they care but the deficit. well, these tax cuts add to the deficit. or, alternatively, we have to take it away from somebody else. a student. who is trying to pay for their college. or a senior, try to get by on social security/medicaid. or a veteran who needs some care after he has served this

country. or a family just trying to get by. that is not right. that is not who we are. when i hear politicians talk about values, what kind of the lease does that reflect? responsibilities, that is value. honesty, looking out for one another. keeper.brother's i am my sister's keeper. that is a value. [applause] our budget should reflect those studies. our politics should reflect those of values. everybody, look in this room. every single background, every part of the country. you are here because somebody,

somewhere felt some responsibility, not just for themselves, but for others. it started with your parents, grandparents. some of them have come to this country with nothing and wanted more opportunity for their kids. [applause] they were gonna have of their family. on behalf of the neighborhoods, community. on behalf of their country. they understood that the american story is not just about what you can do on your own. we expect everybody to carry their own weight. we also understand that one makes as great as what we can do together. we will not win the race for new jobs and businesses, we will not restore middle-class secured with the same old, you are on your own economics. it does not work.

if it never worked. we tried it before the great depression back in the 1920's. we tried it in the last decade. we were promised how this was going to unleash all this unbelievable economic growth and what ended up happening? but financial crisis. we tried it. their theories to not work. it says we have a stake in each other's success.

if a teacher goes on to educate the next steve jobs, we all benefit. if suddenly some store owner has access to a global market, and they are selling goods and services and growing the business and hiring, that is good for all of us. if a shipping company is saving time and money, workers, customers, the whole country does better. this is not historically a democratic or republican idea. there was a republican, teddy roosevelt, who called for a progressive income tax. dwight eisenhower, republican, built the interstate system. it was with the help of republican's in congress that fdr gave heroes, including my

grandfather, a chance to get ahead with the gi bill. abraham lincoln, first republican president, helped to bind this country together with the transcontinental railroad. this is not just a democratic idea. here is the good news. that spirit of common purpose, it still exists all across this country. maybe not in washington, -- [laughter] but out in america, it is there. is there when you talk to folks on main street. in town halls. it is there when you talk to are unbelievable members of armed forces. it is there any good to places of worship. our politics may be divided, but most americans will understand we are greater together than we are apart. no matter where we come from, who we are, we rise and fall as one nation.

that is what is at stake is the selection. -- at this election. i know this is been a tough few years for america. we have seen a lot stuff. i know that the change that we fought for in 2008, as much as we have gone done, we have some of more to do. i do not watch some of these cable news shows. but i imagine if you're sitting back, or lord knows, if you live in a swing state in you're watching these negative ads, at a certain poignancy step back and say, wow. maybe this change we believe didn't is not possible. it is tempting to be cynical and say, you know what?

is too hard. i am here to remind you, i did not say it was going to be easy. i took to that real change, big change, takes time. these problems did not build up overnight and will not be solved overnight. [applause] what it takes is ordinary citizens, folks like you who are committed to this larger project. making sure that america is constantly moving closer and closer to its highest ideas. and back into the resonate i used to tell you that i was not a perfect man and i'll never be perfect president. but i made a promise to everybody. i will always tell you what i think. i will tell you where i stand.

i told you i would wake up every single day, fighting for u.s. hard as i know how. i have kept that promise. [applause] if you are willing to stick with me on this thing, if you are willing to keep pushing through the obstacles and knocking on doors, and making phone calls, and fighting for what is right, if you are willing to work even harder than we did in 2008, we will finish what we started. [applause] and we will remind the world just why it is we're the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. it got bless the united states of america. -- god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

♪

>> on this morning's "washington journal" on the new rules. and then sean spicer and brad woodhouse discuss at rick santorum's withdraw from the presidential race and what issues are most important in this year's campaign. and then our spotlight magazine series continues on bing west and his recent article on afghanistan. "washington journal" live today at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> before his official announcement, rick santorum called mitt romney to let him know about his decision to get out of the presidential race. later, mr. ron held a campaign

event in wilmington, delaware. -- mr. romney held a campaign event in wilmington, delaware. [applause]

>> i am the ceo of r.c. fabricators. i want to thank you for coming today. i am pleased to introduce laurie brace and, also a woman business owner and executive board member. she will introduce the governor. [applause] >> the first of all, i want to thank r.c. in that they invite all was to be here today. recently, in the past half-hour he has been meeting with about 12 of us women business owners and i want to say thank you. as a business owner, i'm very interested in jobs for the people who work for me in my business and also has a mother for my children. mint told us he was interested in the business climate and

making it better for us. i want to thank you for that. and i want to encourage other women. this is our future president, ladies and denman, mitt romney. [applause] -- ladies and gentlemen, mitt romney. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. your very kind. this has been quite -- wow, thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. the only time i typically get a

standing ovation as when there are no chairs. [laughter] i appreciate the fact you gave me such a welcome. it is an honor to be here in this facility. this has been here a while and there is some heavy equipment here. this is a fabrication plant and they make steel beams and girders for building various buildings. business has not been as hot as it was in the past decade, but it is coming back slowly but surely. becky, thank you for opening your shot, and also laurie for opening -- for introducing me to the women business owners as we came together. this has been a good day for me. [cheers and applause] senator santorum has decided not to proceed with his campaign and i had the chance to speak with him this morning. we exchanged our thoughts about

going forward, and we both have a great deal of interest in seeing the country taking on a different path. he has made an important contribution to the political process, has brought forward issues that he cares very deeply about, and has been able to gather a great deal of public support and interest to those issues. i look forward to his work in helping assure victory for republicans across the country in november. if we have got to get that job done. [applause] the reason that i wanted to meet with these business leaders was to ask them about their enterprises, what the prospects are for them, what they are seeing in the marketplace. but also to get a sense of the administration's policies and the government's policies as they relate to small business. as you might expect, those policies have by and large been

devastating to small business. we spoke about the president's failure to encourage small business. i would also note, to be able to encourage enterprises that are owned by women, and to call create job creation more generally. the other day there was a talk about the war on women. the real war on women has been waged by the obama administration's failure on the economy. [applause] do you know what percentage of the job losses in the obama years have been casualties of would been losing jobs as opposed to men? what percentage of the job

losses were women? 92.3% of the job losses during the obama years have been women who lost those jobs. the real war on women has been the job losses as a result of the obama economy. and if we're going to put women back to work and help women with the real issues that women care about, good jobs, good wages, a bright future for themselves and their families and their kids, we will have to elect a president that understands how the economy works, and i do. [applause] i see one of my supporters over here, christine o'donnell. good to see you. [applause] the president is so out of touch.

i do not think he knew that number. and if he did, he probably would not have said his administration has been a great success. he says he has not only done a good job, but a great job. even with a 92.3% of the job losses being within, -- being women, he thinks he's done a great job. and he said that on saturday night live. [laughter] he said that to the main street -- mainstream media. and if you look at the administration and the last